Aquino vs.
Enrile Ruling: He should be granted bail and provisional release for humanitarian
Facts: Aquino and others were detained using the authority of PP1081,
implemented by GO2, declaring Martial Law and detaining persons for
Insurrection and Rebellion, unless otherwise released by Marcos. The
petitioners were detained indefinitely without charges being filed. Diokno
and several others were eventually released, but Aquino was charged with
subversion, murder, and illegal possession of firearms by the Military
Commission under PP1081. He challenged the jurisdiction of the
commission, and also filed a WHC.
Ruling: PP1081 valid. Factual basis of rebellious attacks PQ. Judicial review
limited in whether President acted arbitrarily. WHC impliedly suspended
with declaration of ML.
Fernando Munoz-Palma Dissent: Justiciable because involves vested right of
WHC. Also, ML does not carry with it suspension of WHC.
Enrile vs. Salazar
Facts: Enrile and others were detained and charged with murder and
multiple frustrated murder due to a failed coup in 1990, later changed to
simple rebellion. Enrile filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus,
contending that his due process was violated due to the absence of a
complaint and preliminary investigation, and he was arrested via an invalid
warrant where the judge did not personally determine probable cause.
Ruling: HC denied. There was a complaint and preliminary investigation, and
the change of the charges is okay given the new facts uncovered during
preliminary investigation. Also, not necessary that probable cause must be
determine by the judge in person. Sufficient that he evaluates the report of
the fiscal personally in determining probable cause.
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan
Facts: Enrile and others were charged with Plunder in connection to PDAF.
He filed for bail, but was premature for not having been arrested yet. After
being arrested by the SB, he filed for bail and provisional release,
contending that his penalty was merely RT, not RP as contemplated by the
plunder law given mitigating circumstance (Voluntary Surrender and old
age), that he was not a flight risk, and that his physical condition should be
considered.
reason (old age and weak physical condition), and that he was not a flight
risk due to his social and political standing, as well as immediate surrender.
Bail allowed to ensure appearance in trial, given that he will be able to
properly attend to his medical condition, allowing him to prepare for trial.
Brocka vs. Enrile
Facts: Lino Brocka and others were detained after a violent dispersal of their
Jeepney strike. They were charged with illegal assembly. They filed for
provisional release, but were still detained. The information was changed
inciting to sedition, after which Marcos himself provisionally released
Brocka and others.
Ruling: The criminal proceedings for Inciting to Sedition may be enjoined
given the manifest bad faith in the arbitrary initial charge, where no
preliminary investigation was conducted until the hasty sham which led to
the second charge. Only then were their provisional release was
entertained. Also, second charge illegal for being premised on the same act
premised on the same facts as the initial charge.
The Ilagan Case
Atty. Ilagan was arrested by the military on the basis of a mission order
allegedly issued by the Ministry of National Defense. Atty. Arellana was also
arrested while visiting his colleague. Atty. Risonar was also arrested after
being called into the military camp because of the mission order signed by a
general. A pet for habeas corpus was assigned. SC ruled that it was moot
and academic because there was already a judicial order in relation to
criminal cases subsequently filed against them before the RTC. The remedy
of HC no monger lies.
In Justice Teenhankee's dissent: Trial court did not have the jurisdiction to
issue the warrants of arrest. Petitioners must be granted the constitutional
right to due process.
Distinguish and Connect Essential Rights (rights that we need) vs.
Custodial Rights vs. Great Freedoms (make us happy individuals) vs
Absolute Freedom
Essential Rights – Rights that we need to survive, and is inherent for us to
function.
Great Freedoms – Rights that allow us to enjoy our other rights, and our
existence in general. Not needed to survive, but enhances us.
Custodial Rights – Exclusive rights to promote Criminal Due Process.
Basic Doctrines of Due Process
Due Process – guarantee against arbitrariness of the government,
committed by acts of any branch. Any act that militates against social justice
norms violate due process.
Due Process protects both natural (life, liberty, and property) and artificial
persons (mainly property, while liberty and life is subject to legislative
control).
Right to Preliminary investigation in criminal cases is indispensable for Due
Process, but can be waived.
Substantive Due Process vs. Procedural Due Process.
1. Substantive Due Process – Validity of Laws and Laws as proper
exercise of Legislative Power. Requires that a law promulgated must
be for a valid governmental interest that benefits the public, and
that the law must be pursued in a lawful manner. Also includes the
publication requirement to enforce the presumption that the public
knows the law.
2. Procedural Due Process – Refers to the system of proceedings which
uses the standard of Justice laid out in the Constitution.
a. Judicial Due Process – Notice and Hearing Indispensable.
i. Impartial and Competent Court with lawful
Jurisdiction.
ii. Jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
defendant and the property which is subject of the
proceeding.
iii. The defendant is given the opportunity to be heard.
1. Appeal not essential. May be invoked if law
allows it.
2. Exceptions:
a. Nuisance Per Se – acts that may
immediately be abated.
b. Nuisance Per Accidens – requires
Judicial authority.
c. Presumptions – valid as long as
presumed fact is directly related to
a fact sought to be proved.
iv. Lawful judgement – judgment based on law.
b. Administrative Due Process – notice and hearing not
indispensable as long as defendant is given an opportunity
to be heard, i.e. written arguments, pleadings, memoranda,
etc.
i. Right to a hearing – presentation of one’s case and
evidence.
ii. The court or tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
iii. The decision must be able to support itself.
iv. The evidence must be substantial.
v. The decision must be rendered on evidence
presented in hearing or record disclosed to the
parties.
vi. The judges must act and decide independently, not
just based on the opinion of a colleague.
vii. The tribunal should render its decision so that all
parties know the issues and reason for the decision.
Equal Protection Clause
EPC – guarantee on no unwarranted impartiality or prejudice.
General Rule – Laws and Government acts apply to all.
Exception: Valid Classification.
1. Substantial Distinction.
2. Germane to the purpose of law.
3. Apply not only on existing conditions – should apply until
government purpose is fulfilled.
4. Applicable to all members of the class.
Garcia vs Drilon
Facts: Rosalie Garcia filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary Protection
Order (TPO) against her husband Jesus Garcia. She claimed to be a victim of
physical abuse, emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of
marital infidelity on the part of Jesus, with threats of deprivation of custody of her
children and of financial support. She invoked the VAWC law.
  They have 3 children (2 sons, 1 daughter)
 Forbid her from praying and seeing her friends.
 Jesus always ridiculed her ambition to be a lawyer (already in law school
and working part-time in a law school).
 Had an affair with the Ninang of one of their children.
 They had frequent fights due to the affair, causing physical and
emotional wounds on Rosalie, including physical harassment on their
daughter.
 Attempted suicide via wrist cutting, survived, and is now undergoing
therapy.
 Wants to separate, but afraid of the threats of deprivation of custody of
her children and of financial support.
 RTC judge Drilon – issued TPO
 CA – Jesus challenged Constitutionality of VAWC. Dismissed for failure
to raise at RTC. Hence Petition.
Ruling: RA9262 constitutional.
 Does not violate EPC - Application of law to protect only women and
children, and punishing of fathers and husbands, is a substantial
distinction based on the findings of fact by the Congress (Patriarchal
Society which promotes gender-based violence, Patria Potestas, 90% of
female violence committed by partners, Private Crime nature of
Domestic Disputes discourages filing of complaint for fear of dismissal
and reprisal by husband.
 Does not violate DPC – TPO issuance allowed even before notice and
hearing to protect life, liberty, or property of possible victim. Victim still
required to verify accusation, and defendant still allowed to file
opposition. So given opportunity to be heard.
Obergefell vs. Hudges + Dissents
14 same sex couples filed a certiorari on their state cases, where their states
refused to issue them marriage licenses. The US Supreme Court held that
the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between
two people of the same sex based on the following principles and premises:
 th
The DPC in the 14 amendment extends to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate
choices defining personal identity and beliefs.
 Four principles and traditions that tell us marriage should also apply
to same-sex couples:
o Right of personal choice is inherent in the DPC, and applies
to marriage (who to marry, etc.)
o Marriage is a very intimate two-person relationship (again,
two who may be the same sex)
o Right to marry is connected with rights protecting children,
like childrearing, and support, which may still be validly
exercised by same sex couples (given adoption, etc.)
o Marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. There is
no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with
respect to this principle. Same sex union promotes social
order similar to opposite sex couples.
 The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have
seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning
of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.
 The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the
person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived
of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the
fundamental right to marry.
 While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate
process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await
legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
Dissents:
Roberts, C.J. – The constitution does not address same-sex marriage; hence
the court cannot create a policy where issuance of marriage licenses to
same sex couples should be required. Also, the main opinion disregarded
the standard and traditional tests for EPC and DPC claims, interpreting them
very liberally and broadly, to the detriment of a democratic court system.
Scalia, J. – Judicial Policy-making. Regulations on marriage is a matter which
is within the power exclusive to the states. Change should be through
legislation. Remedy for bad performance is election process.
Thomas, J. – stretched the interpretation of substantive due process too far,
giving legislative power to the judiciary in arriving at the decision, a stray
from the democratic process.
Alito, Jr. J. – same-sex marriage not in the constitution, so definition is
exclusively a state matter.
Eminent Domain Public Use:
Eminent Domain – Forcibly acquire Private Property for Public Use Upon  Any use where public has direct access, use, and has a right to
payment of Just Compensation. Offer to buy first, then expropriation upon demand use. May be free or with a fee.
disagreement.  May not be directly for public use, but the purpose returns to public
benefit. (CARP)
Who may Exercise:
Just Compensation:
1. Congress
2. President  Full and fair equivalent of the property taken.
3. Local Legislative Bodies (via ordinance after refusal of owner of a  Owner’s loss, not taker’s gain. (owner includes anyone with lawful
valid offer) interest in the property)
4. Certain Public Corporations (NHA, Water Districts)  Determination of Just Compensation is Judicial Function.
5. Quasi-Public Corporations. o If not determined by the courts, may still be valid as long as
Destruction from Necessity may be exercised by private individuals for self- determination is considered preliminary, and the owner can
preservation, not needing public use purpose and just compensation, unlike still resort appeal with the courts.
Eminent Domain.  Made in Money.
o Exception: CARP – revolutionary. Impractical if only money.
General Rule: Eminent Domain is interpreted liberally in favor of the owner.
Police Power
Stages of Expropriation:
Police Power – Inherent power of the state to restrain and regulate Liberty
1. Determination of Validity – Court may inquire correct exercise of and Property. Lodged Primariliy with Congress but is also exercised by the
expropriation authority conferred to bodies. This involves President, administrative bodies, and local legislative bodies.
determination of factual basis for expropriation exercised by those
conferred with this authority. Courts cannot compel the exercise of Police Power by Congress. PQ.
2. Determination of Just Compensation. Indispensable requisites for valid exercise of Police Power:
Subject of Expropriation: 1. Lawful Subject – Interest of General Welfare, distinct from the
 Private Property interests of a particular class.
2. Lawful Means – Reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive of
 Property already devoted to Public Use – done by Congress or
individuals.
delegate with specific grant of authority for this.
 Exceptions: Money and Choses in Action (right to sue). Tests of Constitutionality:
Taking: 1. Strict Scrutiny – For Laws dealing with the mind, and Political
Legislation. (Compelling State Interest + Least Intrusive Means)
1. Expropriator has entered the private Property
2. Rational-Basis Test – For Economic Legislation (Substantial State
2. Not merely momentary.
Interest)
3. Entry is with warrant or color of authority.
3. Intermediate Scrutiny – For evaluating classifications based on
4. Property has been devoted to public use.
gender and legitimacy (Substantial State Interest + Least Intrusive
5. The owner is ousted or deprived of enjoyment of the private
Means)
property.
 4. Facial Challenge – Test invalidity of a law as a whole.
a. Overbreadth Doctrine – when a statute needlessly restrains
even constitutionally guaranteed rights. Used to avoid
Chilling Effect.
b. Void for Vagueness – used for laws encroaching Freedom of
Speech. Prohibiting vague classes of speech is
unconstitutional.
5. As-Applied Challenge – test where petitioner may invoke any
constitutional right being violated on HIS person only. Does not
include right of Third Persons.
Ichong vs Hernandez
Facts: RA 1180, An Act Regulating Retail Business, is being challenged for
being unconstitutional.
 Prohibited non-citizens from engaging directly or indirectly in the
retail trade.
 Aliens actually engaged in business are allowed to keep their
licenses, unless:
o Forfeited according to law, Death, Voluntary retirement, 10
years until approval of the act, Expiration
 Requires strict registration by aliens of their businesses
 If an alien dies, heir may continue business for 6 months for
liquidation purposes.
Ruling: Constitutional. Substantial distinction for economic stability of
Filipino citizens, and law does not violate substantive due process/ valid
exercise of police power, since reasonable (economic date that aliens hold
majority of the retail industry here in the PH).
Ang Tibay vs CIR & NLU
Facts: Ang Tibay laid off some workers on the basis that there is a shortage
of leather soles. Petition filed questioning factual basis, and NLU won in the
CIR because Ang Tibay was not able to show proof. Hence Petition.
Ruling: Case remanded to appreciate petitioners evidence. Laid out primary
rights to be respected to fulfill administrative due process, despite CIR’s
exemption from the rigidity of normal procedural requirements in judicial
proceedings.
Speedy Trial/Disposition of cases
Criminal vs. any case
Violation of the speedy disposition right would lead to dismissal of the case.
Rules for determining existence of delay:
1. Fixed-Time Period Rule – delay if proper resolution is not done
within a specified time period
2. Demand-Waiver Rule – deemed waiver of right if no prior demand
for trial
3. Balancing test – Conduct of both prosecution and defendant are
weighed.
Factors in determining WON defendant has denied his right or not:
1. Length of delay
2. Reasons for the delay
3. Assertion or failure to assert such right
4. Prejudice caused by the delay
Contracts vs. Privilege
Contracts – lawful agreement on property or property rights, whether real
or personal, tangible or intangible.
Not Contracts:
 Licenses – grant of privilege that may be revoked.
 Marriage Contracts – system of marriage is always subject to
legislative prerogative.
 Contracts regarding Public Office – Public office is not a vested
property right, but a public trust. A privilege that is always subject
to legislative prerogative, including abolishment of office, subject
only to certain constitutional limitations.
o Salary received is considered a vested right.
Impairment – anything that diminishes efficacy of a contract.
Non-impairment clause may still be subject to the inherent powers of the
state, for public welfare.
A law that grants Tax Exemption for a valuable consideration is subject to
Non-Impairment Clause, hence cannot be repealed.
Freedom of Speech and Expression
Test of Obscenity:
1. Whether an average person, applying contemporary community
standards, would find that a work appeals to prurient interests.
2. Whether the work depicts, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by applicable law.
3. Whether the work lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value.
Chavez vs Gonzales
Facts: Hello Garci; Gonzales and NTC warning media of violating Anti-
Wiretapping Act if they spread contents of tape.
Doctrine:
To test the restraints on this freedom [of the press], certain tests are used:
1. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine - determination of rational connection
between the restricted speech and the danger contemplated
2. Balancing of Interests Test - balancing the conflicting social values
individual interests
3. Clear and Present Danger Rule - determining the presence of a
substantial danger that the government has a right to prevent.
The four aspects of Freedom of the Press:
 Freedom from Prior Restraint
 Freedom from Punishment subsequent to publication
 Freedom of access to information
 Freedom of Circulation
Two important types of Prior restraints are used to determine the validity:
 Content-neutral regulation – merely concerned with the incidents of
the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or manner, and
under well-defined standards. Only a substantial governmental
interest is required for its validity.
o This type doesn’t require the highest form of scrutiny.
 Content-based restraint or censorship – restriction is based on
content.
o This is given strict scrutiny and Clear and Present Danger
Rule (determining the presence of a substantial danger that
the government has a right to prevent)
Ruling: Acts of Gonzales and NTC are unconstitutional.
 No showing that the feared violation of the anti-wiretapping law
clearly endangers the national security of the State.
 Authenticity of the tape is suspect, hence no clear and present
danger justifying prior restraint.
 Acts of Gonzales and the NTC constitute prior restraint despite the
absence of a formal order (verbal order sufficient). Their acts caused
a Chilling Effect (discouragement of legitimate exercise of a legal
right).
David vs Arroyo
Fact: PGMA issued Presidential Proclamation (PP) 1017 declaring a state of
national emergency; GO5 implemented PP 1017, calling out the PNP and
AFP to suppress acts of terrorism and lawless violence; before PP1017 was
lifted, there were warrantless arrests (David et.al.), dispersal of rallies (KMU,
et.al.), and raids/takeover of media (The Daily Tribune, et.al.).
Doctrine:
Facial invalidation of laws is generally disfavored. The two doctrines used to
analyze facial challenges to free speech cases are overbreadth and void-for-
vagueness.
General rule: ordinarily, a particular litigant can only claim that a statute is
unconstitutional as applied to him or her; challengers to a law are not
permitted to raise the rights of third parties and can only assert their own
interests.
 Exception: In overbreadth analysis, challengers are permitted to
raise the rights of third parties and the court invalidates the entire
statutes “on its face”, not merely “as applied”.
 Ratio behind the exception: the possibility of a “chilling effect” à
deterrent effect of the overbroad statute on third parties not
courageous enough to bring the suit. The court assumes that an
overbroad law’s “very existence may cause others not before the
court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or expression”.
 In a facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth doctrine, the
challenger must establish that there can be no instance when the
assailed law may be valid.
On void-for-vagueness:
 The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that “a law is facially invalid if
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning
and differ as to its application”.
  A litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all
its possible applications
Ruling: A plain reading of PP1017 shows that it is not primarily directed to
speech or speech-related conduct. Rather, it pertains to lawless violence,
insurrection and rebellion, which are considered “harmful” and
“constitutionally unprotected conduct” that is subject to state regulation. The
overbreadth doctrine is not recognized outside the limited context of freedom
of speech. PP1017 cannot be invalidated facially for overbreadth and void-
for-vagueness. BUT, the warrantless arrests (David et.al.), dispersal of rallies
(KMU, et.al.), and raids/takeover of media (The Daily Tribune, et.al.) were
invalid because there was no clear and present danger.
Freedom of Religion
Test for non-violation of Non-establishment clause (Lemon Test)
1. The statute has a secular legislative objective.
2. Its principal effect is one that neither advances or prohibits religion.
3. It does not foster an excessive government entanglement.
Free Exercise:
1. Freedom to Believe
2. Freedom to act – subject to public interest and welfare
Test Benevolent Neutrality – test to see WON a legislative interest would
prevail over a religious interest.
1. Compelling State Interest
2. Least Intrusive Means
Religious Tests for Freedom of Religion:
1. Clear and Present Danger Test
2. Least Restrictive Means
3. Compelling State Interest
4. Grave and Immediate Danger Test
Estrada vs. Escritor
Facts: Soledad Escritor is a court interpreter in the RTC of Las Pinas City.
Alejandro Estrada, the complainant, wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes,
requesting for an investigation of rumors that Escritor has been living with
Luciano Quilapio Jr., a man not her husband, and had eventually begotten a
son. Escritor’s husband, who had lived with another woman, died a year
before she entered into the judiciary. On the other hand, Quilapio is still
legally married to another woman. According to the complainant,
respondent should not be allowed to remain employed in the judiciary for it
will appear as if the court allows such act.
Doctrine: The state’s interest is the preservation of the integrity of the
judiciary by maintaining among its ranks a high standard of morality and
decency. “There is nothing in the OCA’s (Office of the Court Administrator)
memorandum to the Court that demonstrates how this interest is so
compelling that it should override respondent’s plea of religious freedom.
Indeed, it is inappropriate for the complainant, a private person, to present
evidence on the compelling interest of the state.
Ruling: Burden of Proof of compelling state interest with SolGen. Should
allow them to present their evidence, so remanded.
Freedom to Travel
 Not Absolute. Still subject to constitutional limitations.
 Refers to ability to move from Point A to Point B. Method is still
subject to lawful restraint
Search warrants and Warrants of Arrest
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
1. Probable Cause – Such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched.
2. Determination of Probable Cause – not examine premises/accused
in person, but personal evaluation of reports by the fiscal required.
3. Examination of Complainant and the witnesses, made under oath or
affirmation – done personally by judge.
4. Particularity of Description
Valid Search and Seizure despite absence of requisites when:
 Consented searches, as an incident to a lawful arrest,
 Searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,
customs and drug laws
 Searches of moving vehicles
  Searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders, where Requisites of Custodial Investigation
the prohibited articles are in “plain view”
Custodial Investigation – questioning done by a law enforcement officer
 searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary and
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
building regulations
freedom of action in a significant way. It begins at once when it is no longer
 stop and frisk operations or the Terry search,
a general inquiry, when the officer starts interrogating or extracting a
 customs searches
confession.
 searches conducted under exigent and emergency circumstances.
Admissible Extrajudicial Confession:
Any person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
1. Voluntary
1. When such a person has in fact committed, is committing, or is 2. With assistance of counsel
attempting to commit an offense in his presence. 3. In writing
2. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal 4. Express
knowledge that the person to be arrested is the person who
committed it. Miranda Rights
3. 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  Right to remain silent
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped  Right to have counsel
during transfer.  Right to indicate that he does not want to be questioned further

Valid in flagrante delicto arresto: Right to Bail

1. Arrested person did an overt act that he has, is, or has attempted to Bail – security given in consideration of the provisional release of a prisoner,
commit an offense. conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be required.
2. Overt act was committed in the presence of the arresting officer. Habeas Corpus
Right against Self-Incrimination  Prerogative writ of liberty
 Employed to test the validity of a person’s detention
1. Scope
 Speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
a. Testimonial Compulsion only restraint and effective defense of personal freedom
b. As long as a question is incriminating, privilege is invocable  Mere delay in the resolution on this issue - constitutes an invalid
2. When Available derogation of his right against unlawful restraint
a. Ordinary witness – refuse upon question
b. Accused – may invoke it altogether to refuse becoming a  Directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to
witness produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place
3. Waiver  NOT ISSUED: When person is in custody because of a judicial
a. Certain and Unequivocal proceeding or a valid judgment
o Not intended to take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of
b. Intelligently, understandingly, and willingly made error
c. May be waived directly or by failure to invoke right. o Cannot be used to investigate and consider questions of
error
o Shouldn’t be granted in advance of the trial
  Inquire into the right of liberty, notwithstanding the act and the
immediate purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint
 Addressed to the question of whether the proceedings and the
assailed order are, for any reason, null and void
 Summary remedy
When Available
 Individual is subjected to physical or moral restraint
 Illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of
his liberty
 Also in cases involving the rightful custody over a minor
 Prisoner can secure his release if he was convicted by a court
without jurisdiction or where his sentence has become invalid
Procedure
 Application for habeas corpus is filed
 If the court finds the petition in proper form, Court will issue the writ
as a matter of course
 Ordering the production of the person allegedly detained and
requiring respondent to justify the detention
 Suspension of the privilege is the exception and not the rule
o In the absence of the exceptional conditions mentioned in
Art III, Sec 15
The Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data
Right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity. Covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearance or
threats thereof. Mere substantial evidence is required.
It is an extraordinary remedy
A writ of amparo is a special proceeding. It is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right or particular fact. Not civil or criminal so
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure would be inapplicable. May be filed by
any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution.
Elements of enforced disappearances:
1. that there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of
deprivation of liberty
2. that it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support,
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization
3. that it be followed by the State or political organization's refusal to
acknowledge or give information on the fact or whereabouts of the
person subject of the amparo petition
4. that the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person from
the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
Writ of Habeas data was a judicial remedy for enforcing the right to privacy.
Person's right to control information regarding himself. Mere substantial
evidence is required. Produce the necessary information to locate the
missing person or such data about him.
Lansang vs. Garcia
Facts: Two grenades were thrown during the miting de avance of the Liberal
Party which killed 8 people and injured many. This led Pres. Marcos to
proclaim the suspension the writ of habeas corpus. Petitioners were
apprehended by members of the Philippine Constabulary invoking said
proclamation. The proclamation implies that the authority to decide whether
the exigency has arisen requiring suspension of the writ belongs to the
President and it expressly states that such declaration is deemed “final and
conclusive upon the courts and all other persons”. Lansang, Del Rosario and
Alcala questioned the validity of the suspension of the writ averring that the
suspension does not meet the constitutional requirements.
Doctrine: It is within the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to
inquire into the veracity of the factual bases recited by the Executive in a
proclamation ordering the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, for the purpose of determining whether or not the Executive acted
arbitrarily in concluding from the evidence before him that there was indeed a
rebellion and that public necessity, as contemplated in the Constitution,
required such suspension.
Ruling: President did not act arbitrarily and order is not unconstitutional.
Death Penalty Cases
Harden vs. Director of Prisons – “punishments are cruel when they involve
torture or a lingering death. The death penalty is not cruel, within the
meaning of the word as used in the constitution. It implies there something
inhuman and barbarous, something more than the extinguishment of life.”
People vs. Jose/Gomez - The opposition to the multiple imposition of death
penalties suffers from four basic flaws:
 it fails to consider the legality of imposing multiple capital penalties;
  it fails to distinguish between imposition of penalty and service of 5. A law assuming the form of a regulation on civil rights and
sentence; remedies, actually imposes a penalty or deprives a right for
 it ignores the fact that multiple death sentences could be served something lawful before.
simultaneously; and 6. Deprives an accused of lawful protection, like a proclamation of
 it overlooks the practical merits of imposing multiple death amnesty.
penalties.
Characteristics:
People vs. Echegaray - The constitutional exercise of this limited power to
1. Refers to criminal matters
re-impose the death penalty entails:
2. Retroactive
 That Congress define what is meant by heinous crimes 3. Prejudice to accused.
 That Congress penalize by death, only crimes that qualify as heinous Bill of attainder
 That Congress, in enacting the bill, be singularly motivated by
“compelling reasons involving heinous crimes”  Inflict punishment without Trial.
 A Bill of Attainder is an Ex Post Facto Law, not vice versa.
People vs. Mercado – Summary of Echegaray rulings:
 Substitution of legislation for a judicial determination of guilt.
 Death penalty is not a cruel, unjust, excessive, or unusual
punishment. It is an exercise of state power to secure society.
 The offenses for which RA 7659 provides death penalty satisfy the
elements of heinousness by specifying the circumstances.
 RA 7659 provides both procedural and substantial safeguards for
correct application.
 The Constitution does not require the positive manifestation of a
higher incidence of crime before the death penalty may be
prescribed. Congress is authorized to determine when the elements
of heinousness and compelling reasons are present, and the SC
would exceed its own authority if it questioned the exercise of such
discretion.
Ex Post Facto Law
One that would make a previous act criminal even though it was not
punishable before.
Kinds:
1. Innocent Act to Punishable Act.
2. Aggravates a crime (greater than when committed)
3. Greater Punishment
4. Alters rules on evidence to make conviction easier.