consti 2 prelims

The City Mayor issues an Executive Order declaring that the city promotes responsible parenthood and upholds natural family planning. He prohibits all hospitals operated by the city from prescribing the use of artificial methods of contraception, including condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical sterilization. As a result, poor women in his city lost their access to affordable family planning programs. Private clinics however, continue to render family planning counsel and devices to paying clients. a. Is the Executive Order in any way constitutionally infirm? Explain. b. Is the Philippines in breach of any obligation under international law? Explain. c. May the Commission on Human Rights order the Mayor to stop the implementation of the Executive Order? Explain.

. The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. It violates the guarantee of due process and equal protection. Due process includes the right to decisional privacy, which refers to the ability to make one's own decisions and to act on those decisions, free from governmental or other unwanted interference. Forbidding the use of artificial methods of contraception infringes on the freedom of choice in matters of marriage and family life (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 415). Moreover, the Executive Order violates equal protection as it discriminates against poor women in the city who cannot afford to pay private clinics. b. The acts of the City Mayor may be attributed to the Philippines under the principle of state responsibility. Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights requires that Philippine law shall prohibit any discrimination and shall guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as social origin, birth or other status. The Executive Order of the City Mayor discriminates against poor women. c. The Commission on Human Rights cannot order the City Mayor to stop the implementation of his Executive Order, b

When can evidence "in plain view" be seized without need of a search warrant?

1. There was a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police were legally present pursuant of their duties; 2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they were: 3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and 4. Plain view justified seizure of the evidence without further search

The Samahan ng mga Mahihirap (SM) filed with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila an application for permit to hold a rally on Mendiola Street on September 5, 2006 from 10:00a.m. to 3:00 p.m. to protest the political killings of journalists. However, the City Mayor denied their application on the ground that a rally at the time and place applied for will block the traffic in the San Miguel and Quiapo Districts. He suggested the Liwasang Bonifacio, which has been designated a Freedom Park, as venue for the rally. 1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the denial of its application for a permit? 2. Does the availability of a Freedom Park justify the denial of SM's application for a permit? 3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a rally a prior restraint on freedom of speech and assembly? 4. Assuming that despite the denial of SM's application for a permit, its members hold a rally, prompting the police to arrest them. Are the arrests without judicial warrants lawful?

1. Yes, SM has a remedy. Under B.P. Blg. 880 (The Public Assembly Act of 1985), in the event of denial of the application for a permit, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law. The court must decide within twenty-four (24) hours from the date of filing of the case. Said decision may be appealed to the appropriate court within forty- eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court (Bayan Muna v. Ermita, G.R. No.169838, April 25, 2006). 2. No, the availability of a freedom park does not justify the denial of the permit. It does imply that no permits are required for activities in freedom parks. Under B.P. Big. 880, the denial may be justified only if there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health (Bayan Muna v. Ermita, supra.). 3. No, the requirement for a permit to hold a rally is not a prior restraint on freedom of speech and assembly. The Supreme Court has held that the permit requirement is valid, referring to it as regulation of the time, place, and manner of holding public assemblies, but not the content of the speech itself. Thus, there is no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation (Bayan Muna v. Ermita, supra.). 4. The arrests are unlawful. What is prohibited and penalized under Sec.13(a) and 14(a) of B.P. Big 880 is "the holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer without having first secured that written permit where a permit is required from the office concerned x x x Provided, however, that no person can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly." Thus, only the leader or organizer of the rally without a permit may be arrested without a warrant while the members may not be arrested, as they cannot be punished or held criminally liable for attending the rally. However, under Section 12 thereof, when the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully dispersed.

Q: When is a facial challenge to the constitutionality of a law on the ground of violation of the Bill of Rights traditionally allowed? Explain your answer.

: A facial challenge is one that is launched to assail the validity of statues concerning not only protected speech, but also all other rights (in the First Amendement [U.S.]) including religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the rights of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. While the Court has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, it has expanded its scope to cover statues not only regulating free speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamentals rights. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., the Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government."

What is the doctrine of "overbreadth"? In what context can it be correctly applied? Not correctly applied? Explain

: A statute is overbroad when a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulations is sought to be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and invade the area of protected freedom. It applies both to free speech cases and penal statues. However, a facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth can only be made in free speech cases because of its chilling effect upon protected speech. A facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is not applicable to penal statutes, because in general they have an in terrorem effec

Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his employee, had been passing trade secrets to his competitor, Randy, but he had no proof. One day, Emilio broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered a letter wherein Randy thanked Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade secrets of Emilio. Enclosed in the letter was a check for P50,000.00 drawn against the account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then dismissed Alvin from his employment. Emilio's proof of Alvin's perfidy are the said letter and check which are objected to as inadmissible for having been obtained through an illegal search. Alvin filed a suit assailing his dismissal. Rule on the admissibility of the letter and check.

: As held in People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991), the constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between individuals. Thus, 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 for only the act of private individuals, not the law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. Accordingly, the letter and check are admissible in evidence

What is "commercial speech"? Is it entitled to constitutional protection? What must be shown in order for government to curtail "commercial speech"?

: Commercial speech is communication which involves only the commercial interests of the speaker and the audience, such as advertisements. Commercial speech is entitled to constitutional protection (Ayer Productions Pty., Ltd. v. Capulong 160 SCRA 861). Commercial speech may be required to be submitted to a governmental agency for review to protest public interests by preventing false or deceptive claims

The Secretary of Transportation and Communications has warned radio station operators against selling blocked time, on the claim that the time covered thereby are often used by those buying them to attack the present administration. Assume that the department implements this warning and orders owners and operators of radio stations not to sell blocked time to interested parties without prior clearance from the Department of Transportation and Communications. You are approached by an interested party affected adversely by that order of the Secretary of Transportation and Communications. What would you do regarding that ban on the sale of blocked time? Explain your answer

: I would challenge its validity in court on the ground that it constitutes a prior restraint on freedom of expression. Such a limitation is valid only in exceptional cases, such as where the purpose is to prevent actual obstruction to recruitment of service or the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops, or for the purpose of enforcing the primary requirements of decency or the security of community life (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)). Attacks on the government, on the other hand, cannot justify prior restraints. For as has been pointed out, "the interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech The parties adversely affected may also disregard the regulation as being on its face void. As has been held, "any system of prior restraints of expression comes to the court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity," and the government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint" (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)). The usual presumption of validity that inheres in legislation is reversed in the case of laws imposing prior restraint on freedom of expression.

: Distinguish fully between the "free exercise of religion clause" and the "non-establishment of religion clause"

: The freedom of exercise of religion entails the right to believe, which is absolute, and the right to act on one's belief, which is subject to regulation. As a rule, the freedom of exercise of religion can be restricted only if there is a clear and present danger of a substantive evil QuAMTO for POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015) *QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams. 42 which the state has the right to prevent. (Iglesia ni cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529.) The non-establishment clause implements the principle of separation of church and state. The state cannot set up a church, pass laws that aid one religion, and all religions, prefer one religion over another force or influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will, of force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion

Children who are members of a religious sect have been expelled from their respective public schools for refusing, on account of their religious beliefs, to take part in the flag ceremony which includes playing by a band or singing the national anthem, saluting the Philippine flag and reciting the patriotic pledge. The students and their parents assail the expulsion on the ground that the school authorities have acted in violation of their right to free public education, freedom of speech, and religious freedom and worship. Decide the case.

: The students cannot be expelled from school. As held in Ebralinaq v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu 219 SCRA 256 [1993], to compel students to take part in the flag ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will violate their religious freedom. Their expulsion also violates the duty of the State under Article XIV, Section 1 of the Constitution to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and make such education accessible to all.

What is the doctrine of "void for vagueness"? In what context can it be correctly applied? Not correctly applied? Explain

A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application. It applies to both free speech cases and penal statutes. However, a facial challenge on the ground of vagueness can be made only in free speech cases. It does not apply to penal statutes

What are the instances when warrantless searches may be effected?

A warrantless search may be effected in the following cases: 1. Searches incidental to a lawful arrest; 2. Searches of moving vehicles; 3. Searches of prohibited articles in plain view; 4. Enforcement of customs law; 5. Consented searches; 6. Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, 285 SCRA 703); 7. Routine searches at borders and ports of entry (US v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 [1977]); and 8. Searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to enforce police regulations

Ten public school teachers of Caloocan City left their classrooms to join a strike, which lasted for one month, to ask for teachers' benefits. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports charged them administratively, for which reason they were required to answer and formally investigated by a committee composed of the Division Superintendent of Schools as Chairman, the Division Supervisor as member and a teacher, as another member. On the basis of the evidence adduced at the formal investigation which amply established their guilt, the Director rendered a decision meting out to them the penalty of removal from office. The decision was affirmed by the DECS Secretary and the Civil Service Commission. On appeal, they reiterated the arguments they raised before the administrative bodies: their strike was an exercise of their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

According to De la Cruz v. CA, 305 SCRA 303, the argument of the teachers that they were merely exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to petition the government for redress of grievance cannot be sustained, because such rights must be exercised within reasonable limits. When such rights were exercised on regular school days instead of during the free time of the teachers, the teachers committed acts prejudicial to the best interests of the service

May the COMELEC (COMELEC) prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places, public or private, such as on a private vehicle, and limit their location only to the authorized posting areas that the COMELEC itself fixes? Explain

According to the case of Adiong v. COMELEC. 207 SCRA 712, the prohibition is null and void on constitutional grounds. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to have it placed on his private vehicle, the expression becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of anybody else. Moreover, the restriction as to where the decals and stickers should be posted is so broad that it encompasses even the citizen's private property, which in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. It deprived an individual to his right to property without due process of law.

Q: A is an alien. State whether, in the Philippines, he: Is entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and against illegal arrests.

Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal searches and seizures and illegal arrests.

b. The parents of evangelical Christian students, upon learning of the offer, demanded that they too be entitled to have their children instructed in their own religious faith during class hours. The principal, a devout Catholic, rejected the request. As counsel for the parents of the evangelical students, how would you argue in support of their position?

As counsel for the parents of the evangelical students, I shall argue that the rejection of their request violates the guarantee of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference. The exercise of religious freedom includes the right to disseminate religious information

: Undaunted by his three failures in the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT), Cruz applied to take it again but he was refused because of an order of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) disallowing flunkers from taking the test a fourth time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising the constitutional grounds of accessible quality education, academic freedom and equal protection. The government opposes this, upholding the constitutionality of the rule on the ground of exercise of police power. Decide the case discussing the grounds raised

As held in Department of Education, Culture and Sports v. San Diego, 180 SCRA 533, the rule is a valid exercise of police power to ensure that those admitted to the medical profession are qualified. The arguments of Cruz are not meritorious. The right to quality education and academic freedom are not absolute. Under Section 5(3), Article XIV of the Constitution, the right to choose a profession is subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. The rule does not violate equal protection. There is a substantial distinction between medical students and other students. Unlike other professions, the medical profession directly affects the lives of the people

Distinguish civil rights from political rights and give an example of each right

CIVIL RIGHTS refer to the rights secured by the constitution of any state or country to all its inhabitants and not connected with the organization or administration of government. POLITICAL RIGHTS consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the management of the government. CIVIL RIGHTS define the relations of individual amongst themselves while POLITICAL RIGHTS defines the relations of individuals vis-a-vis the state. CIVIL RIGHTS extend protection to all inhabitants of a state, while POLITICAL RIGHTS protect merely its citizens. Examples of civil rights are the rights against involuntary servitude, religious freedom, the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, liberty of abode, the prohibition against imprisonment for debt, the right to travel, equal protection, due process, the right to marry, right to return to this country and right to education. Examples of political rights are the right of suffrage, the right of assembly, and the right to petition for redress of grievances.

The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rum, which it has produced and marketed successfully for the past 70 years. Its latest commercial advertisement uses the line: "Nakalikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos?" Very soon, activist groups promoting women's and children's rights were up in arms against the advertisement. All advertising companies in the Philippines have formed an association, the Philippine Advertising Council, and have agreed to abide by all the ethical guidelines and decisions by the Council. In response to the protests, the Council orders the pull-out of the "kinse anyos" advertising campaign. Can Destilleria Felipe Segundo claim that its constitutional rights are thus infringed?

Destilleria Felipe Segundo cannot claim that its constitutional rights were infringed. In this case, a private association formed by advertising companies for self-regulation was the one who ordered that the advertisement be pulled out, because Destilleria did not comply with the association's ethical guidelines. The guarantee of freedom of speech is a limitation on state action and not on the action of private parties (Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner, 407 US 551). The mass media are private enterprises, and their refusal to accept any advertisement does not violate freedom of speech

What are the relations of civil and political rights to human rights? Explain.

Human rights are broader in scope than civil and political rights including social, economic, and cultural rights, and are inherent in persons from the fact of their humanity. On the other hand, some civil and political rights are not natural rights. They exist because they are protected by a constitution or granted by law. For example, the liberty to enter into contracts is not a human right but is a civil right.

Nationwide protest have erupted over rising gas prices, including disruptive demonstrations in many universities throughout the country. The Metro Manila State University, a public university, adopted a university-wide circular prohibiting public mass demonstrations and rallies within the campus. Offended by the circular, militant students spread word that on the following Friday, all students were to wear black T-shirt as a symbols of their protest both against high gas prices and the university ban on demonstrations. The effort was only moderately successful, with around 30% of the students heeding the call. Nonetheless, university officials were outraged and compelled the students leaders to explain why they should not be expelled for violating the circular against demonstrations. The student leaders approached you for legal advice. They contended that they should not be expelled since they did not violate the circular, their protest action being neither a demonstrator nor a rally since all they did was wear black T-shirts. What would you advise the students

I shall advise the students that the circular is void. The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and peaceful assembly extends to students within the premises of the Metro Manila State University (Malabanan v. Ramente 129 SCRA 359). I shall also advise the students that their wearing of black T-shirts as a sign of protest is covered by their freedom of speech, because it is closely akin to free speech

In the deeds of sale to, and in the land titles of homeowners of a residential subdivision in Pasig City, there are restrictions annotated therein to the effect that only residential houses or structures may be built or constructed on the lots. However, the City Council of Pasig enacted an ordinance amending the existing zoning ordinance by changing the zone classification in that place from purely residential to commercial. "A", a lot owner, sold his lot to a banking firm and the latter started constructing a commercial building on the lot to house a bank inside the subdivision. The subdivision owner and the homeowners' association filed a case in court to stop the construction of the building for banking business purposes and to respect the restrictions embodied in the deed of sale by the subdivision developer to the lot owners, as well as the annotation in the titles. If you were the Judge, how would you resolve the case?

If I were the judge, I would dismiss the case. As held in Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. FEATI Bank and Trust Company, 94 SCRA 633, the zoning ordinance is a valid exercise of police power and prevails over the contractual stipulation restricting the use of the lot to residential purposes

Allmighty Apostles is a relatively new religious group and movement with fast-growing membership. One time, DeepThroat, an investigative reporter, made a research and study as to what the group's leader, Maskeraid, was actually doing. DeepThroat eventually came up with the conclusion that Maskeraid was a phony who is just fooling the simple-minded people to part with their money in exchange for the promise of eternal happiness in some far-away heaven. This was published in a newspaper which caused much agitation among the followers of Maskeraid. Some threatened violence against DeepThroat, while some others already started destroying properties while hurting those selling the newspaper. The local authorities, afraid of the public disorder that such followers might do, decided to ban the distribution of the newspaper containing the article. DeepThroat went to court complaining about the prohibition placed on the dissemination of his article. He claims that the act of the authorities partakes of the nature of heckler's veto, thus a violation of press freedom. On the other hand, the authorities counter that the act was necessary to protect the public order and the greater interest of the community. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the issue?

If I were the judge, I would rule that the distribution of the newspaper cannot be banned. Freedom of the news should be allowed although it induces a condition of unrest and stirs people to anger. Freedom of the press includes freedom of circulation (Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441). When governmental action that restricts freedom of the press is based on content, it is given the strictest scrutiny and the government must show that there is a clear and present danger of the substantive evil which the government has the right to prevent. The threats of violence and even the destruction of properties while hurting hose selling the newspaper do not constitute a clear and present danger as to warrant curtailment of the right of DeepThroat to distribute the newspaper

The security police of the Southern Luzon Expressway spotted a caravan of 20 vehicles, with paper banners taped on their sides and protesting graft and corruption in government. They were driving at 50 kilometers per hour in a 40-90 kilometers per hour zone. Some banners had been blown off by the wind, and posed a hazard to other motorists. They were stopped by the security police. The protesters then proceeded to march instead, sandwiched between the caravan vehicles. They were also stopped by the security force. May the security police validly stop the vehicles and the marchers?

In accordance with the policy of maximum tolerance, the security policy should not have stopped the protesters. They should have simply asked the protesters to take adequate steps to prevent their banners from being blown off, such as rolling them up while they were in the expressway and requires the protesters to board their vehicle and proceed on their way. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The security police may stop the protesters to prevent public inconvenience, because they were using the expressway for an appreciable length of time by marching while sandwiched between the caravan vehicles

Does a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR) constitute a property right protected by the Constitution?

No, it is not a property right under the due process clause of the Constitution. Just like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, it may be revoked any time. It does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege, subject to restrictions. A licensee takes his license subject to such conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose, and may be revoked at its pleasure without depriving the licensee of any property

The Department of Education, Culture and Sports Issued a circular disqualifying anyone who fails for the fourth time in the National Entrance Tests from admission to a College of Dentistry. X who was thus disqualified, questions the constitutionality of the circular. Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution

No, the circular did not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution. There is a substantial distinction between dentistry students and other students. The dental profession directly affects the lives and health of people. Other professions do not involve the same delicate responsibility and need not be similarly treated.

: The National Building Code and its implementing rules provide, inter alia, that operators of shopping centers and malls should provide parking and loading spaces, in accordance with a prescribed ratio. The Solicitor General, heeding the call of the public for the provision of free parking spaces in malls, filed a case to compel said business concerns to discontinue their practice of collecting parking fees. The mall owners and operators oppose, saying that this is an invalid taking of their property, thus a violation of due process. The Solicitor General justifies it, however, claiming that it is a valid exercise of police power. Could the mall owners and operators be validly compelled to provide free parking to their customers?

No, the mall owners and operators cannot be validly compelled to provide free parking to their customers, because requiring them to provide free parking space to their customers is beyond the scope of police powers. It unreasonably restricts the right to use property for business purposes and amounts to confiscation of property (Office of the Solicitor General v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617).

The military commander-in charge of the operation against rebel groups directed the inhabitants of the island which would be the target QuAMTO for POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015) *QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams. 44 of attack by government forces to evacuate the area and offered the residents temporary military hamlet. Can the military commander force the residents to transfer their places of abode without a court order? Explain

No, the military commander cannot compel the residents to transfer their places of abode without a court order. Under Section 6, Article III of the Constitution, a lawful order of the court is required before the liberty of abode and of changing the same can be impaired.

Juan Casanova contracted Hansen's disease (leprosy) with open lesions. A law requires that lepers be isolated upon petition of the City Health Officer. The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City Health Officer to have her formerly philandering husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan Casanova challenged the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty of abode. Will the suit prosper?

No, the suit will not prosper. Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides: "The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court." The liberty of abode is subject to the police power of the State. Requiring the segregation of lepers is a valid exercise of police power. In Lorenzo v. Director of Health, 50 Phil. 595, the Supreme Court held: "Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease is supported by high scientific authority."

Give examples of acts of the state which infringe the due process clause: 2. in its procedural aspect?

Procedural due process refers to the method or manner by which the law is enforced. In State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505, it was held that the dismissal of a case without the benefit of a hearing and without any notice to the prosecution violated due process. Likewise, as held in People v. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 452, the lack of impartiality of the judge who will decide a case violates procedural due process.

: The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an exclusive report stating that Senator XX received a house and lot located at YY Street, Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting cigarette taxes by 50%. The Senator sued the STAR, its reporter, editor and publisher for libel, claiming the report was completely false and malicious. According to the Senator, there is no YY Street in Makati, and the tax cut was only 20%. He claimed one million pesos in damages. The defendants denied "actual malice," claiming privileged communication and absolute freedom of the press to report on public officials and matters of public concern. If there was any error, the STAR said it would publish the correction promptly. Is there "actual malice" in STAR'S reportage? How is "actual malice" defined? Are the defendants liable for damages?

Since Senator XX is a public person and the questioned imputation is directed against him in his public capacity, in this case actual malice means the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1). Since there is no proof that the report was published with knowledge that it is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, the defendants are not liable for damage.

: Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Law of 1985, regulates the conduct of all protest rallies in the Philippines. Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and planned to march from Quezon City to Luneta in Manila. They received a permit from the Mayor of Quezon City, but not from the Mayor of Manila. They were able to march in Quezon City and up to the boundary separating it from the City of Manila. Three meters after crossing the boundary, the Manila Police stopped them for posing a danger to public safety. Was this a valid exercise of police power?

Since the protesters merely reached three meters beyond the boundary of Quezon City, the police authorities in Manila should not have stopped them, as there was no clear and present danger to public order. In accordance with the policy of maximum tolerance, the police authorities should have asked the protesters to disperse and if they refused, the public assembly may be dispersed peacefully. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The police officers may disperse the rally peacefully, because the permit from the Mayor of Quezon City is limited to Quezon City only and does not extend to the City of Manila and no permit was obtained from the Mayor of Manila

Give examples of acts of the state which infringe the due process clause: 1. in its substantive aspect

Substantive due process requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just. It is violated when it is unreasonable or unduly oppressive. For example, Presidential Decree No. 1717, which cancelled all the mortgages and liens of a debtor, was considered unconstitutional for being oppressive. Likewise, as stated in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849, a law which is vague so that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates substantive due process

: On April 6, 1963, Police Officer Mario Gatdula was charged by the Mayor with Grave Misconduct and Violation of Law before the Municipal Board. The Board investigated Gatdula but before the case could be decided, the City charter was approved. The City Fiscal, citing Section 30 of the city charter, asserted that he was authorized there under to investigate city officers and employees. The case against Gatdula was then forwarded to him, and a reinvestigation was conducted. The office of the Fiscal subsequently recommended dismissal. On January 11, 1966, the City Mayor returned the records of the case to the City Fiscal for the submission of an appropriate resolution but no resolution was submitted. On March 3, 1968, the City Fiscal transmitted the records to the City Mayor recommending that final action thereon be made by the City Board of Investigators (CBI). Although the CBI did not conduct an investigation, the records show that both the Municipal Board and the Fiscal's Office exhaustively heard the case with both parties afforded ample opportunity to adduce their evidence and argue their cause. The Police Commission found Gatdula guilty on the basis of the records forwarded by the CBI. Gatdula challenged the adverse decision of the Police Commission theorizing that he was deprived of due process. Questions: Is the Police Commission bound by the findings of the City Fiscal? Is Gatdula's protestation of lack or non-observance of due process wellgrounded? Explain your Answers.

The Police Commission is not bound by the findings of the City Fiscal. In Mangubat v. de Castro, 163 SCRA 608, it was held that the Police Commission is not prohibited from making its own findings on the basis of its own evaluation of the records. Likewise, the protestation of lack of due process is not well grounded, since the hearings before the Municipal Board and the City Fiscal offered Gatdula the chance to be heard. There is no denial of due process if the decision was rendered on the basis of evidence contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.

Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart Corporation, a realty firm engaged in developing and selling lots to the public. One of the restrictions in the deed of sale which was annotated in the title is that the lot shall be used by the buyer exclusively for residential purposes. A main highway having been constructed across the subdivision, the area became commercial in nature. The municipality later passed a zoning ordinance declaring the area as a commercial bank building on his lot. Smart Corporation went to court to stop the construction as violative of the building restrictions imposed by it. The corporation contends that the zoning ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation assumed by the buyer. Decide the case.

The case must be dismissed. As held in Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership v. FEATI Bank and Trust Company, 94 SCRA 533, such a restriction in the contract cannot prevail over the zoning ordinance, because the enactment of the ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. It is hazardous to health and comfort to use the lot for residential purposes, since a highway crosses the subdivision and the area has become commercial.

The Philippine National Police (PNP) issued a circular to all its members directed at the style and length of male police officers' hair, sideburns and moustaches, as well as the size of their waistlines. It prohibits beards, goatees and waistlines over 38 inches, except for medical reason. Some police officers questioned the validity of the circular, claiming that it violated their right to liberty under the Constitution. Resolve the controversy

The circular is valid. The circular is based on a desire to make police officers easily recognizable to the members of the public or to inculcate spirit de corps which such similarity is felt to inculcate within the police force. Either one is a sufficient rational justification for the circular

In the morning of August 28, 1987, during the height of the fighting at Channel 4 and Camelot Hotel, the military closed Radio Station XX, which was excitedly reporting the successes of the rebels and movements towards Manila and troops friendly to the rebels. The reports were correct and factual. On October 6, 1987, after normalcy had returned and the Government had full control of the situation, the National Telecommunications Commission, without notice and hearing, but merely on the basis of the report of the military, cancelled the franchise of station XX. Discuss the legality of: QuAMTO for POLITICAL LAW (1991-2015) *QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2015 Bar Exams. 40 1. The action taken against the station on August 28, 1987; 2. The cancellation of the franchise of the station on October 6, 1987.

The closing down of Radio Station XX during the fighting is permissible. With respect to news media, wartime censorship has been upheld on the ground that "when a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its efforts that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." The security of community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931), Justice Holme's opinion in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919); New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)). With greater reason then may censorship in times of emergency be justified in the case of broadcast media since their freedom is somewhat lesser in scope. The impact of the vibrant speech, as Justice Gutierrez said, is forceful and immediate. Unlike readers of the printed work, a radio audience has lesser opportunity to cogitate, analyze and reject the utterance (Eastern Broadcasting Corp (DYRE) v. Dans, 137 SCRA 647 (1985)). 2. But the cancellation of the franchise of the station on October 6, 1987, without prior notice and hearing, is void. As held in 137 SCRA 647 (1985), the cardinal primary requirements in administrative proceedings (one of which is that the parties must first be heard) as laid down in Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940) must be observed in closing a radio station because radio broadcasts are a form of constitutionally-protected expression.

Armed with a search and seizure warrant, a team of policemen led by Inspector Trias entered a compound and searched the house described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, owned by Mr. Ernani Pelets, for a reported cache of firearms and ammunition. However, upon thorough search of the house, the police found nothing. Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen proceeded to a smaller house inside the same compound with address at No. 17-A Speaker Perez St., entered it, and conducted a search therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who happened to be the same owner of the first house. There, the police found the unlicensed firearms and ammunition they were looking for. As a result. Mr. Ernani Pelets was criminally charged in court with Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition as penalized under P.D. 1866, as amended by RA. 8294. At the trial, he vehemently objected to the presentation of the evidence against him for being inadmissible. Is Mr. Emani Pelet's contention valid or not? Why?

The contention of Ernani Pelet is valid. As held in People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400, if the place searched is different from that stated in the search warrant, the evidence seized is inadmissible. The policeman cannot modify the place to be searched as set out in the search warrant.

The KKK Television Network (KKK-TV) aired the documentary, "Case Law: How the Supreme Court Decides," without obtaining the necessary permit required by P.D. 1986. Consequently, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) suspended the airing of KKK- TV programs. MTRCB declared that under P.D. 1986, it has the power of prior review over all television programs, except "newsreels" and programs "by the Government", and the subject documentary does not fall under either of these two classes. The suspension order was ostensibly based on Memorandum Circular No. 98- 17 which grants MTRCB the authority to issue such an order. KKK-TV filed a certiorari petition in court, raising the following issues: The act of MTRCB constitutes "prior restraint" and violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression

The contention of KKK-TV is not tenable. The prior restraint is a valid exercise of police power. Television is a medium which reaches even the eyes and ears of children

One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, call on all government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCC) to boycott any newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the "kinse anyos" advertisements. They call on all government nominees in sequestered corporations to block any advertising funds allocated for any such newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the GOCCs and sequestered corporations validly comply?

The government-owned and controlled corporations and the government nominees in sequestered corporation cannot block any advertising funds allocated for any newspaper, radio or television station which carries the advertisements of Destilleria Felipe Segundo. Since they are government entities and officers, they are bound by the guarantee of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech extends to commercial advertisements (Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 US 400). The mere fact that an advertisement is offensive cannot justify its suppression (Carey v. Population Services International, 431 US 678). The blocking of advertising funds is a threat intended to prevent the exercise of the freedom of speech of Destilleria Felipe Segundo through the fear of consequences. Such a threat qualifies as prior restraint

What do you understand by the term "hierarchy of civil liberties"? Explain

The hierarchy of civil liberties means that freedom of expression and the rights of peaceful assembly are superior to property rights

Crack officers of the Anti-Narcotics Unit were assigned on surveillance of the environs of a cemetery where the sale and use of dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and glassy eyes was walking unsteadily moving towards them but veered away when he sensed the presence of policemen. They approached him, introduced themselves as police officers and asked him what he had clenched in his hand. As he kept mum, the policemen pried his hand open and found a sachet of shabu, a dangerous drug. Accordingly charged in court, the accused objected to the admission in evidence of the dangerous drug because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure. Rule on the objection

The objection is not tenable. In accordance with Manalili v. CA, 280 SCRA 400, since the accused had red eyes and was walking unsteadily and the place is a known hang-out of drug addicts, the police officers had sufficient reason to stop the accused and to frisk him. Since shabu was actually found during the investigation, it could be seized without the need for a search warrant.

In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel who produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the accused and the victim that took place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused objects to the admission of the videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection with reasons.

The objection should be overruled. What the law prohibits is the overhearing, intercepting, and recording of private communications. Since the exchange of heated words was not private, its videotape recording is not prohibited

The principal of Jaena High School, a public school wrote a letter to the parents and guardians of all the school's pupils, informing them that the school was willing to provide religious instruction to its Catholic students during class hours, through a Catholic priest. However, students who wished to avail of such religious instruction needed to secure the consent of their parents and guardians in writing a. Does the offer violate the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion?

The offer does not violate the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion. Section 3(3), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that at the option expressed in writing by their parents or guardians, religion shall be taught to students in public elementary and high schools within regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities of their religion

The municipal council of the municipality of Guagua, Pampanga, passed an ordinance penalizing any person or entity engaged in the business of selling tickets to movies or other public exhibitions, games or performances which would charge children between 7 and 12 years of age the full price of admission tickets instead of only one-half of the amount thereof. Would you hold the ordinance a valid exercise of legislative power by the municipality? Why?

The ordinance is void. As held in Balacuit v. CFI of Agusan del Norte, 163 SCRA 182, the ordinance is unreasonable. It deprives the sellers of the tickets of their property without due process. A ticket is a property right and may be sold for such price as the owner of it can obtain. There is nothing pernicious in charging children the same price as adults.

Surveys Galore is an outfit involved in conducting nationwide surveys. In one such survey, it asked the people about the degree of trust and confidence they had in several institutions of the government. When the results came in, the judiciary was shown to be less trusted than most of the government offices. The results were then published by the mass media. Assension, a trial court judge, felt particularly offended by the news. He then issued a show-cause order against Surveys Galore directing the survey entity to explain why it should not be cited in contempt for coming up with such a survey and publishing the results which were so unflattering and degrading to the dignity of the judiciary. Surveys Galore immediately assailed the show-cause order of Judge Assension, arguing that it is violative of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression. Is Surveys Galore's petition meritorious?

The petition of Surveys Galore is meritorious. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and punishment. There should be no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt proceedings unless there is a clear and present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent (Chavez v. Gonzales, 545 SCRA 441). Freedom of speech should not be impaired through the exercise of the power to punish for contempt of court unless the statement in question is a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice. Here, the publication of the result of the survey was not intended to degrade the judiciary

One day a passenger bus conductor found a man's handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag, he found inside a calling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang) and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery substance to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination and it was determined to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was subsequently traced and found and brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and without the presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was convicted. On appeal he contends that - The plastic bag and its contents are inadmissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure. Decide the case with reasons.

The plastic bag and its contents are admissible in evidence, since it was not the National Bureau of Investigation but the bus conductor who opened the bag and brought it to the National Bureau of Investigation. As held in People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991), the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the government. It does not apply so as to require exclusion of evidence which came into the possession of the Government through a search made by a private citizen.

To instill religious awareness in the students of Doña Trinidad High School, a public school in Bulacan, the Parent- Teacher's Association of the school contributed funds for the construction of a grotto and a chapel where ecumenical religious services and seminars are being held after school hours. The use of the school grounds for these purposes was questioned by a parent who does not belong to any religious group. As his complaint was not addressed by the school officials, he filed an administrative complaint against the principal before the DECS. Is the principal liable? Explain briefly

The principal is liable. Although the grotto and the chapel can be used by different religious sects without discrimination, the land occupied by the grotto and the chapel will be permanently devoted to religious use without being required to pay rent. This violates the prohibition against establishment of religion enshrined in Section 5 of the Bill of Rights (Opinion 12 of the Secretary of Justice dated February 2, 1979). Although religion is allowed to be taught in public elementary and high schools, it should be without additional cost to the government

A religious organization has a weekly television program. The program presents and propagates its religious, doctrines, and compares their practices with those of other religions. As the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) found as offensive several episodes of the program which attacked other religions, the MTRCB required the organization to submit its tapes for review prior to airing. The religious organization brought the case to court on the ground that the action of the MTRCB suppresses its freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion.

The religious organization must submit the tapes to the MTRCB. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion does not shield any religious organization against the regulation of the government on its program over the television. The right to act on one's religious belief is not absolute and is subject to police power for the protection of the general welfare. However, the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board cannot ban the tapes on the ground that they attacked other religions. In Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529, 547, the Supreme Court held: "The respondent Board may disagree with the criticisms of other religions by petitioner but that gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms, however, unclean they may be. Under our constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the State to favor any religion by protecting it against an attack by another religion." Moreover, the broadcasts do not give rise to a clear and present danger of a substantive evil. In the case of Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529, 549: "Prior restraint on speech, including the religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil which has taken the reality already on the ground.

The Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) General Manager issued an administrative order to the effect that all existing regular appointments to harbor pilot positions shall remain valid only up to December 31 of the current year and that henceforth all appointments to harbor pilot positions shall be only for a term of one year from date of effectivity, subject to yearly renewal or cancellation by the PPA after conduct of a rigid evaluation of performance. Pilotage as a profession may be practiced only by duly licensed individuals, who have to pass five government professional examinations. The Harbor Pilot Association challenged the validity of said administrative order arguing that it violated the harbor pilots' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law and that the said administrative order was issued without prior notice and hearing. The PPA countered that the administrative order was valid as it was issued in the exercise of its administrative control and supervision over harbor pilots under PPA's legislative charter, and that in issuing the order as a rule or regulation, it was performing its executive or legislative, and not a quasi-Judicial function. Due process of law is classified into two kinds, namely, procedural due process and substantive due process of law. Was there, or, was there no violation of the harbor pilots' right to exercise their profession and their right to due process of law?

The right of the harbor pilots to due process was violated. As held in Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, 283 SCRA 31 pilotage as a profession is a property right protected by the guarantee of due process. The pre-evaluation cancellation of the licenses of the harbor pilots every year is unreasonable and violated their right to substantive due process. The renewal is dependent on the evaluation after the licenses have been cancelled. The issuance of the administrative order also violated procedural due process, since no prior public hearing was conducted. As held in CIR v. CA, 261 SCRA 237, when a regulation is being issued under the quasi-legislative authority of an administrative agency, the requirements of notice, hearing and publication must be observed.

The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor, assisted by the police, to remove all advertising signs displayed or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the destroyed billboards at their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his property without due process nor just compensation. Will AM prosper? Reason briefly.

The suit of AM will not prosper. The removal of the billboards is not an exercise of the power of eminent domain but of police power (Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580). The abatement of a nuisance in the exercise of police power does not constitute taking of property and does not entitle the owner of the property involved to compensation ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The removal of the billboards for the purpose of beautification permanently deprived AM of the right to use his property and amounts to its taking. Consequently, he should be paid just compensation (People v. Fajardo,

Section 28. Title VI, Chapter 9, of the Administrative Code of 1987 requires all educational institutions to observe a simple and dignified flag ceremony, including the playing or singing of the Philippine National Anthem, pursuant to rules to be promulgated by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, The refusal of a teacher, student or pupil to attend or participate in the flag ceremony is a ground for dismissal after due investigation. The Secretary of Education Culture and Sports issued a memorandum implementing said provision of law. As ordered, the flag ceremony would be held on Mondays at 7:30 a.m. during class days. A group of teachers, students and pupils requested the Secretary that they be exempted from attending the flag ceremony on the ground that attendance thereto was against their religious belief. The Secretary denied the request. The teachers, students and pupils concerned went to Court to have the memorandum circular declared null and void. Decide the case

The teachers and the students should be exempted from the flag ceremony. As held in Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, to compel them to participate in the flag ceremony will violate their freedom of religion. Freedom of religion cannot be impaired except upon the showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil which the State has a right to prevent. The refusal of the teachers and the students to participate in the flag ceremony does not pose a clear and present danger. To compel them to participate in the flag ceremony will violate their freedom of religion.

Ten public school teachers of Caloocan City left their classrooms to join a strike, which lasted for one month, to ask for teachers' benefits. The Department of Education, Culture and Sports charged them administratively, for which reason they were required to A and formally investigated by a committee composed of the Division Superintendent of Schools as Chairman, the Division Supervisor as member and a teacher, as another member. On the basis of the evidence adduced at the formal investigation which amply established their guilt, the Director rendered a decision meting out to them the penalty of removal from office. The decision was affirmed by the DECS Secretary and the Civil Service Commission. On appeal, they reiterated the arguments they raised before the administrative bodies, namely: They were deprived of due process of law as the Investigating Committee was improperly constituted because it did not include a teacher in representation of the teachers' organization as required by the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers

The teachers were deprived of due process of law. Under Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, one of the members of the committee must be a teacher who is a representative of the local, or in its absence, any existing provincial or national organization of teachers. According to Fabella v. CA, 283 SCRA 256, to be considered the authorized representative of such organization, the teacher must be chosen by the organization itself and not by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports. Since in administrative proceedings, due process requires that the tribunal be vested with jurisdiction and be so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of impartiality, if the teacher who is a member of the committee was not appointed in accordance with the law, any proceeding before it is

A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next door neighbor B. After a few seconds, he heard B shouting, "Huwag Pilo babayaran kita agad. Then A saw the two hooded men hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the incident to POI Nuval. The following day, POI Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona who were then outside the country. POI Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear, the caretaker allowed him. POI Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure? Decide with reasons.

The warrantless search and the seizure was not valid. It was not made as an incident to a lawful warrantles arrest. (People v. Baula, 344 SCRA 663 [2000]) The caretaker had no authority to waive the right of the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona to waive their right against an unreasonable search and seizure. (People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA547 [1992]) The warrantless seizure of the ski masks and bats cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine, because they were seized after an invalid intrusion into the house.

Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol in Barangay Makatarungan when it noticed an open delivery van neatly covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was loaded with contraband, the team leader flagged down the vehicle which was driven by Hades. He inquired from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades just gave the police officer a blank stare and started to perspire profusely. The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle. Hades did not make any reply. The police officers then lifted the banana leaves and saw several boxes. They opened the boxes and discovered several kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged with illegal possession of illegal drugs.After due proceedings, he was convicted by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police officers searched his vehicle without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him is thus inadmissible in evidence; and that there being no evidence against him, he is entitled to an acquittal. For its part, the People of the Philippines maintains that the case of Hades involved a consented warrantless search which is legally recognized. The People adverts to the fact that Hades did not offer any protest when the police officers asked him if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus, any evidence obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence. Whose claim is correct? Explain

The warrantless search was illegal. There was no probable cause to search the van. The shabu was not immediately apparent. It was discovered only after they opened the boxes. The mere passive silence of Hades did not constitute consent to the warrantless search

Compare and contrast "overbreadth doctrine" from "void-for-vagueness" doctrine

While the overbreadth doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means in a statute which sweep unnecessary broadly and thereby invades the area of protected freedom. A statute is void for vagueness when it forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence cannot necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application

Upon request of a group of overseas contract workers in Brunei, Rev. Father Juan de la Cruz, a Roman Catholic priest, was sent to that country by the President of the Philippines to minister to their spiritual needs. The travel expenses, per diems, clothing allowance and monthly stipend of P5,000 were ordered charged against the President's discretionary fund. Upon post audit of the vouchers therefor, the Commission on Audit refused approval thereof claiming that the expenditures were in violation of the Constitution. Was the Commission on Audit correct in disallowing the vouchers in question?

Yes, the Commission on Audit was correct in disallowing the expenditures. Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution prohibits the expenditure of public funds for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. The sending of a priest to minister to the spiritual needs of overseas contract workers does not fall within the scope of any of the exceptions.

As a reaction to the rice shortage and the dearth of mining engineers, Congress passed a law requiring graduates of public science high school henceforth to take up agriculture or mining engineering as their college course. Several students protested, invoking their freedom to choose their profession. Is the law constitutional?

Yes, the law is constitutional, it is valid exercise of the State's police power. Police power concerns government enactments which precisely interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare or the common good and that the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. It cannot be denied that a rice shortage and a dearth of mining engineers are valid concerns that affect the common good and must be addressed by the State. Since the law is limited to public science high schools, it is within the police power of the State to require the graduates whose education it has subsidized to take up agriculture or mining engineering. The law provides for a lawful method geared toward a lawful objective, and as such may be considered to be a reasonable exercise of the State's police power.

Johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police station a week later and presented himself to the desk sergeant. Coincidentally, the rape victim was in the premises executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with six (6) other suspects, was placed in a police lineup and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This was denied by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that: His arrest was not in accordance with law. Decide.

Yes, the warrantless arrest of Johann was not in accordance with law. As held in Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his case does not fall under the Instances in Rule 113, sec. 5 (a) of the 1997 Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing warrantless arrests. It cannot be considered a valid warrantless arrest because Johann did not commit a crime in the presence of the police officers, since they were not present when Johann had allegedly raped his neighbor. Neither can It be considered an arrest under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b) which allows an arrest without a warrant to be made when a crime has in fact just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge offsets indicating that the person to be arrested committed it. Since Johann was arrested a week after the alleged rape, it cannot be deemed to be a crime which "has just been committed". Nor did the police officers who arrested him have personal knowledge of facts indicating that Johann raped his neighbor.

Recognizing the value of education in making the Philippine labor market attractive to foreign investment, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports offers subsidies to accredited colleges and universities in order to promote quality tertiary education. The DECS grants a subsidy to a Catholic school which requires its students to take at least 3 hours a week of religious instruction. a. Is the subsidy permissible? Explain b. Presuming that you answer in the negative, would it make a difference if the subsidy were given solely in the form of laboratory equipment in chemistry and physics? c. Presume, on the other hand, that the subsidy is given in the form of scholarship vouchers given directly to the student and which the student can use for paying tuition in any accredited school of his choice, whether religious or nonsectarian. Will your answer be different?

a. No, the subsidy is not permissible. Such will foster religion, since the school give religious instructions to students. Besides, it will violate the prohibition in Section 29[2], Article VI of the Constitution against the use of public funds to aid religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, it was held that financial assistance to a sectarian school violates the prohibition against the establishment of religion if it fosters an excessive government entanglement with religion. Since the school requires its students to take at least three hours a week of religious instructions, to ensure that the financial assistance will not be used for religious purposes, the government will have to conduct a continuing surveillance. This involves excessive entanglement with religion. b. If the assistance would be in the form of laboratory equipment in chemistry and physics, it will be valid. The purpose of the assistance is secular, i.e., the improvement of the quality of tertiary education. Any benefit to religion is merely incidental. Since the equipment can only be used for a secular purpose, it is religiously neutral. As held in Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, it will not involve excessive government entanglement with religion, for the use of the equipment will not require surveillance. c. In general, the giving of scholarship vouchers to students is valid. Section 2(3), Article XIV of the Constitution requires the State to establish a system of subsidies to deserving students in both public and private schools. However, the law is vague and overbroad. Under it, a student who wants to study for the priesthood can apply for the subsidy and use it for his studies. This will involve using public funds to aid religion

In a protest rally' along Padre Faura Street, Manila, Pedrong Pula took up the stage and began shouting "kayong mga kurakot kayo! Magsi-resign na kayo! Kung hindi, manggugulo kami dito!" ("you corrupt officials, you better resign now, or else we will cause trouble here!") simultaneously, he brought out a rock the size of a· fist and pretended to hurl it at the flagpole area of a government building. He did not actually throw the rock. a. Police officers who were monitoring the situation immediately approached Pedrong Pula and arrested him. He was prosecuted for seditious speech and was convicted. On appeal, Pedrong Pula argued he was merely exercising his freedom of speech and freedom of expression guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Decide with reasons. b. What are the two (2) basic prohibitions of the freedom of speech and of the press clause? Explain

a. Pedrong Pula should be acquitted. His freedom of speech should not be limited in the absence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the state had the right to prevent. He pretended to hurl a rock but did not actually throw it. He did not commit any act of lawless violence (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160). b. The two basic prohibitions on freedom of speech and freedom of the press are prior restraint and subsequent punishment

Public school teachers staged for days mass actions at the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to press for the immediate grant of their demand for additional pay. The DECS Secretary issued to them a notice of the illegality of their unauthorized action, ordered them to immediately return to work, and warned them of imposable sanctions. They ignored this and continued with their mass action. The DECS Secretary issued orders for their preventive suspension without pay and charged the teachers with gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty for unauthorized abandonment of teaching posts and absences without leave. a. Are employees in the public sector allowed to form unions? To strike? Why? b. The teachers claim that their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances has been curtailed. Are they correct? Why?

a. Section 8, Article III of the Constitution allows employees in the public sector to form unions. However, they cannot go on strike. As explained in Social Security System Employees Association v. CA, 175 SCRA 686, the terms and conditions of their employment are fixed by law. Employees in the public sector cannot strike to secure concessions from their employer. b. The teachers cannot claim that their right to peaceably assemble and petition for the redress of grievances has been curtailed. According to Bangalisan v. CA, 276 SCRA 619, they can exercise this right without stoppage of classes.

Mr. Violet was convicted by the RTC of Estafa. On appeal, he filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Fix Bail for Provisional Liberty Pending Appeal. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and set a bail amount in the sum of Five (5) Million Pesos, subject to the conditions that he secure "a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers residence, it must be with prior notice to the court". Further, he was ordered to surrender his passport to the Division Clerk of Court for safekeeping until the court orders its return. a. Mr. Violet challenges the conditions imposed by the Court of Appeals as violative of his liberty of abode and right to travel. Decide with reasons. b. Are "liberty of abode" and "the right to travel" absolute rights? Explain. What are the respective exception/s to each right if any?

a. The right to change abode and the right to travel are not absolute. The liberty of changing abode may be unpaired upon order of the court. The order of the Court of Appeals is lawful, because the purpose is to ensure that the accused will be available whenever his presence is required. He is not being prevented from changing his abode. He is merely being required to inform the Court of Appeals if he does (Yap v. CA, 358 SCRA 564). b. The liberty of abode and the right to travel are not absolute. The liberty of abode and of changing it can be imposed within the limits prescribed by law upon lawful order of the court. The right to travel may be unpaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law (Section 6, Article III of the Constitution). In addition, the court has the inherent power to restrict the right of an accused who has pending criminal case to travel abroad to maintain its jurisdiction over him

The Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Association (GBTYA), an organization of gay, bisexual, and transgender persons, filed for accreditation with the COMELEC to join the forthcoming party-list elections. The COMELEC denied the application for accreditation on the ground that GBTY A espouses immorality which offends religious dogmas. GBTY A challenges the denial of its application based on moral grounds because it violates its right to equal protection of the law. a. What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal protection cases? Explain. b. Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the present case? Explain.

a. The three levels of test applied in equal protection cases are as follow: First, the STRICT SCRUTINY TEST which is applied when the legislative classification disadvantages a subject class or impinges upon a fundamental right, the statute must fall unless the government can show that the classification serves a compelling governmental interest. Second, the INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST, when the classification, while not facially invidious, gives rise to recurring constitutional difficulties or disadvantages a quasi-suspect class. The law must not only further an important government interest and be related to that interest. The justification must be genuine and must not depend on broad generalizations. Lastly, the RATIONALITY TEST, if neither the strict nor the intermediate scrutiny is appropriate, the statute will be tested for mere rationality. The presumption is in favor of the classification, the reasonableness and fairness of state action and of legitimate grounds of distinction. b. Classification on the basis of sexual orientation is a quasi-subject classification that prompts intermediate review. Sexual orientation has no relation to a person's ability to contribute to society. The discrimination that distinguishes the gays and lesbian persons are beyond their control. The group lacks sufficient political strength to bring an end to discrimination through political mean (Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 618 SCRA 32 [2010])