Privacy of communication and correspondence-part of right to privacy
-it could be tangible (letters, telegrams)or intangible (conversation in telephone or cp or emails in the web)
-there should be no one who would open your letters, or listen to your conversation or record it w/out your consent
-case of zulueta
The wife ransacked the table of the husband and found the love letters. Such letters were used as evidence. SC ruled that they were inadmissible because the wife violated the privacy of the husband.
-case of lah lah drugs
An employee was caught working for a rival company thru the accidental opening of the letter addressed to the employee. The letter was considered admissible because the letter did not indicate that it was confidential/private. Since it was official (anything addressed to the company is official because the company has the right to know). It was opened relating to the persons function.
-case of cabuay
Trillanes was sending letter to other persons through his attorney. Before such letters are brought out of jail the officers in the detention cell would open these letters. Trillanes questioned this act. SC ruled that this letters does not fall under the privilege communication bet the lawyer and client because the lawyer was only used as the courier. In so far as prisoners are concerned they do not enjoy the same privilege as the public at large. SC made a qualification, in case of privilege communication between lawyer and client the officer can still opened but it can’t be read by the officer. Their privacy is limited or they have diminished privacy rights.
RA 4220
Prohibition against recording of private conversation though any mode of recording. The item will be inadmissible as evidence. Also applies to the playing and transcription of such conversation.
The privacy of communication & correspondence should not be intruded upon by anyone except when there is a lawful court order such a search warrant to allow you to intrude into the communication.
When there is a law which has public order and safety as the justification. It is the president who determines subject to such limitations as maybe be provided by law.
Human security Act- bugging of conversation between suspected terrorists
Can be done upon the order of the Court of Appeals
Freedom of expression- state must not abridge
Speech
-it could be in print, verbal or symbols- any form of expressing ones idea and conveying the same to an audience
-includes the freedom to be heard by an audience
-the right to picket, wearing of a black or yellow band is part of freedom of expression
Commercial speech- example: billboards
-“nkatikim ka na ba ng 15 anyos”
-can be regulated by the state
-it should not be illegal and not misleading (no fraud, deceit)
Hecklers veto
-when there is a rally and you shout/boo to stop the person from delivering his speech
-when the speaker reacts to your speech the government may stop you from doing such act to preserve the peace
Facial challenge: (limited to exercise of freedom of speech)
- Vagueness
- Over breadth
Press
-all forms of mass media communication
-can be print or broadcast
Assembly
-meet with friends and discuss
-can be in a private or public place
Freedom from:
- Censorship- no censorship prior the exercise the freedom of expression
- Punishment- no punishment thereafter
Censorship
State cannot ask a copy of our speech prior to our delivery of such speech.
MTRCB
-they can only classify the program for viewership (PG, Rated X, for adults)
-there is no censorship by their act of classifying the program, classifying is a valid act of police power
-case of Soriano:
Extent of their authority: limited to the programs not to the tv personality, they cannot suspend the tv personality but they can suspend the showing of the program.
-obscene movies are not protected by law
Assembly
Censorship in the form of permit as provided in BP 880.- case of reyes vs bagatsing
You don’t need a permit to rally. What you need is a permit to use the public place for purposes of regulation as to time, place, manner and conduct of the rally.
Must be issued by the mayor. He has the discretion to grant it or not using this 2 test:
- Purpose test
What is the purpose of the assembly?
- Auspices test
Who are the organizers of the assembly?
Exception:
If the public place is a freedom park because it is for that purpose. Every LGU must have a freedom park.
When it is a private place. Example: edsa
When you use a state university or state college.
-case of reyes
No censorship in requiring a permit because the freedom of assembly is not absolute. It merely regulates as to the time and place.
Use maximum tolerance in treating rallies! They must be able to exercise their freedom to assemble. Therefore a Calibrated Pre-emptive Response policy is not to be applied because it is unconstitutional.
-case of IBP
There was grave abuse of discretion when the mayor did not inform IBP that the venue was changed. He failed to indicate why he changed the venue against the standard of a clear and imminent danger rule which is indispensable in modifying a permit.
Punishment
-this is not absolute
-obscene, seditious, libelous statements are not protected by law
Libelous: when you make imputations of a crime against a person that he allegedly committed and also physical defects because you have no business to announce that to the whole world because there is a presumption that your intention is to ridicule the person (must be published or be made known to others)
If the person is government official:
the right is limited to the official conduct of a public official
Official conduct
If you criticize the person to make him accountable, such act is valid.
If based on a fair and true report there is no liability on the part of the commentator.
Government officials should not be onion skinned to criticisms.
In case of a judge:
If related to a case that would affect, influence, embarrass the court in the resolution of the case, the law is strict.
If the public, loses its trust in the court because of the statement made in the media people will start taking the law into their own hands.
In the case of the RTC the clear and present danger will be used. In SC the only dangerous tendency rule will be used. Even if the danger will not actually happen but it has the tendency to impede then you will still be liable.
Defense is good faith on the part of media! (say sorry and promise that it will not happen again)
If a person will cause harm and damage to public security, policy and order then he can be penalized for his actions because there is a clear and present danger. (just like shouting in a cinema)
Seditious-inciting the people to revolt against the government
-under normal circumstances where people are not complaining against the government then you can use freedom of speech
-under circumstances where there is mistrust or hatred against the government then freedom of speech is not a valid defense
Obscene
-sex in itself is not obscene
-anything that would cater to the animal instinct of man w/out scientific, medical or artistic value
-if only to arouse the sexual instincts of man
-it is for the court to determine if it is obscene, a police man must ask first for a search warrant in order to get the magazines
=3 tests to determine liability
- Clear and present danger rule- it is imminent that a substantive evil that you must prevent to protect the public (safety/security/order) will occur if such freedom is to be exercised
-more liberal
2 test in freedom of speech to determine whether there should be regulation
Content based- the basis to consider is the content of the speech (is it defamatory, etc)
-case of garci: basis was the content of the tape and there was no danger in the content of the tape (govt must prove that there is clear and present danger to justify the restraint of freedom of speech)
Content neutral-basis to determine is the time, place and manner of the freedom of speech
-case of rally or grant of permits
-during the hostage taking this should have been used to prevent the aggravation of the situation
-all that is needed is a compelling reason
- Dangerous tendency rule
-usually applied during abnormal circumstances
-the evil sought to be avoided is merely speculative
- Balancing of interest
-2 or more interest is involved or in conflict
-case of moises padilla: a movie was made out his life story but they sensationalized it by making it appear that he was a womanizer. A conflict between the right to privacy vs freedom of expression. SC ruled that right to privacy prevails because they are private individuals.
-case of enrile: he objected in the including of his character in a movie about EDSA revolution. A conflict between the right to privacy vs freedom of expression. SC said that freedom of expression prevails because history would not be true to what really happened if he will not be included in the film.
Press
-includes freedom from circulation and information
-newspapers must give free space for candidates- declared as violative or freedom of press and just compensation
-limiting your contracts which provides that your face be put in billboards or ads- valid act of police power
-place specific for putting up posters: some posted pictures/ads on cars- sc ruled that it is not a violation of such limitation because it is a violation of freedom of expression and the vehicle is a private property (same with jingles)
-survey before and after election- SC ruled that the ultimate choice as to who to choose belongs in the people, they are not compelled to vote a certain candidate, the survey is a valid act of freedom of expression/press
Religion
- Non establishment of religion
-state cannot pass a law imposing a religion to the citizens
-the state should be neutral (not hostile nor favor a religion)
-the purpose must be for promoting the general welfare (in the case of xmas or muslim holiday, everyone is given/enjoying the holiday having reunions specially that pinoys are very close knitted) as long as there is no discrimination in the enjoyment of this benefit
-blue Sunday is violative of non establishment of religion
-exception: religious instructions in schools is allowed but it must be optional and there must be parents permit and taught w/in school hours by a credited teacher of that religion and would not entail additional cost to the cover
-grant of tax exemption from property tax if used exclusively, directly and actually for religious purposes
-ownership of educational institutions: must be owned by pinoys or if a corporation must be owned by 60% pinoys (of the capital)
-if established by a religious board or mission even if they are all foreigners is allowed
-state must not use its resources and public funds to support any religion/sect/ministers
-if public funds are used for priest working at penal institutions in the military or government owned leprosarium and orphanages
-addressed against the state
-test to determine if there is an establishment of religion:
1. purpose must be purely legislative secular
2. does not advances nor inhibits religion
3. there must be no excessive entanglement of the state to the recipient
Benevolent neutrality accommodation- no compelling state interest is involved
Most of the catholic/Muslim/inc holidays are of cultural and historical purposes
Case of manosca: more of recognition to the person to his contribution to the history, heritage and culture of the country for being able to establish a very strong religion
Government subsidizes a catholic school: the funds were used to encourage students to train for some skills regardless what religion established that school
Case of Aglipay: the post stamp was used to promote the anniversary of the church which was celebrated at the country because it was more of promoting the country as a tourist site rather than the religion
Case of Garces: brgy funds were used to buy a statue of the saint, the funds however were sourced from private persons from the brgy therefore it was not public funds
Case of halal food: since it has become a tourist attraction in the country the government gave to the office of muslin affairs to decide which food are halal and which are not. SC said that classifying a food as a halal is purely a religious function because the basis of classifying is the Koran. The state would then enforce their own interpretation of what is halal food to the Muslims.
Case of ladlad partylist: they were refused for accreditation as a partylist because they said that they are immoral based on the Christian teachings. SC said that by utilizing the bible and Koran to justify the exclusion of ang ladlad violated the non establishment of religion.
- Freedom of religion (is limited)
2 aspects
1. Freedom to believe- protected by law as long as it stays in your mind because you would not be harming anyone
2. Freedom to exercise what you believe
There must be a clear and dangerous tendency in order for government to interfere with their exercise of their freedom of religion
Case of ebralinag: jehova’s witness students in not saluting to the flag, there is no clear and dangerous tendency
Also jehovas witnesses are allowed to live in with others even if there are legal impediments for as long as they make a declaration of their love which would last until the legal impediment is removed. SC ruled that the government failed to show that there is a clear and dangerous tendency in their exercise of such belief.
Case of iglesia ni cristo: criticism of catholic dogmas does not constitute clear and dangerous tendency.
C. No religious test should be required for a person to exercise his civil or political right
-applied only to the state and not to private institutions
-this cannot be applied in usc seminary because it is not public
-in UP or abellana this rule can be applied because these are government schools
-a priest or ecclesiastical minister is not allowed to run for a local office
-to prevent a union of church and state taking into consideration the influence of these persons on their followers
-father Gonzaga case: he won (was able to exercise the acts of or declared as a mayor) in the SC but was never declared unconstitutional because under the old constitution 10 votes are needed to declare a law unconstitutional.
-a priest is allowed to run if the priest is on leave/retired or that he does not handle a “parokya/parish”
-conflict between members of the church, the civil courts has no jurisdiction over it
-to maintain independence of church and state
Example:
Case of aglipay church:
If a priest would file for a writ of replevin to be able to recover the things to be used for mass from the other priest- it should be dismissed by the court because they don’t have jurisdiction over this, the court cannot look into the wisdom of the church why they placed such new priest to that parish and also why the other priest was transferred to another (purely religious conflict)
BUT
-if it already involves property rights governed by civil law or relationships governed by the family code, the court already has jurisdiction
Example:
If the money of the church is embezzled by the church council treasurer- the court already has jurisdiction because it is a violation of the penal laws.
Persons married who want to be annulled has to file annulment in the court because if only in the church you can still not marry in the eyes of the law and can be prosecuted for bigamy. (court annulment is needed only if you want to marry in the church because this is a requirement imposed by the church)
Liberty of abode
-worker who was given advance payment wanted to go home after receiving such payment- SC ruled that employer cannot stop her from returning to her home, only remedy is file a civil case to recover the payment made
-case where prostitutes where deported to davao: SC ruled that these persons regardless of their job has the right to hose where they want to live
Exception:
When there is a lawful order of a court!
-a person is convicted for imprisonment you cannot raise freedom of abode as defense because there is a lawful order of the court
-in the case of persons compelled by military commander to transfer is unconstitutional because only the court can give a lawful order for them to transfer (but may be justified under police power)
Right to travel
-can be limited by:
In interest of public safety, order and health
-for as long as you are not a danger to of public safety, order and health you have the freedom to roam around
-it is for the admin agencies to provide such limitations such as: passport not to be used in traveling to IRAN (public safety)
-if you have a serious or contagious disease you can be detained
Court may issue a hold departure order and the institutions have to ask first the court if the persons are to be released. (even if the constitution does not include lawful order by court)
Justification is to safeguard the system of justice which is delegated to the court. The court has the discretion to allow a person to leave or remain in the country.
When you post a bail you make a promise that whenever the court needs you, you will appear before the court. If such person is allowed to go abroad how will he be informed and how can the court compel/ enforce the warrant of arrest to him when it no loner has jurisdiction in that country. (can ask for extradition if there is an extradition treaty)
-case of marcoses
Does the right to travel include the right to return?
SC ruled that even if there is no stipulation in the constitution the UDHR and covenant of civil and political rights guarantee that a person can return to his own country. (the incorporation clause allows international laws to form part of the laws of the land)
Right to information
-it is a political right therefore available only to citizens of the country
a. right to information
-an absolute right, not left to the discretion of the government (not confidential/ unclassified)
b. right to access information
-not absolute (refers to time, place, manner of access)
-discretionary to the government agency
Examples:
-you can borrow but you must pay for photocopy
-you may see but you may not have a copy or bring it elsewhere and photocopy it
-you may borrow it but only during office hours
-you may ask the people from civil service the qualifications of the officers of government (govt officials are paid from taxes of the govt so the people have the right to know their credentials)
-also people may ask info about the people loaning from GSIS w/out paying because part of this money is from the people
-public records in the court are matter of public concerns (except regarding a minor)
-on going negotiations for a contract to be entered into (amari wanted to know the offers in selling the land), are still a matter of public concern as long as there are definite propositions (should not cover exceptions such as info affecting public order or safety) because once these are finalized/consummated into contracts there is difficulty in rectifying these acts
-but negotiations in treaty making is not included. They may not be revealed to the public because it is confidential by nature and history (a privilege communication)
-not all information concerning the public can be accessible to the public
1. matters relating to national security
2. military secrets/strategies
3. intelligence reports of police investigations
4. trade secrets
5. bank deposits and accounts of a bank depositor UNLESS the account is subject to a case in court AND when the money is more than 50M, the bank should report it to the money laundering team
6. executive sessions in congress (exclusion of the media)
7. meetings of cabinet with president (executive privilege) case of neri
8. supreme court deliberations (disbarment of Justice Reyes due to the case of Limkaichong
Right to Association
-public and government employees have the right to form and join a union not only for economic purposes but also social purposes
-right to strike is not applicable to government employees
-not unconstitutional for them to strike but there are laws enacted for them not to strike (civil service circular, EO issued by the president)
-right to strike is not an element or essential part of the right to association
-includes the right not to join an organization or union
-joining the lex circle is not a violation of the right to association because if you don’t like to join then you are free not to enroll in USC
-compulsory membership in IBP is also valid (exception to freedom of association) to be able to monitor their acts/shenanigans by integrating them and members are also not compelled to join IBP activities
-security guards are not allowed to form a union
-managerial positions are also prohibited because individually they can already make demands and they know the true condition and secrets of the company
Involuntary Servitude
-nobody is compelled to work for another against his will even if there is a contract (in any form of service)
-even if advance salary is already given you still cant compel her to work
Exceptions:
- penalty of force labor in a final decision by the court
- minor children can be compelled to do chores because they are under patria protestas (parental authority) as long as it does not constitute physical child abuse
- working in a ship or navy (can be compelled to work until ship docks back to point of origin)
- you can also be compelled to work for the protection of the safety of the barangay under posse comitatus
- when there is an order to work form NLRC or DOLE
- when you are required to render military service to protect the state
Non Imprisonment for Debt
-in a contractual debt no one can be imprisoned for non payment
-for humanitarian reason
-make sure that it arises from a contract and not from a criminal act or commission of a crime
-BP 22 is valid because what is being punished is not the nonpayment of debt but the issuance of a worthless check
-non payment of rentals: civil liability/civil debt therefore covered by this right but you may be ejected
-non payment in a hotel: criminal liability because the crime is estafa
-non payment of support:
Civil case: not imprisoned but is a contemptuous act and you can be imprisoned for the contemptuous act
-non payment of community tax: not imprisoned
-non payment of income and other taxes: can be imprisoned
Rights of the Accused -to make the people in equal footing with a very powerful state
Stages
-procedural due process Sec 11
-no one can be made to answer for an act not punished by law
-right to be heard in an impartial court, or quasi judicial body or administrative body
- before the case is filed in court
- arrest
- custodial investigation:
-there has to be an arrest where the accused is deprived of his physical liberty or denied of any freedom of action in any significant way
-law enforcer must conduct the questioning (PDEA, police, brgy captain, tanod, NBI)
-made immediately after the arrest
-confession of the officer to the COA auditor is admissible because the admission was made not in a custodial investigation (COA auditor is not a law enforcer and the officer was not detained)
-accused who confessed to the media or in the presence of the governor without a legal counsel is admissible as evidence because the person who questioned him in not a law enforcer
-in a case where the police found X holding a gun and asked him if it is his gun and X claimed that it is his gun the court ruled that there is still no custodial investigation because he was not yet arrested! He answered spontaneously and voluntarily
-when the husband detained the wife in the house and started questioning the wife the court ruled that there was no custodial investigation because the interrogation was done not by a law enforcer but by the husband
-in a police line up and the witness identifies the suspect: is the testimony of the witness admissible as evidence when the suspect was not assisted by a legal counsel and not informed of their Miranda rights?
SC ruled that police line up generally is not part of custodial investigation therefore they need not be assisted by a counsel and informed of their Miranda rights
-however when there is only one person in the line up that is already considered as the start of custodial information because it is obvious that the person is the subject of such investigation
-custodial investigation is needed for entitlement of the following items
i. right to remain silent
-the right not to say anything/answer to questions that may be used against you or to implicate you
-is not limited to verbal reply, it includes all acts communicative in nature that you are asked to do
-the act must not be mechanical (urinating, removing clothes, foot/finger print, giving a sample of pubic hair, asking the suspect to take a substance to make him puke, weight, height)
-you must use your intelligence and free will to be able to invoke the right to remain silent (re-enacting the crime)
-hand writing
-if you are asked if it is your hand writing you must immediately invoke your right to remain silent because if you answer (yes/no), you already waive such right
- writing something is NOT a mechanical act (case of the postman caught stealing foreign letters, the initials were inadmissible but the letter was admissible)
-right can be waived
Requirements of waiver:
*Reduced into writing
*In the presence of a relative or principal/supervisor of public school in the locality or elective official in the locality
*with assistance of a counsel
ii. right to be assisted by an independent counsel
*must be competent and independent
*must be a lawyer who is vigilant in protecting the rights of the accused
*independent= no conflict of interest between lawyer and accused (ex. Mayor lawyer, fiscal lawyering for the accused, judge)
-in case of an NBI applicant who represented the accused= not an independent lawyer and there is a conflict of interest
-the choice to choose does not belong solely on the accused (as much as possible only/ preferably)
*can be waived but must be in writing and in the presence of another lawyer/counsel
iii. right to be informed of those rights
*cannot be waived
*burden of proof is in the police that indeed he informed the accused of his rights
iv. if detained: right against solitary confinement, away from family
v. the use of cruelty or torture to extract confession is prohibited (can be charged admin, civilly and criminally)
vi. Right to bail
*the only purpose is to guarantee you appearance in court when required
*for criminal offenses only (n/a to military courts or deportation cases [admin proceeding] or when subject of an extradition proceeding)
-except when there is a strong evidence that you will not flee during the pendency of the extradition case
*can be invoked even if there is still no case filed against you
*2 kinds
Bond
Cash as in cash not a check even managers check
Property (only lands can be the subject of property bonds)
-bring the tax declaration or the title and to annotate in the title that this property guarantees the bail bond of the accused. The property can be sold but subject to the encumbrance annotated in the title.
Surety bond (like insurance)
You pay premium to the surety company and they will guarantee your appearance in court in the amount as recommended in your bail bond
-example bail bond is 40K
Pay in advance 20% of the bail bond= 8K as the premium to the surety company
If you will jump bail then the surety company will pay the entire 40K (unless they will be able to bring the accused to the court)
If the accused will abscond then the bail bond will be forfeited to the court in favor of the government.
If he will not then it will be returned to him after the trial whether acquitted or convicted. (same in property bond)
Recognizance
You make a promise to the court that when you are needed to appear on court you appear in court.
Or the accused is released in recognizance to a respected person in the community.
Those convicted and qualified for probation can be released on recognizance because they are already convicted there is no danger when they won’t appear in court because an arrest warrant can always be issued.
When is bail a demandable as a matter of rights, discretionary to the court or should be denied?
- First level courts
Penalty of 6 yrs below
Before conviction: mater of right
When the accused jumps bail before conviction: matter of right
(court can only increase the bail to avoid jump bail)
Convicted and appeals case to RTC: matter of right
(because the offense CHARGED in not a capital offense)
- RTC- 6 yrs and 1 day above
Bail should be denied when the accused is CHARGED with a capital offense (spl-life imprisonment, rpc- reclusion perpetua to death) and the evidence of guilt is strong.
Perpetua- 20 and 1 day above
If Prision mayor to Reclusion temporal before conviction: a matter of right
If already convicted with Prision mayor to Reclusion temporal and appealing to the CA: discretionary to the court to cancel bail bond or allow him to enjoy his liberty under the same bail bond (rule 114)
But if he has a record of the ff the bail bond should be denied:
*recidivist
*habitual delinquent
*evaded sentence before
*has a record of jumping bail
*has a record of violating conditions of parole or probation
Charged with capital punishment before conviction: judge will recommend no bail but can still apply for bail
-the court must hear the application for bail to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong
-if not strong then it is still a matter of right
But if CHARGED with Reclusion Perpetua but convicted with Reclusion Temporal or lower: it should be denied because it should be based on the charge and not the conviction
A minor charged with capital offense the bail is a matter of right because being a minor is privilege mitigating circumstance which could lower the charge to 2 degrees
Amount of bail:
Determined by the court and the only limit is that it must not be excessive
Consider the:
Nature of the charge, financial capacity of the accused, age of the accused, being a woman, health condition, risk of flight, evaded sentence before, etc
*not suspended when martial law or declared or when writ of habeas corpus is suspended
*if he avails of the bail he can still question the validity of his arrest and detention
From police:
-if no prosecutor: bring to the court to file a complaint
-if there is: bring to prosecutor for the prosecutor to file an information and file it in court
-the fiscal will before the expiration of the time period before the case is filed in court, conduct an inquest (based only on the complaint of the police or complainant unless the accused waives the right against illegal detention and would demand for PI, then in that case the fiscal will then give the accused 7 to 10 days to file his counter affidavit)
-once the case is filed in court he has 10 days from filing of case in court to demand his right to PI (if accused of a crime punishable of more than 6 yrs) and if granted by the court the case is remanded to the fiscal to conduct a PI
- preliminary investigation
-during the PI he is entitled to due process of law and must be given the right to answer the charges against him but there is no face to face confrontation/examination with the witness because that in not available in PI
-he is also granted the right to speedy disposition of his case- delay in the conduct of PI (3 yrs or more) is tantamount to denial of due process of law and can be the reason for dismissal of the case
-available also in admin and quasi judicial bodies
-speedy trial: hearing of merits (after last pleading is filed there is already the right to speedy disposition)= can lead to acquittal
-speedy disposition: moment it is submitted for decision it has to be resolved immediately= if committed by fiscal it can result to dismissal, if committed by the judge then still valid but judge can be subject to admin liability
- during the pendency of the case
Art 3 Sec 14 of the Constitution
- after the case is terminated
- double jeopardy
- cruel and excessive penalties
- right against ex post facto law
- bill of attainder
No comments:
Post a Comment