Bill of Rights: Definition, Purpose and Mandates

Bill of Rights: Definition and Purpose

• A Bill of Rights lists the most important rights of citizens.
• Its purpose is to protect these rights from infringement by the state.
• It provides protection from the state and limits the state's intrusion on individual rights.

Twin Mandates of Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution

• Due process of law.
• Equal protection of the laws.

Bill of Rights Mandates Against the State

• The state is inherently powerful, with its own rights and powers.
• The Bill of Rights protects citizens from potential state intrusion on their rights.
• It restricts the government's powers and protects against abuse of power.

Applicability to Private Persons

• The Bill of Rights primarily protects against the State, not private individuals.
• However, Article 32 of the Civil Code extends almost all protections against the State to relations between private persons.

Police Power Defined

• Police power is considered "the most essential, insistent, and least limitable powers, extending to all the great public needs."
• It is the inherent and plenary power of the state to prohibit anything harmful to society's comfort, safety, and welfare.

Delegation of Police Power to LGUs

• Police Power may be delegated to Local Government (Legaspi vs. City of Cebu).
• It is primarily exercised by the National Government but can be delegated.

LGU Ordinance Prohibiting Casino Operation

• An LGU cannot pass an ordinance prohibiting casinos duly authorized by PAGCOR.
• This would contravene national law and policy (Magtajas vs. Price Properties).

Judicial Inquiry of Police Power Exercise

• The exercise of Police Power is subject to judicial inquiry.
• The due process and equal protection clauses serve as the principal yardstick.
• Courts use this yardstick to measure if the police power is prohibited or beyond constitutional limits.
• Legislative determination of proper Police Power exercise is not final and is subject to court supervision.

Importance of Procedural Due Process

• Procedural Due Process is the more critical requirement.
• It guarantees procedural fairness, ensuring individuals have a fair opportunity to present their case.
• "Law which hears before it condemns" (Daniel Webster), Lopez v. Director of Lands (1924), Davidson v. New Orleans (1878)

Varying Requirements for Procedural Due Process

• Requirements differ across judicial, administrative, and student discipline cases.
• This is because due process depends on circumstances, subject matter, and situation.
• The clause guarantees the essence of life, liberty, or property, serving as protection against arbitrary power, even with proper procedure.

Guarantee of Equal Protection

• No person or class should be deprived of the same protection of laws enjoyed by others in similar situations (Tolentino v. The Board of Accountancy, 90 Phils 83 (1951)).
• It recognizes the state's power to act upon factual differences between individuals.

Liability for Illegal Search by Private Individuals

• The Bill of Rights protects against the state, not private individuals.
• However, a private person may still be liable for illegal search under Article 32 of the Civil Code.

Checkpoint Inspection vs. Search

• An inspection becomes a search under Section 2, Article III when it intrudes into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
• It goes beyond a mere visual check. (Valmonte v. Villa, 185 SCRA 665 (1990); People v. Escano, Gr. No. 129756, January 28, 2000)

Meaning of "Unless it is Otherwise Provided"

• "Unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the 15-day period after publication.
• It allows for lengthening or shortening the period but not for dispensing with publication altogether (Tanada v. Tuvera, GR. No. 63915, December 29, 1986).

Void for Vagueness Rule

• A statute is vague if it lacks comprehensible standards, causing individuals to guess at its meaning (People v. Nazario, 165 SCRA 186, 1988; Estrada v. Sandiganbayan GR. No. 148560, November 19, 2001).
• It is defective because it fails to clearly communicate its commands.

Determination of Probable Cause for a Warrant

• 1935 and 1987 Constitutions: Probable cause determined only by a judge.
• 1973 Constitution: Probable cause determined by a judge or authorized person.

Purpose of Particularity in Search Warrant Description

• Limits seized items to those specifically described in the warrant (UyKheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil 886).
• Prevents officers from having discretion over what to seize to avoid unreasonable searches.

Entrapment: When Allowed/Not Allowed

• Entrapment involves inducing someone to violate the law (People v. Doria, GR. NO. 125299, January 22, 1999).
• It is not allowed if criminal intent originates from an officer.
• It is a legal operation if criminal intent originates from the accused's mind.

Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

• The privacy of communication and correspondence is not absolute.

Prohibitions on Abridgment of Freedom of Speech

• Prior restraint: Before publication.
• Subsequent punishment: After publication.

Sec. of Justice v. Sandiganbayan (President Estrada Case)

• Television coverage of judicial proceedings inherently denies due process rights of a criminal defendant.
• The rights of the accused should supersede the rights of the press (Am 01-4-03-Sc, June 29, 2001).

Acceptable Standards for Restraint of Freedom of Speech

• Dangerous Tendency Rule: Speech curtailed if it creates a dangerous tendency to cause an evil the state can prevent.
• Clear and Present Danger Rule: Words create a clear and present danger that Congress has the right to prevent.
• Balancing of Interests Test: Court balances interests served by legislation against affected freedoms.

Twin Mandates of Section 5, Article III of the 1987 Constitution (Freedom of Religion)

• Non-establishment clause: Prohibits establishing any religion.
• Free exercise clause: Guarantees the free exercise of religion.
• These clauses relate to separation between religion and the secular government
• Mandate against state intervention.

Exercise of Religious Belief vs. Established Institutions

• If religious belief clashes with established laws, religious belief must yield to the law (Gerona vs. Secretary of Education, 10 Phil. 2 (1969)).

Prevailing Jurisprudence on Religious Belief

• The Gerona case was reversed by Ebralinag v. Div. Sup. of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256 (1993).
• Freedom of religion requires members to be exempt from certain operations of law.

Condition for Tax Exemption of Property Used for Religious Purposes

• The property must be used actually, directly, and exclusively for religious purposes.

Marcos v. Manglapus

• The authority to impair the right to travel must be based on law (177 SCRA 668 (1989)).
• The court found this authority in the totality of executive powers.
• The right to travel guaranteed in the constitution includes travel within the country and leaving the country, but not the right to return.

Constitutional Limitations of Eminent Domain

• Taking of property must occur.
• Property must be used for public use.
• Just compensation must be provided.

Entitlement to Just Compensation

• Includes not only the owner but also those with lawful interest in the property.
• Examples: Mortgagee, lessee, vendee in possession under an executory contract.

Judicial Review of Property Valuation by Assessors

• Judicial review of the valuation of the property made by assessors is proper.
• Even with statutory determination, courts may review adequacy.

Judicial Review of Exercise of Eminent Domain Power

• Judicial review of the exercise of the power of the eminent domain power is proper if the expropriation is not done directly by legislative authority.
• If the expropriation is exercised by the legislative itself, and specifies the purpose of the taking and singles out the property to be taken, the judgement made by the legislative is not reviewable by the courts or is not subject to judicial review.

Compelling a Person to Bear Arms

• No, religious beliefs should be respected.
• Article 17, Section 14 states that religious beliefs should be respected.

Exemption from Military Service

• It does not violate the non-establishment clause.
• Religious beliefs against war should be respected.

Archdiocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC

• The COMELEC does not have the competence to limit or regulate expressions made by the citizens who are not candidates during election.

Regulation Prohibited/Unconstitutional

• Regulation is inconsistent with the fullest opinion and debate by the electorate.

Species of Speech Validly Regulated by Law

• The Declarative Speech is a specie of speech by a private citizen who is not a candidate that may be validly regulated by law.

Requisites of a Valid Regulation

• Provided by the law.
• Reasonable.
• Narrowly tailored to enhance opportunity for all candidates.
• Demonstrably the least restrictive means to achieve that objective.

COMELEC Order to Remove Tarpaulin

• The Comelec may not order petitioners, who are private citizens, to remove the tarpaulins from their own property.

Message in Tarpaulin as Religious Speech

• There is no violation of religious freedom.
• The message of the tarpaulin is not religiously discriminatory.

Tarpaulin Conveying Religious Doctrine

• The tarpaulin does not convey any religious doctrine of the catholic church.

Expressions on the Tarpaulin as Ecclesiastical Matter

• The expressions on the tarpaulin is not an ecclesiastical matter.

Entitlement to Bail

• Not all persons charged with offenses shall be entitled to bail.
• Those charged with Reclusion Perpetua and with a strong guilt are not entitled to bail.

Rights Granted to Persons Under Investigation

• The rights of Section 12 is granted to persons under investigation whether or not they’re in custody.

Difference Between Due Process in Section 1 and Section 14

• Section 14 is understood to be criminal due process.
• Section 1 is due process in general.

Equipoise Rule

• Equipoise rule is where the evidence of the parties in a criminal case is the same, the constitutional presumption of innocence shall tilt in favor of the accused.

Suspension Pendente Lite

• It is not unconstitutional since preventive suspension is not a penalty, it does not violate the right to be presumed innocent.

Right to Counsel of Choice

• The accused cannot contend that the appointment by the trial court of counsel de officio deprived him of his constitutional right to be defended by a counsel of his own choice.
• The preference, in the choice of counsel pertains specifically to a person under investigation rather than the one who is the accused in the criminal prosecution.

Waiver of Right to Counsel

• The right to counsel must not be waived.
• Even though Fr. Bernas said yes, the right to counsel must not be waived just like the other rights; to be heard, informed and present evidence.

Purpose of Right to Confrontation

• To afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross examination.
• To allow the judge to observe the deportment of the witness; how he acts his body language, is he telling the truth, does his body language tells he’s telling the truth.

Instances of Trial in Absentia

• Accused waives the right to be present.
• Accused fails to be present.
• Indispensable Requisite: Waiving of the right to be present.