II.  CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

 

Bill of Rights – set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.

 

Significance of the Bill of Rights

 

Government is powerful.  When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and property which governmental power may not touch.

 

·         Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.

 

Classification of Rights

 

1.     Political Rights – granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or indirect participation in the establishment or administration of the government;

 

2.     Civil Rights – rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals for the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their means of happiness;

 

3.     Social and Economic Rights; and,

 

4.     Human Rights.

 

A.  DUE PROCESS

Section 1, Art. III. 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 laws.

·         no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases

 

·         responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice

 

·         embodiment of sporting idea on fair play

 

·         guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government

 

Protection of Person

 

Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the latter, with respect only to property because its life and liberty are derived from and subject to control of legislature

 

Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)

 

• connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property
• not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due process of law.

 

• When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the presumption is that the action is valid.

 

1.  Life

 

• It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of one's limb against physical harm.  The right to life is the right to a good life... a life of dignity and... a decent standard of living.

 

2.  Liberty

 

(1)   freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)

 

(2)   right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude

 

3.  Property

 

·         anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract

 

·         all things within the commerce of man

 

• However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is not regarded as property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by the legislature at any time.

 

• Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at will

 

 

Aspects of Due Process

 

1.     Substantive Due Process

2.     Procedural Due Process

 

·         As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.

 

·         As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws.  It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.

 

Substantive Due Process

 

Substantive due process – requires intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property

 

Requisites:

 

(a)   Lawful Subject

(b)   Lawful Means

 

 

Procedural Due Process

 

Procedural due process – is the restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of government.

 

1.  Judicial Due Process

 

Requisites:

 

(a)   Impartial and Competent Court

 

(b)   Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of t he defendant and/or property

 

(c)    Hearing

 

·         not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position papers is enough

 

·          right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an indispensable part of due process

 

·         the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of absence of a hearing

 

·         Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with without violating due process:

 

◦      abatement of nuisance per se

◦      preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges

◦      cancellation of passport of a person sought for the commission of a crime

◦      statutory presumptions

 

(d)   Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca)

 

2.  Administrative Due Process

 

Requisites:

 

(a)   Right to a hearing

 

(b)   Tribunal must consider the evidence presented

 

(c)    Decision must have something to support itself

 

(d)   Evidence must be Substantial

 

(e)   Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected

 

(f)    Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and law of the controversy

 

(g)   Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered

 

·         In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

 

·         The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men “of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application.  It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:

▪      it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice of conduct to avoid; and,

▪      it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.

 

·         In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no violation of due process because the nature of the charges against the petitioner is not uncertain and void merely because general terms are used or because it employed terms that were not defined. The Anti-Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which it purports to punish, giving the accused fair warning of the charges against him, and can effectively interpose a defense against on his behalf.

 

·         A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to prevent conception violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. 

 

◦      Although the Bill of Rights does not mention ‘privacy’ the Court ruled that that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" of other constitutional protections. “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.”

 

·         In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the labor laws of New York for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute allegedly violated mandates that no employee shall contract or agree to work more than 10 hours per day.

 

                Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.

 

                Ruling: Yes. The statute is unconstitutional.

 

The statute interferes with the liberty of a person and the right of free contract between employer and employee by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a baker without reasonable ground for doing so.

 

The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is a liberty protected by the 14^th amendment.

 

The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty rights  to prevent the individual from making certain kinds of contracts in its exercise of police power which relates to safety, health, morals and general welfare of the society. In this instance, the 14^th amendment cannot interfere.

 

The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the state’s interference with rights to labor and contract.

 

Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in relation to his own labor.

 

·         Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) as an administrative court which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial functions in the determination of disputes between employers and employees. National Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT vs. Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs. NLRC) and school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline, Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines Community School District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial function. It is a question of whether the body or institution has a judicial or quasi-judicial function that makes it bound by the due process clause. (Judicial function is synonymous to judicial power which is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are legally enforceable and demandable or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights. It is a determination of what the law is and what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to a matter in controversy).

 

·         In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or quasi-judicial function. These are:

 

(1)   the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof

 

(2)   The tribunal must consider the evidence presented

 

(3)   The decision must have something to support itself

 

(4)   The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such a reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion

 

(5)   The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearting or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected

 

(6)   The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate

 

(7)   The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.

 

 

B.  EQUAL PROTECTION

Section 1, Art. III. 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 laws.

• The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the Equality of the Person.  The equality it guarantees is “legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all persons before the law.

 

• embraced in the concept of due process

 

• embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific guaranty against undue favoritism or hostility from the government

 

Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general

 

Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or prejudice

 

Substantive Equality – all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.

 

Equality in enforcement of the law  – law be enforced and applied equally

 

 

Requisites of Valid Classification:

 

(a)   it must be based on substantial distinctions

 

(b)   it must be germane to the purposes of the law

 

(c)    it must not be limited to existing conditions only

◦      must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be corrected exists

 

(d)   it must apply equally well to all members of the class

◦      both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed

 

·         In De Guzman v. Comelec,  petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA 8189 is violative of the equal protection clause because it singles out the City and Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more than four years.  The Court held that the law is valid.  The singling out of election officers in order to “ensure the impartiality of election officials by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their place of assignment.

 

·         In Ormoc Sugar Central  v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City  imposes a tax on Ormoc Sugar Central by name.  Ormos Sugar Central is the only sugar central in Ormoc City.  The Court held that such ordinance is not valid for it would be discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central which alone comes under the ordinance.

 

 

C.  SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Section 2, Art. III. The right 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.

Section 2, Art. III – deals with tangibles; embodies the “castle” doctrine (a man's house is his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the domain and privacy of his own home.)

 

·         This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law.  It does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures perpetrated by private individuals.

Section 3, Art. III. (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.

Section 3 (1), Art. III – deals with intangibles

 

Section 3 (2), Art. III – Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)

 

Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III, shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine).  (Stonehill v. Diokno)

 

·         available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of accounts may be required to open for examination by the State in the exercise of police power or power of taxation

 

The right is personal (Stonehill vs Diokno)

 

·         General Rule:  only a judge may issue a warrant.

 

Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative authorities but only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a violation of a law

 

Valid Warrantless Searches

 

 [NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]

 

1.     searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) – for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or constitute in the commission of an offense

 

Requisites:

1.     the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or area of immediate control

2.     the search was contemporaneous with the arrest

 

2.     searches of moving vehicles

 

·         In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the Batasan, a truck was stopped and searched.  The motorists had not given any evidence of suspicious behaviour nor had the searching officers received any confidential information about the car.  The Court held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a moving vehicle as there was no probable cause.

 

3.     searches of prohibited articles in plain view

 

Requisites:

1.     prior valid intrusion to a place

2.     evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who has the right to be there

3.     evidence is immediately apparent

4.     there is no further search

 

4.     enforcement of customs law

 

5.     consented searches

 

6.     stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons)

 

·         In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus:  “(W)here a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot 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 others' 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 persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”

 

·         Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:

 

(1)   the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;

 

(2)   the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation. (Malacat)

 

7.     routine searches at borders and ports of entry

 

8.     searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations

 

 

Valid Warrantless Arrest

 

1.     in flagrante delicto

2.     hot pursuit

3.     the offender escaped from the penal establishment

 

 

Requisites of a valid warrant

 

	Arrest Warrant	Search Warrant
1. Probable Cause   must refer to  one (1) specific offense	Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the person sought to be arrested had committed it	Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in the connection of the offense are in the place sought to be searched
2. Personal determination of probable cause by the judge	The judge personally determines the existence of probable cause; it is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his witnesses (Soliven vs Makasiar)   Procedure:   (1) personally evaluate the fiscal's report, or   (2) if [1] is insufficient, disregard it and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses   Preliminary inquiry (task of the judge) – determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest   Preliminary investigation proper (task of the prosecutor) – ascertainment whether the offender should be held for trial or be released	The judge must personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers... in writing and under oath... the complainants and his witnesses... on facts personally known to them... and attach to the record their sworn statements and affidavits. (Silva vs Presiding Judge)
3. After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce	Not merely routinary but must be probing and exhaustive	Not merely routinary but must be probing and exhaustive
4.Particularity of description	General Rule: it must contain the name/s of the persons to be arrested   Exception: if there is some descriptio personae which will enable  the officer to identify the accused	General Rule: when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.   Exception: when no other more accurate and detailed description could have been given.

 

·         In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches and seizures are prohibited.  Those which are reasonable are not forbidden.  A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the case. 

 

Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few questions do not constitute unreasonable searches.  If the inspection becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause.  In the latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.

 

Probable Cause – facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them.

 

·         In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several issues of the Philippine Times:”... we found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the Philippines. The Court held that the affidavit  does not establish probable cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law.

 

·         In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE Forum is issued on the basis of a broad statement of the military that Burgos, Jr. is “in possession of printing equipment and other paraphernalia... used as means of committing the offense of subversion.” The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to establish probable cause.  It is a mere conclusion of law unsupported by particulars.

 

The Court also held that the search warrant description has the “sweeping tenor” making the document a general warrant.  The search warrant particularly states:”all printing equipment, typewriters... of the WE Forum newspaper and any other documents...”

 

It is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed.  It is sufficient that the property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be searched.

 

·         In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of “personally” in the search and seizure clause.  It stated that in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of existence of probable cause, what is required is personal determination and not personal examination.

 

·         In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of arrest cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor that probable cause exists.    The judge must look at the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.

 

·         In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description is insufficient for it amounts to a general warrant authorizing the officer to pick up anything he pleases:  “ Book of accounts, financial records, vouchers...and other documents showing all business transactions....”

 

The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed by third parties.