1987 Constitution: Bill Of Rights PDF

1987 CONSTITUTION: BILL OF RIGHTS  THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between individuals. It cannot be invoked against the actions of private individuals. Thus, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of a pri...

1987 CONSTITUTION: BILL OF RIGHTS  THE STATE ACTION DOCTRINE The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between individuals. It cannot be invoked against the actions of private individuals. Thus, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of a private entity for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked. When private individuals are considered State agents Barangay tanods are deemed law enforcers and bantay bayan has the color of a state-related function for purposes of the prohibitions in the Bill of Rights. Consequently, evidence obtained by them during an illegal search is inadmissible as evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule under the Constitution. The actions of port personnel during routine security checks at ports have the color of a state- related function.  DUE PROCESS 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. (Section1, Art. III, 1987 Constitution) Rights protected: Life, Liberty, Property Substantive and Procedural Due Process Due process is comprised of two (2) components – substantive due process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal. Non-observance of these rights will invalidate the proceedings  When lack of prior notice and hearing does not violate due process Clamping of illegally parked vehicles without prior notice and hearing Ex-parte issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) in VAWC cases does not violate due process  EQUAL PROTECTION Requirements for Valid Classification/Discrimination The guaranty of equal protection envisions equality among equals determined according to a valid classification, which must be: (1) based on substantial distinctions; (2) germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) equally applicable to all members of the class.  No Violation of the Equal Protection Clause: Examples of Valid Classification Socialized housing tax on real property owners No violation of equal protection clause: Requiring real property owners but not informal settlers to pay socialized housing tax to provide funds for the housing of informal settler is not discriminatory. For the purpose of urban development and housing program, the disparities between a real property owner and an informal settler as two distinct classes are obvious. JBC policy requiring 5 years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level courts Classifying judges between those with 5 years of experience as opposed to those with less is reasonable and relevant to JBC’s legitimate purpose of selecting those with proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.  Examples of Invalid Classification Banning aerial spraying of pesticide (but not other modes of spraying pesticide) - The ban is "overinclusive,“ affecting groups that have no relation to the accomplishment of the legislative purpose of preventing pesticide drift. Imposing different garbage fees based on whether the payee occupies a lot, condominium or socialized housing unit - There is no substantial distinction between an occupant of a lot, on one hand, and an occupant of a unit in a condominium, socialized housing project or apartment, on the other hand, because most likely, garbage output produced by these types of occupants is uniform.  FREE SPEECH The basic prohibitions under the Free Speech Guarantee Prior restraint Subsequent punishment of protected speech Vague and overbroad laws Prior restraint defined: Means government censorship. It refers to official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.  Kinds of Prior Restraints: Content-based restraint refers to restrictions based on the subject matter of speech, aimed at the message or idea Content-neutral regulation refers to restrictions/regulations on time, place, or manner of the speech. Merely concerned with the incidents of the speech Presumption: Content-based prior restraints are presumed invalid. When content-based prior restraints are valid: The clear and present danger test Whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. The government has the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.  Examples of INVALID Content-Based Prior Restraints Comelec regulation of political speech on oversized tarpaulins posted on private property by non- candidates during elections The prohibition is a content-based prior restraint that is presumed invalid and there is no compelling and substantial state interest endangered by the posting of the tarpaulin. Prohibition on posting of an election campaign material during election period in Public Utility Vehicles (PUVs) and public transport terminals The prohibition constitutes a content-based prior restraint on the right to free expression which is presumed invalid.  Example of Invalid Content-Neutral Prior Restraints The ban on partisan political activity (the act of campaigning for or against any candidate) abroad during the 30-day overseas voting period It is an invalid content-neutral regulation because the prohibition is more than what is essential to the furtherance of the contemplated governmental interest. The Prohibition Against Subsequent Punishment for Protected Speech Freedom of expression is not an absolute, nor is it an “unbridled license that gives immunity for every possible use of language and prevents the punishment of those who abuse this freedom.”  Example of Unprotected Speech: Libel or Defamation Libel is unprotected speech and may be penalized. The government has an obligation to protect private individuals from defamation. The cybercrime law penalizing the author of a libelous online statement or article is valid. The Element of Malice in Libel: General Rule: Presumption of malice, if writing is defamatory If the writing is considered privileged communications, malice is not presumed. a) Statements against Public Figures (Public Figure Doctrine) If the defamatory statemen tis against a public official or public figure, actual malice must be proved to be liable for libel  If offended party is a public official or public figure, actual malice must be proved. If offended party is private individual, malice is presumed. b) Fair comments on matters of public interest (Fair Comment Doctrine) The doctrine of fair comment means that in order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from the facts.  RELIGIOUS FREEDOM The constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Non-Establishment Clause The State cannot set up a Church; nor pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another. It calls for government neutrality in religious matters. Prohibits the State from sponsoring any religion or favoring any religion as against other religions. It mandates a strict neutrality in affairs among religious groups. The Comelec cannot invoke the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of a party from registration. The government must act for secular purposes.  Free exercise clause The guarantee of religious freedom is comprised of two parts: the freedom to believe and the freedom to act on one's belief; the first part is absolute; the second part is limited and subject to regulation where the external acts affect the public welfare. In case of conflict, the court adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality. Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality allows accommodation of religion, not to promote the government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. Why the holding of religious rituals such as Catholic masses at the basement of a government hall of justice may be allowed There is no state interest compelling enough to prohibit the exercise of religious freedom in the halls of justice. Allowing the holding of Catholic masses at the basement of the QC Hall of Justice is not a case of establishment, but merely accommodation.  TRAVEL Constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations on the right to travel: Under the Constitution, the State may impose limitations on the exercise of this right, provided that they: (1) serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public health; and (2) are provided by law. There is no law authorizing the Secretary of Justice to curtail the exercise of the right to travel, in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. In the conduct of a preliminary investigation, the presence of the accused is not necessary, and thus, the DOJ cannot justify the restraint in the liberty of movement on the ground that it is necessary to ensure attendance in the preliminary investigation of the complaints.  PRIVACY Meaning of the right to privacy: The right to privacy is the right to be let alone. Three strands of the right to privacy: locational; informational; and decisional privacy. The right to informational privacy is usually defined as the right of individuals to control information about themselves. The "reasonable expectation of privacy" test: The reasonableness of a person’s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. To have an expectation of privacy in Facebook posts, a user must show intention to keep posts private through the use of privacy tools. Facebook user cannot invoke his right to privacy with respect to his Facebook post, unless he manifests the intention to keep certain posts private, through the use of Facebook's privacy tools. The utilization of these privacy tools is the manifestation, in the cyber world, of the user's invocation of his or her right to informational privacy. Restricting the privacy of one's Facebook posts to "Friends" does not guarantee absolute protection from the prying eyes of another user who does not belong to one's circle of friends. Surveillance cameras should not cover places where there is reasonable expectation of privacy. Nor should these cameras be used to pry into the privacy of another’s residence or business office as it would be no different from eavesdropping, which is a crime under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti- Wiretapping Law. An ordinance requiring property owners to expose their property by limiting the height of fences to one meter and requiring fences in excess of one meter to be at least 80% see-thru is a violation of the right to privacy of the property owners.  SEARCHES AND SEIZURES The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a component of the right to privacy. There is a “search” within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition if there is an intrusion into a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Mandatory drug testing as a search. The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against searches by private individuals. If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked.  Constitutional requisites for a valid search warrant: 1) probable cause; 2) to be determined personally by the judge; 3) judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and 4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Warrant must be in connection with one specific offense and the judge, before issuing the warrant, must personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them. Probable cause for a search warrant means the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with said offense are in the place to be searched.  Reason for the one specific offense requirement in search warrants: To ensure that the warrant is issued only on the basis of probable cause. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the judges to find the existence of probable cause. The purpose is to outlaw general warrants. Valid warrantless searches: 1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; 2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view"; 3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity; 4. Consented warrantless search; 5. Customs search; 6. Stop and frisk; and 7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST The requirement of lawful arrest prior to the search: For a valid search incident to a lawful arrest, the lawful arrest must precede the search; the process cannot be reversed. There is no valid search incident to a lawful arrest if a motorcycle driver is stopped/flagged down for a traffic violation that is punishable by a fine and subjected to a search, as there can be no lawful warrantless arrest for an offense punishable by a fine. Limitations to a search incidental to a lawful arrest The “area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Valid warrantless arrests: In flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and escaped prisoner arrests. In flagrante delicto Two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. Hot Pursuit Elements: First, an offense has just been committed; and second, the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. Reliable information alone is not enough to justify a warrantless arrest without an overt act Example of lack of over acts: Trying to run away when approached by a police officer, even when no crime has been overtly committed, and without more, cannot be evidence of guilt. Hot pursuit arrest Law enforcers need not personally witness the commission of a crime but must have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the person sought to be arrested committed it. Example of lack of probable cause for a hot pursuit arrest The police officers proceeded to, and entered, the house of the accused based solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot session was going on in said house. Requirement of immediacy in hot pursuit arrest The rule requires that an offense has just been committed. It connotes "immediacy in point of time." It is essential that the element of personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of immediacy Examples of lack of immediacy for a hot pursuit arrest The arrest of a robbery suspect at a checkpoint one day after the robbery and after investigation and verification proceedings were already conducted by the police. Arrest of suspects 3 days after commission of the crime. Arrest of a person one day after the commission of the crime. Arrest of a person six days after the commission of the crime. SEARCH OF A MOVING MOTOR VEHICLE A checkpoint search is a variant of a search of a moving vehicle. Checkpoints per se are not invalid. They are allowed in exceptional circumstances to protect the lives of individuals and ensure their safety or where the government's survival is in danger. Visual Search of Vehicles For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine checks is not violative of the right against unreasonable searches. Extensive Search of Vehicles An extensive search may be conducted on a vehicle at a checkpoint when law enforcers have probable cause to believe that the vehicle's passengers committed a crime or when the vehicle contains instruments of an offense. CUSTOMS SEARCH Requirements for a valid warrantless customs search: (1) the persons conducting the search were exercising police authority under customs law; (2) the search was for the enforcement of customs law; and (3) the place searched is not a dwelling place or house. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE Under the plain view doctrine, during the conduct of the search, objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. Plain view doctrine requirements: a) prior justification for intrusion; b) inadvertent discovery; and c) contraband is immediately apparent. Examples of invalid seizure due to lack of valid intrusion The police officers intentionally peeped first through the window of the house A municipal mayor has no authority to conduct warrantless search or ocular inspection on a mining site. Mayor Pilapil and his team were not in a lawful position when they were able to view the subject explosives. CONSENTED SEARCH When a person himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures The consent must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Signing of the pro-forma Consent of Voluntary Presentation for Inspection of firearm at one’s residence cannot be considered a valid waiver of the right against unreasonable searches. The applicant cannot intelligently consent to the warrantless inspection at his residence under RA 10591 because of the lack of parameters on how the inspection shall be conducted by the police. If a police officer, without coercion or intimidation, asks for permission to open a bag and the bag owner says, “yes, just open it,” there is consent to the search of the contents of the bag. Silence or lack of resistance to search is not necessarily consent to a search but mere implied acquiescence, which amounts to no consent at all. STOP AND FRISK SEARCH (“Terry search”) A "stop and frisk" search is defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. Where a police officer observes unusual conduct, which leads him to reasonably conclude that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous Scope of stop-and-frisk is limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons. It becomes unlawful the moment the police officers continue with the search on a person’s body even after that finding this person has no weapon. Requirement for stop-and-frisk search: Not probable cause, but genuine reason that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person may be armed and dangerous. Reasonable Searches: Administrative Searches When the search is not based on suspicion and when special needs beyond law enforcement make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable Administrative searches primarily ensure public safety instead of detecting criminal wrongdoing. a) Reasonable: Routine security search or screening procedure of departing passengers at airports b) Reasonable: Warrantless search by the government agency of the office computer of its own employee in connection with an investigation of work-related misconduct c) Reasonable: Mandatory, random and suspicion-less drug-testing for secondary and tertiary level students to stamp out drug abuse d) Reasonable: Non-intrusive public bus searches for public safety Exclusionary Rule: Effect of unlawful search and seizure: Evidence obtained is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.