Sec 1-4, Art 3- Midterm Notes.pdf

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA

A. 2-27-19 DISCUSSION

not breach the individual, there are provisions under pertinent laws that have certain manifestations from Bill of Rights.

GR- bill of rights cannot be invoke against private individuals; can only be invoke against the state

 Can you file a case against Mr. Mabale? You can, 2 cases may be filed a civil case and a criminal case. 1st civil case you cannot vex your neighbor, Art 26 of the Civil code. You cannot start chismis against your neighbor. 2nd criminal case which could be libel, defamation, etc. the point is while this laws is not found in the Constitution, this laws have traces from the Constitution.

EXC- there are provisions under the law that can use bill of rights against private individual Question 1. On 14 February 2020, the Philippine Congress reinstated Death Penalty which resulted to the imposition of death on at least 100 inmates starting April 2020, the effectivity of the law. Amnesty International sought the aid of the UN Special Rapporteur and the Human Rights Council asking them to issue letters of condemnation against the Philippines Congress. Both the UNSR and HRC issued statements condemning the acts of the Philippine Congress and calling it against the provisions of international human rights law instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory.

 How about due process, is there an instance where due process can be invoked against an individual? 

So many, in fact it may be the most abused, most used provision except Art 19 of the CC.

 For example, some teachers wildly complained about a student for cheating. Must the school offer due process to the student? Yes, even if the school, supposedly the Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against a school which has a private personality.

The Philippine Congress seeks your advice if the law is inconsistent with Article III, Section 1. What will be your advice?  CECISTA- the provision is self-explanatory and it is a straight to the point provision.

 2nd what if an employee is found cheating at work, cheating at his hours, logging out early, etc., can you suspend your employee? You can, but must you give your employee due process? You must.

Question 2. Mr. A, the lawyer of Corporation X, was accused of keeping some corporate records of Corporation Y which is a corporate stockholder of Corporation X. One day, Corporation X asked the help of C, a retired Navy Seal operative, to take the corporate records from Mr. A. C got busted.

 So how do you answer this question when bill of Rights may be invoked against an individual. 

Corporation X filed a damage suit against C claiming exclusively that there was a violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizure found in Article III, Section 2. How will you rule on the matter?  CECISTA- Rules and jurisprudence are very much consistent with Art 3 of the 1987 Consti.

Yes, generally the Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the State but it does not mean that the provisions of the Bill of Rights could not find manifestations in transactions between private individuals, whether natural or juridical persons. They always have traces. So that is question #2.

Question 3. (2 questions, next slide) Who determines probable cause for issuance of warrant or arrest or arrest warrant?

 The first fundamental rule we have to remember in the bill of rights, is that it is not or it may not be invoked against private individuals. Here is what you have to remember, the provisions in the Bill of Rights are basically limitations on the State, so the limitations do not apply to individuals but take it as a general rule. Just because Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against individuals it does not mean that the Bill of Rights provision do not have any manifestation in private dealings with each other.



It’s the judge. When will the judge be able to determine, whether there is probable cause? How will it reach its desk?

Can anyone be arrested without warrant of arrest?  1.Determine what case to be filed  2.Present evidences supporting the case

 For example, Mr. Alganion started a lawsuit against Mr. Mabale, he has been saying bad things about Mr. Mabale’s personality, that it is bad, etc. Take note that while it is indeed true that the Bill of Rights provision regarding privacy does

 3.The fiscal/judge will determine if there is probable cause in pursuing the case, the fiscal/judge don’t have the duty to look for evidences beyond reasonable doubt. 1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA

 Once the fiscal/ judge determines the probable cause, the court cannot deny the same bec it would be encroachment, except in issuing arrest warrants.



 Can the judge rely solely on the prosecutor with regards to probable cause?

 But, the usual situation, let’s say it is a heinous crime, rape, pag-abot sa fiscal ang ni-abot kay ang rape victim, child, with the parents. The first question is” Fiscal can we arrest the suspect?” the fiscal would answer that she cannot because the provision only requires that it is the judge that can issue the warrant of arrest. So how exactly will the judge issue a warrant if arrest, in reality the judge will issue the warrant of arrest but the judge will not ask if there is a case because that is decided on the case already and if the judge will say “there is no probable cause I will dismiss the case” that is not consistent with the rules because the one who decides that will be the state, the prosecutor.

 can issue search warrant without a case, why? 

search warrant allows u to have a case against an individual

 in search warrant, mere probable cause is enough and not 100% certainty  Suppose in our example a while ago, 



Mr. Mabale decided to file a case against Mr. Alganion what is his 1st step? Determine what case shall be filed. Now Mr. Mabale decide to file a criminal case against Mr. Alganion because he thinks there is an interrorim?? Effect when it comes to criminal case and Mr. Alganion is a rich man he can easily pay off whatever civil damages would be levied against him, if it was a civil case. He wants to see Mr. Alganion in jail.

 Btw, the prosecutor is under the DOJ and the DOJ is under the executive branch, and as you know the executive branch is separate from the judiciary. So the fundamental of political law and criminal law combined, you already know that once the fiscal determines probable cause to file the case and it reaches the court, the court cannot say “fiscal you are wrong” because that is encroachment on the separation of powers. However, the court is granted the sole discretion to determine the probable cause not in the filing of the case but the issuance of the arrest warrant or warrant of arrest.

What is his 1st step? He goes to the fiscal first. Can he go to a private lawyer 1st? of course, that is what usually rich people do, they go to a private lawyer and asks for help, but what can a private lawyer do? The private lawyer can actually make the affidavit to be submitted to the fiscal.

 Btw why is the fiscal needed? In criminal law, violations against the criminal rules of the state is actually a violation not just to the individual but also the state, primarily, because the State keeps peace and order in the country. So what happens to the individual who’s supposedly is the injured party, he becomes a witness to the state, so that the state can pursue his case. So what do you do: 

1.You go the fiscal



2.Present evidence to the fiscal to support your case



3.The fiscal will determine whether there is probable cause.

ANS: Yes, then the fiscal goes to court stating that he has found probable cause so I am filing this criminal case, now it becomes People of the Philippines and the case will go on.

 The judge determines that arrest warrant may be issued, what must the judge do or what will the judge require from the prosecutor? (refer to the provision) Can the judge rely solely on the finding of the prosecutor? 

ANS: No.

 Must there be finding of probable cause before an search warrant may be issued? 

ANS: It does not need a case. You can just go to the judge.

 Why do you think that is allowed in our laws? Why is search warrant allowed to be issued without a case yet a warrant of arrest can never be issued without a case?

 The judge and fiscal determines probable cause, the difference is that the fiscal determines whether the state’s funds should be spent on pursuing your cause, whether there is an actual cause to be filed in court but the fiscal is not required to find proof beyond reasonable doubt and it is not their executive function but it is judiciary.



 So the 1st finding of probable cause is to the fiscal, the question simply is that “Is it likely that this person committing this offense as presented by the complainant and as proved by the witnesses and pieces of evidence presented before me?

ANS: The logic is that if you have a search warrant, it allows you to build a case against and individual because sometimes you are not really sure.

 In a search warrant does it require that you must find the items written in the warrant? Must the judge be extremely convinced that the item is there? What is the requirement under the Constitution? 2

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA



ANS: No. Under the Constitution the judge is only required to determine probable cause. The judge must only be satisfied that there is a probability that it may be found there based on the evidence that the items to be found or seized will be found on that area before he issues the search warrant.

 Usually the search warrant will indicate the following the property and the things to be searched. Now you enter the property suddenly you see pornographic materials involving children, which was not indicated in the search warrant, can you get the? On what basis? 

 Not a lot of people get arrested without a warrant of arrest, most of them get arrested without a warrant. What do you think are the instances that a person may be arrested without a warrant of arrest? (refer to criminal law) 

1.In flagrante delicto doctrine



2.Hot pursuit



3.Escapee of a penal institution

Question 4. Atty. N is a professor of law in Harvard Pod College, Cebu City. One day he noticed that one of his students posted a cheat sheet of the exam he was about to give. Apparently, students have been compiling past exams to be distributed to other students. Atty. N took a screenshot of the post and reported the matter to the Dean. The school issued a suspension against the student and a complaint was filed by the student claiming that there was a violation of his right to privacy. Decide.

 What happens next after being arrested? 

ANS: He is delivered to the person in authority then he is detained. After he is detained the fiscal will not determine probable cause, the fiscal in this case will not inquest because he was arrested without a warrant, so the process is different.



Question 3.1. The police force of Cebu received a confidential information that Ralph, a notorious drug pusher, recently outfitted a condominium in Ramos to be his shabu lab. The condominium is called City Suites and the police was informed that the Shabu Lab was either in 1201. The police raided 1201 but found nothing there. Thinking that the lab might on other rooms, the police raided 1202 and 1203.

 once u have identified the suspect, and the suspect started his testimony w/o hearing his miranda rights, evidence is not yet admissible unless it is relayed to a private individual because bill of rights cannot be invoked against private individuals.

 it is important to determine the place to be searched bec the house is the safe place of a person, and to remove the arbitrariness of the search.

 “toxic masculinity is bad” pipi baho cecista  To differentiate the difference between the private and public person here is an example, Mr. Mabale continued with the case against Mr. Alganion, but the case is now more heinous. Mr Mabale accuses Mr. Alganion of raping his daughter. Mr. Alganion was arrested in their house, when he was arrested Mr. Alganion started crying like a human being. Mr. Alganion started telling the story on how he raped and where he hid the body of the child to the police officer. Is the testimony admissible in Court?

 police officers are not prohibited to take illegal things that are not stated in the search warrant through plain view doctrine, so long as it is in plain view or apparent.  What is the requirement under the Constitution with respect to search warrants, particularly describing? ANS: Place to be searched or the person or things to be seized.



 Why should they specify the place to searched? 

publicly posted (e.g in FB posted through friends)= cannot expect privacy. ANS: They cannot invoke Article 3 Section 3. (something about private and public persons.)

 JED: evidence inadmissible because public officer who obtain the evidence is not allowed, if private individual= admissible

They found the shabu lab on 1203. Is there any irregularity?



ANS: Yes. The plain-view doctrine. Though the officers are limited to seize those that is only specified in the warrant, logically you cannot stop police officers from getting obviously illegal things in that particular vicinity. If it was not specified in the warrant, it cannot be taken unless it is in plain-view, if not then it would be inadmissible in court.

ANS: It should be specific because you have to remove the arbitrariness from the people who are executing the warrant, either the search warrant or the warrant of arrest. 3

ANS: The requirement under the Constitution is that, if you are already identified as a suspect then you must be informed of your Miranda Rights. The problem is that even if the public officer did not seek to know this information once he identified the person to be the probable suspect in the offense, the person cannot help but to say this thing to the public officer especially if the person is not an expert in raping. Those testimony

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA

B. 3-2-19 DISCUSSION- NO PPT SHOWN

or evidence will not be admissible. But here is what usually happens, before the police arrives the media will be there, the suspect will now start admitting to the media how he did it and where he hid the body, this time the provisions of the Bill of Rights will not apply any longer. So the testimony of the media personnel of the admittance of the suspect will now be admissible in Court because the provisions are not against private individuals.

QUESTION 6: 

ANS: religion clause in the consti, what does it prohibit?



non-establishment also includes support

QUESTION 8.1 ANS: Sec 5

Question 5. Kapatid is a group of students/activists who have been staging rallies all over the Philippines to call for the resignation of one of the members of the Cabinet, Pastor R, who happens to be the head of a religious ministry called DRP. DRP threatened that if Kapatid will continue its calls for the resignation of Pastor R, DRP members all over the country will go to EDSA and conduct a mass protest against Kapatid congressmen. In response, the government issued a moratorium on the issuance of all rallies and public gatherings in the Metro Manila area.

 can the state compel a religious group, prohibited by their religion, to join a union?  No. the state cannot compel a religious group to do something bec man stands higher before any being such as the state is created. QUESTION 8.2: Sec 6 QUESTION 9: sec 7

Is there any Constitutional issue here?  ANS: Yes. It violates the right to assemble.  How to answer an argument:



Cecista- on going negotiations cannot be disclosed to public bec of executive privilege. Bec other countries will lost interest in entering treaties with us



can the public compel the congress to disclose their academic records?

 1.Identify the provision first



Yes

 2.Identify what is violated in the provision

Question 10: sec 7

 3.Apply the provision



 When the provision states no law, does that automatically mean that the President cannot breach your freedom of speech since the president cannot pass laws? The President will issue an Executive Order and this is not a law, is it a valid or good argument?

is there specific basis to compel the to release the info for the policy dev? 

Yes

Question 11: sec 8  Cecista - striking to demand work from the superior, the superior can lock out the company but teachers cant do this (it is prohibited from forming strikes or rallies) bec wages in the gov’t are not given by their respective departmen bu through a nat’l wage.

 ANS: It is still violative of the provision. (mao ni ang answer sa nag recite but Atty. Cesista did not confirm or deny the answer.) Question 6. The President issued an order designating certain portions of government offices as prayer corner for Christians and Catholics. This order is only effective in areas that are predominantly Christians and Catholics. A similar order was issued this time to make Muslim corners in predominantly Muslim places

Question12: sec 10  do u agree with the non-impairment law? 

1. Defend the issuance.

Cecista - SEC 11

 Sec 12: the role of the council is to preclude the slightest possible information that would incriminate the accused. Only applicable to testimonial and not on the body or mechanical acts bec it requires u to do something. (lie detector test is a testimony)

2. Argue against the issuance.

4

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA

 Cecista- admission via writing (Ppl v Marcos) is admissible if done in open court, thus, removed from the concept of custodial investigation.

Assuming that Serrano was not given notice and hearing, was there a violation of due process under the Bill of Rights?

 Sec 13:

No, for three reasons.

C. 3-6-19 

The first is that the Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a limitation on governmental powers. It does not apply to the exercise of private power, such as the termination of employment under the Labor Code. This is plain from the text of Art. III, 61 of the Constitution viz.: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. ...." The reason is simple: Only the State has authority to take the life. liberty, or property of the individual. The purpose of the Due Process Clause is to ensure that the exercise of this power is consistent with what are considered civilized methods.

DISCUSSION- film showing how Bill of Rights, UDHR and treaties are created.

Gave assignment to read Bernas, Cruz and Nachura during the interregnum. 

(Nachura) Republic v Sandiganbayan

The second reason is that notice and hearing are required under the Due Process Clause before the power of organized society are brought to bear upon the individual. This is obviously not the case of termination of employment under Art. 283. Here the employee is not faced with an aspect of the adversary system. The purpose for requiring a 30-day written notice before an employee is laid off is not to afford him an opportunity to be heard on any charge against him, for there is none. The purpose rather is to give him time to prepare for the eventual loss of his job and the DOLE an opportunity to determine whether economic causes do exist justifying the termination of his employment.

D. 3-9-19 DISCUSSION Due Process Look at the brilliant dissent by J. Perfecto The due process clause ... of course tends to secure equality of law in the sense that it makes a required minimum of protection for everyone's right of life, liberty, and property, which the Congress of the legislature may not withhold. Our whole system of law is predicated on the general fundamental principle of equality of application of the law.... But the farmers and adopters of this (Fourteenth) Amendment were not content to depend on a mere minimum secured by the due process clause, or upon the spirit of equality which might not be insisted on by local public opinion. They therefore embodied that spirit in a specific guaranty. The guaranty was aimed at undue favor and individual or class privilege, on the one hand, and at hostile discrimination or the oppression of Inequality, on the other. It sought an equality of treatment of all persons, even though all enjoyed the protection of due process.

The third reason why the notice requirement under Art. 283 can not be considered a requirement of the Due Process Clause is that the employer cannot really be expected to be entirely an impartial judge of his own cause. Justice Puno disputes this major principle in the context of a grievance machinery "Since the right of (an employee) to his labor is in itself a property and that the labor agreement between him and [his employer) is the law between the parties, his summary and arbitrary dismissal amounted to deprivation of his property without due process of law."

Serrano v. NLRC (2000)

Last slide for Serrano v NLRC- photo not clear

Petitioner Ruben Serrano, head of the Security Checkers Section of Isetann, herein private respondent, was served with a letter dated October 11, 1991 informing him of his termination effective on the same date on the ground of retrenchment to the effect that the company will phase out its entire security section and engage the services of an independent security agency.

Republic v. SB, Maj. Gen. Ramos and Dimaano Timeline; - 23-25 Feb. 1986 - EDSA Revolution

In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed against Isetann by petitioner, the Labor Arbiter found, among others, that Isetann failed to establish that retrenchment was resorted to in order to prevent or minimize losses to its business and that it failed to accord petitioner due process for failure to serve prior notice.

- 28 Feb 1986 - creation of the PCGG - 24 March 1986 - interregnum, Revolutionary rule 5

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 (BILL OF RIGHTS): CECISTA

The EDSA Revolution took place on 23-25 February 1986. As succinctly stated in President Aquino's, the EDSA Revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution." The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no Constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed under international law. The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the Constitution during the Interregnum, that is, after the actual and effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution); and (1) whether the protection accorded to individuals under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Declaration") remained in effect during the interregnum

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. UDHR Provision on arbitrary interference (photo not clear) Preamble Article 12

Laurel v. Misa According to the pleadings, the petitioner, a Filipino citizen, was arrested in Camarines Sur in May, 1945, by the United States Army, and was interned, under a commitment order "for his active collaboration with the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation." but in September, 1945, he was turned over to the Commonwealth Government, and since then has been under the custody of the respondent Director of Prisons. But this looks like in conflict with Article 125 of the RPC which took effect on 1 Jan. 1925. Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public of cer or employee who shall detain any person for somo legal ground and shall fallo deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, lo crimes or offenses pun shable by light penalbes, or the equivalent eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishadle by correctional penaltes, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by allicive or capital penalties, or their equivalent in every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be a lowed upon his request, to communicate and conter at any time with his abomey or counsel (As amended by E.O. Nos 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively). ICCPR Provision on arbitrary interference Article 17. 6