"
BILL OF RIGHTS Q. How is the Bill of Rights stregthee! i the "#$% Costit&tio' (B)r Q&estio* A. There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights is strengthened in the 198 !onstit"tion# 1# $ew rights are given e%&licit recognition s"ch as' the &rohi(ition against detention (y reason of &olitical (eliefs and as&ira as&iratio tions# ns# The waiver waiver of )irand )iranda a rights rights is now re*"ir re*"ired ed to (e +ade +ade in writin writing g with with the assista assistance nce of co"nsel# The "se of solitary' inco++"nicado and secret detent detention ion &laces &laces is &rohi( &rohi(ite ited' d' while while the e%ist e%istenc ence e of s"(standard and inade*"ate &enal facilities is +ade the concern of legislation# Ther There e is als also rec recogni ogniti tion on of the the rig right of e%&res e%&ressio sion' n' an e%&res e%&ress s &rohi( &rohi(iti ition on agains againstt the "se of tort"re' a +andate to the State to &rovide co+&ensation and reha(ilitation for victi+s of tort"re and their fa+ilies# ,# So+e rights have (een e%&anded# For instance' free access access to co"rts co"rts now incl"des incl"des access access to *"asi-."di *"asi-."dicial cial (odies and to ade*"ate legal assistance# /# The re*"ire+ents for interfering with so+e rights have (een +ade +ore strict# For instance' only ."dges can now iss"e search warrants or warrants of arrest# There +"st (e a law a"thori0ing the %ec"tive 2e&art+ent to interfere with the &rivacy of co++"nication' the li(erty of a(ode' and the right to travel (efore these rights +ay (e i+&aired or c"rtailed# 3# The !onstit"tion now &rovides that the s"s&ension of the the &riv &rivil ileg ege e of the the writ writ of ha(e ha(eas as cor& cor&"s "s does does not not s"s&end the right to (ail' th"s resolving a doctrinal dis&"te of long standing# 4# The s"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s cor&"s and the &rocla+atio &rocla+ation n of +artial law have (een li+ited to 56 days and are now s"(.ect to the &ower of !ongress !ongress to revo7e# revo7e# In addition' addition' the S"&re+e !o"rt is given the ."risdiction' "&on the &etition of any citi0en to deter+ deter+ine ine the s"ffi s"fficie ciency ncy of the fact"a fact"all (asis (asis of the s"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s and the &rocla+ation of +artial law# 5# The S"&re+e !o"rt is e+&owered to ado&t r"les for the &rotection and enforce+ent of constit"tional rights# # rt# II' Sec# 11 co++its the State to a &olicy which &laces &laces val"e on the dignity dignity of every every h"+an &erson &erson and g"arantees f"ll res&ect for h"+an rights# 8# !o++ission !o++ission on H"+an Rights is created# 9# nder nder rt# rt# :;I'S :;I'Sec# ec# 4<,= the State is +andat +andated ed to &ro+ &ro+ot ote e res& res&ec ectt for for the the &eo& &eo&le le>s >s righ rights ts a+on a+ong g the the +e+(ers of the +ilitary in the &erfor+ance &erfor+ance of their d"ty# d"ty#
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS /er,it )! shi//ig !o&,ets. The 1essel )! it8s )rg )rgo o were were hel! hel! )! )! ) w)rr w)rr) )tt of Sei9 Sei9&r &re e )! )! +etetio w)s iss&e! )fter !&e i1estig)tio. I the o&rse of the forfeit&re /roee!igs2 the shi/ )/t)i )! )! the the shi/ shi/88s resi resi!e !et t )ge )gett e:e e:e&t &te! e! swor swor st)te,ets -efore the C&sto, leg)l offier )!,ittig th)t otr)-)! )rgo were fo&! )-o)r! the 1essel. The The shi//i shi//ig g lies lies o-0e o-0ett to the )!,iss )!,issio io of the st)te,ets )s e1i!ee ote!ig th)t !&rig their e:e&tios2 the )/t)i )! the shi//ig )get were ot )ssiste! -3 o&sel2 o&sel2 i 1iol)tio 1iol)tio of !&e /roess. +ei!e. (B)r Q&estio* A. The ad+ission of the state+ents of the ca&tain and the shi&&ing agent as evidence did not violate d"e &rocess even even if they were not assist assisted ed (y co"nse co"nsel# l# In Feeder International Line Ltd. V C.A, 197 SCRA 842 ' it was held that the assistance of co"nsel is not indis&ensa(le to d"e &rocess in forfeit"re &roceedings since s"ch &roceedings are not cri+inal in nat"re# Q. LOI No. $;# whih whih /rohi-i /rohi-ite! te! the &se of ,otor ,otor 1ehi 1ehil les es with with the the H )! )! EH lie lies se e /l)t /l)tes es o wee4e!s )! holi!)3s w)s 7&estioe! o the gro&! th)t the3 were !eie! the right to &se their )r o s&h !)3s )! 1iol)te! the !&e /roess l)&se )! e7&)l /rotetio l)&se )s other ,otor 1ehiles were ot -)e! o s&h !)3s. +ei!e. A.2"e A.2"e &rocess cannot (e invo7ed' (eca"se LOI 859 is an e%erci e%ercise se of the &olice &olice &ower &ower of the State# State# It see7s see7s to conser conserve ve the "se of energy energy reso"rce reso"rces s (eca"s (eca"se e of the s&iraling s&iraling &rices of &etrole"+ &etrole"+ &rod"cts# &rod"cts# *"al &rotectio &rotection n does not re*"ire adherence to the all-or-nothing &olicy# @hether or not other +eas"res sho"ld have (een ado&ted is left to the &olicy &olicy discretio discretion n of the &olitical &olitical (ranches# (ranches# (Bautista VS Juinio, 127 SCRA 329 Q. A o,/l)it w)s file! -3 itelligee )gets of the B&re)& of I,,igr)tio )! +e/ort)tio (BI+* )g)ist Ste1ie2 )
@*
O the the gro gro&! th) th)t Ste1i te1ie e w)s w)s !eie eie! ! !&e /roess -e)&se the BI+ Co,, Co,,is issi sio oer ers s who who re! re!er ere! e! the the !eisio were ot the oes who reei1e! the e1i!ee2 i 1iol)tio of the >He who !ei!es ,&st he)r? r&le. Is he orret' O the the gro gro& &! ! th)t th)t ther there e w)s ) 1io 1iol) l)ti tio o of !&e /roess -e)&se the o,/l) o,/l)i i)t )ts2 s2 the /rose /rose&to &torr )! the he)rig offiers were )ll s&-or!i)tes of the BI+ Co,,i Co,,issi ssioe oers rs who re!er re!ere! e! the !e/ort)tio !eisio. Is he orret' (B)r Q&estio*
A. 1= $o' Stevie is not correct' s held in Ada!son " Ada! Ada!so son, n, In# In# VS A!or A!ores es 1$2 1$2 SCRA SCRA 237 237 as
@ to hold a hearing on the (asis of which his decision will (e +ade +ade can can (e dele delega gate ted d and and is not not offe offens nsiv ive e to d"e d"e &rocess# The co"rt noted that CS long as a &arty is not de&rived of his right to &resent his own case and s"(+it evidence in s"&&ort thereof' and the decision is s"&&orted (y the evidence in record' there is no *"estion that the re*"ire+ents of d"e &rocess and fair trial are f"lly +et# In short' there is no a(rogation of res&onsi(ility on the &art of the officer concerned as the act"al decision re+ains with and is +ade (y said officer# It is however' re*"ired that to give the s"(stance of a hearing' which is for the &"r&ose of +a7ing deter+inations "&on evidence the officer who +a7es the deter+inations +"st consider and a&&raise the evidence which ."stifies the+D# ,= $o' Stevie was not denied d"e &rocess si+&ly (eca"s (eca"se e the co+&l co+&lain ainant ants' s' the &rosec &rosec"to "tor' r' and the hea hearing ring off officer icers s were were all all s"n(o "n(ord rdiinat nates of the !o++ !o++is issi sion oner er of the the B"re B"rea" a" of I++ig ++igra rati tion on and and 2e&ortation# In accordance with the r"ling in +rlaner " -aliner, -aliner, In# VS Court o( Industrial Relations, 11 )/il 47,the 47,the findings of the s"(ordinates s"(ordinates are not concl"sive concl"sive "&on "&on the !o++is !o++issio sioner ners' s' who have have the discre discretio tion n to acce&t or re.ect the+# @hat is i+&ortant is that Stevie was not de&rived de&rived of his right right to &resent &resent his own case case and s"(+ s"(+it it evid eviden ence ce in s"&& s"&&or ortt ther thereo eof' f' the the deci decisi sion on is s"&&orte rted (y s"(stantial evidence' and the !o++ !o++is issi sion oner ers s acte acted d on thei theirr own own inde inde&e &end nden entt consideration of the law and facts of the case' and did not si+&ly acce&t the views of their s"(ordinates in arriving at a decision#
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Q. Se. Se. $#2 RA ;#%F ;#%F re)ti re)tig g the PNP /ro1i! /ro1i!es es for o,/&lsor3 retire,et )t the )ge of F;. It /ro1i!es howe howe1e 1err2 th)t th)t the the ,e,,e,-er ers s of the the INP INP who who were were )-sor)-sor-e! e! -3 the PNP sh)ll sh)ll retire retire )t the )ge of ;D !&rig the G3e)r tr)sitor3 /erio!. So,e ,e,-ers of the the PC who were were )-so )-sorr-e! e! -3 the the PNP PNP )! )! who who re)he re)he! ! F; reei1 reei1e! e! otie oties s of retire retire,e ,et. t. The3 The3 h)llege! Se. $# )s 1iol)ti1e of the e7&)l /rotetio l)&se sie it )//lies ol3 to the PNP. +ei!e. A.Th A.The e cont conten enti tion on is not not corr correc ectt (eca (eca"s "se e ther there e is a s"(stantial distinction (etween the+ and the +e+(ers of the the I$A I$A# nde nderr the the laws laws enfo enforc rced ed (efo (efore re R 594 594'' +e+(ers of the A! were already retira(le at the age of 56# The transitory &eriod of 3 years is intended to give the+
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS (etween those favored' which +ay or +ay not need it at all' and the ."diciary' which needs it# Q. >? w)s setee! to ) /e)lt3 of " 3e)r )! F ,oths of /risio orreio)l )! to /)3 ) fie of P$2DDD.DD P$2DDD.DD22 with s&-si!i)r3 s&-si!i)r3 i,/riso i,/riso,et ,et i )se of sol1e3. After ser1ig his /riso ter,2 >? )s4e! the +iret +iretor or of Priso Prisos s whethe whetherr he o&l! o&l! )lre)! )lre)!3 3 -e rele)se!. >? w)s )s4e! to /)3 the fie of PF2DDD.DD )! he s)i! he o&l! ot )ffor! it2 -eig ) i!iget. The The +iret +iretor or ifor, ifor,e! e! hi, he h)s to ) )!!iti )!!itio) o)ll /riso ter, )t the r)te of oe !)3 /er eight /esos i )or!)e with Artile # of the Re1ise! Pe)l Co!e. The l)w3er of >? file! ) /etitio for h)-e)s or/&s ote!ig th)t the f&rther i)rer)tio of his liet for &/)i! fies 1iol)tes the e7&)l /rotetio l)&se of the Costit&tio. +ei!e.(B)r Q&estio* Alter)ti1e Aswers= 1= The The &eti &etiti tion on sho" sho"ld ld (e gran grante ted' d' (eca (eca"s "se e article /9 of the RA! is "nconstit"tional# In %ate %ate V S/or S/ort, t, 41 41 S 39$, 39$, the nited nited States S"&re+e !o"rt held that i+&osition of s"(sidiary i+&rison+ent "&on a convict who is too too &oor &oor to &ay &ay a fine fine viol violat ates es e*"a e*"all &rotection' (eca"se econo+ic stat"s cannot serve as a valid (asis for disting"ishing the d"rati d"ration on of the i+&ris i+&rison+ on+ent ent (etwe (etween en a convict who is a(le to &ay the fine and a convict who is "na(le to &ay it# ,= On the the ot other her han hand' d' in nited States e5 rel. )ri6itera VS ross, 239 F Su 118, it was held held that that the the i+&o i+&osi siti tion on of s"(s s"(sid idia iary ry i+&rison+ent for ina(ility to &ay a fine does not violat violate e e*"al e*"al &rotec &rotectio tion' n' (eca"s (eca"se e the &"nish &"nish+en +entt sho"ld sho"ld (e tailor tailored ed to fit the indivi individ"a d"al' l' and e*"al e*"al &rotec &rotectio tion n does does not co+&el the eradication of every disadv disadvant antage age ca"sed ca"sed (y indige indigence nce## The decisi decision on was affir+ affir+ed ed (y the S !irc"i !irc"itt !o"rt of &&eals in /34 F,d 4//' and the S S"&r S"&r+e +e !o"r !o"rtt deni denied ed the the &eti &etiti tion on for for certio certiorari rari in /8, S 911# 911# This r"ling r"ling was ado& ado&te ted d (y the the Illi Illino nois is S! in Aeo& Aeo&le le ; @illia+s#
SEARCHES AN+ SEIURES Q. So,e /olie /olie o/er)ti1es o/er)ti1es22 )tig )tig &!er &!er ) l)wf&ll3 l)wf&ll3 iss& iss&e! e! w)rr w)rr) )tt for for the the /&r/ /&r/os ose e of se)r se)rh hi ig g for for fire)r,s i the Ho&se of lo)te! )t No. "D Sh)w Bo&le1 Bo&le1)r! )r!22 P)sig2 P)sig2 6etro 6etro 6)il) 6)il)22 fo&!2 fo&!2 iste iste)! )! of fire)r,s2 te 4ilogr),s of o)ie. "* 6)3 6)3 the s)i! s)i! /oli /olie e o/er) o/er)ti ti1e 1es s l)wf& l)wf&ll ll3 3 sei9e the o)ie' E:/l)i 3o&r )swer. @* 6)3 s&e s&essf ssf&ll &ll3 3 h)lle h)llege ge the the leg)li leg)lit3 t3 of the the se)r se)rh h o the the gro& gro&! ! th)t th)t the the /e)e offiers !i! ot ifor, hi, )-o&t his right to re,)i silet )! his right to o&sel' E:/l)i 3o&r )swer. * S&// S&//os ose e the /e)e /e)e offi offie ers rs were were )-le )-le to fi! &liese! fire)r,s i the ho&se i ) )!0) )!0)e et t lot2 lot2 th)t th)t is2 is2 No. No. "@ Sh)w Sh)w Bo&le1 Bo&le1)r! )r!22 whih whih is )lso )lso owe! owe! -3 . 6)3 the3 l)wf& wf&ll3 sei9e the s)i! &li &lie es se! e! fire fire)r )r, ,s' E:/l E:/l)i )i 3o&r 3o&r )swer. (B)r Q&estio*
)/il 77, an article whose &ossession is &rohi(ited (y law +ay (e sei0ed witho"t the need of any search warrant if it was discovered d"ring a lawf"l search# The additional re*"ire+ent laid down in Roan VS -onales, 14$ SCRA *87 that the discovery of the article +"st have (een +ade inadvertently was also satisfied in this case# ,= $o' : cannot s"ccessf"lly challenge the legality of the searcvh si+&ly (eca"se the &eace officers did not infor+ hi+ a(o"t his right to re+ain silent and his right to co"nsel# Sec# 1,<1=' rt# III of the 198 !onstit"tion &rovides Cny &erson "nder investigation for the co++ission of an offense shall have the right to (e infor+ed of his right to re+ain silent and to have co+&etent and inde&endent co"nsel &refera(ly of his own choice#D s held in )eole VS ', 1$8 SCRA 111' for this &rovision to a&&ly' a s"s&ect +"st (e "nder investigation# There was no investigation involved in this case# /= The "nlicensed firear+s stored at 1, Shaw Bo"levard +ay lawf"lly (e sei0ed their &ossession is illegal# s held in aon#ia V )ala#io, 8 )/il 77 ' when an individ"al &ossesses contra(and <"nlicensed firear+s (elong to this category=' he is co++itting a cri+e and he can (e arrested witho"t a warrant and the contra(and can (e sei0ed# Alter)ti1e Aswer= In accordance with the r"lings in etin V Villareal, 42 )/il 88* and )eole V S Ju#o, *4 )/il **7 ' the "nlicensed firear+s fo"nd in the ho"se at 1, Shaw Bo"levard +ay not (e lawf"lly sei0ed' since they were not incl"ded in the descri&tion of the articles to (e sei0ed (y virt"e of the search warrant# The search warrant descri(ed the articles to (e sei0ed as firear+s in the ho"se of : located at 16 Shaw Bo"levard#
Q. A ifor,)t )//rise! Sgts. S&!i))l )! Ah),)! of the /resee of ) !r&g /&sher )t the orer of r! St2 )! Ri9)l A1e&e2 Olog)/o Cit3. Res/o!ig to the ifor,)tio2 the32 together with C)/t. C)stillo2 g)1e the ifor,)t ,)r4e! ,oe3 to -&t ,)ri0&)). The ifor,)t ow t&re! /ose&r-&3er2 ret&re! with two sti4s of ,)ri0&)). C)/t. C)stillo )g)i g)1e s)i! ifor,)t ,)r4e! ,oe3 to /&rh)se ,)ri0&)). The ifor,)t /ose&r-&3er there)fter ret&re! with )other two sti4s of ,)ri0&)). The /olie offiers the /roee!e! to the orer of r! St. )! Ri9)l A1e&e )! effete! the )rrest of the )//ell)t whih w)s 7&estioe! )s &ostit&tio)l. R&le o the otetio. A.The arrest was legal (eca"se the arresting officers had &ersonal 7nowledge of the facts i+&licating the a&&ellant with the sale of the +ari."ana to the infor+ant-&ose"r ("yer# The arrest therefore' was legal and the conse*"ent search which yielded ,6 stic7s of +ari."ana was lawf"l for (eing incident to a valid arrest# The fact that the &rosec"tion failed to &rove the sale of +ari."ana (eyond reasona(le do"(t does not "nder+ine the legality of the a&&ellant>s arrest# It is not necessary that the cri+e sho"ld have (een esta(lished as fact in order to regard the detention as legal# The legality of detention does not de&end "&on the act"al co++ission of the cri+e' ("t "&on the nat"re of the deed when s"ch characteri0ation +ay
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS The twenty stic7s of +ari."ana are ad+issi(le in evidence and the trial co"rt>s finding that the a&&ellant is g"ilty of &ossession is correct# ()eole VS Ra!os June 4, 199 Q. I ) )//li)tio for ) se)rh w)rr)t2 it w)s )!,itte! th)t the 7&estios /ro/o&!e! i the s&//ose! to -e se)rhig 7&estios were /ret3/e!2 th)t the ol3 /)rtii/)tio of the )//li)t for se)rh w)rr)t w)s to s&-sri-e -efore the 0&!ge. R&le o the 1)li!it3 of the se)rh w)rr)t. A. The search warrant is void (eca"se the r"le that the ."dge +"st cond"ct searching *"estions and answers (efore the iss"ance of the warrants were not co+&lied with# ()eudon VS CA, 0o6. 1*, 199 . In fact' in Ro) VS
<& B)? iss&e! -3 CO6ELEC2 the Serge)t)t)r,s of the Ho&se wrote hi, ) letter re7&estig the ret&r of the g&s. So he i,,e!i)tel3 istr&te! his !ri1er to get the g&s fro, his ho&se )t V)lle Ver!e )! ret&r the s),e. He o,/lie!2 -&t i,,e!i)tel32 ) he4/oit w)s est)-lishe! o&tsi!e of the B)t)s) Co,/le: so,e @D ,eters )w)3 fro, the etr)e. Whe the !ri1er )//ro)he! the he4/oit2 the )r w)s se)rhe! )! the /olie fo&! the g&s )t the o,/)rt,et2 /l)e! i ) -)g. He w)s )//rehe!e!. He w)s h)rge! -efore the Q&e9o Cit3 Prose&tor8s Offie2 -&t it w)s !is,isse!. The L)w +e/)rt,et of the CO6ELEC2 howe1er2 reo,,e!e! the /rose&tio of the !ri1er )! Ai)g for 1iol)tio of the O,i-&s Eletio Co!e. The3 7&estioe! the ,)er -3 whih the se)rh w)s o!&te!2 )s it w)s witho&t )3 w)rr)t. +ei!e. A. The search was not valid# There was no evidence to show that the &olice+en were i+&elled to &"t "& the chec7&oint (eca"se of a confidential re&ort leading the+ to reasona(ly (elieve that certain +otorists were engaged in g"nr"nning' etc# There was no indication fro+ the &ac7age or (ehavior of niag>s driver that co"ld have triggered the s"s&icion of the &olice+en' hence' the search was not valid and the firear+s o(tained cannot (e ad+itted for any &"r&ose in any &roceeding# ( Ania VS C:+L+C :#t. 7, 1994 Q. P&rs&ig re/orts th)t gre)t 7&)tities of /rohi-ite! !r&gs )re -eig s,&ggle! )t ightti,e thro&gh the
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
G o,/)rt,et of the )r. The /rohi-ite! !r&g w)s /ro,/tl3 )! the -o3 w)s -ro&ght to the /olie st)tio for 7&estioig. "* W)s the se)rh witho&t w)rr)t leg)l' @* Before iterrog)tio2 the /olie,) o !&t3 ifor,e! the -o3 i Eglish th)t he !oes >h)1e ) right to re,)i silet )! the right to o&sel. Howe1er2 there w)s o o&sel )1)il)-le )s it w)s ,i!ight. He !el)re! or)ll3 th)t he !i! ot ee! )3 l)w3er )s he w)s ioet2 sie he w)s ol3 -rigig the ,)ri0&)) le)1es to his e,/lo3er i Q&e9o Cit3 )! w)s ot ) !r&g &ser. He w)s h)rge! with illeg)l /ossessio of /rohi-ite! !r&gs. Is his w)i1er of the right to o&sel 1)li!' (B)r Q&estio* A. 1= $o' the search was not valid' (eca"se there was no &ro(a(le ca"se for cond"cting the search# s held in Al!eda San#/e VS S, 413 S 2*8, while a +oving vehicle can (e searched witho"t a warrant' there +"st still (e &ro(a(le ca"se# In the case in *"estion' there was nothing to indicate that +ari."ana leaves were hidden in the tr"n7 of the car# The +ere fact that the (oy did not o(.ect to the ins&ection of the car does not constit"te consent to the search# s r"led in )eole V Buros, 144 SCRA 1, the fail"re to o(.ect to a warrantless search does not constit"te consent' es&ecially in the light of the fact# Alter)ti1e Aswer= 1= ?es# The re*"ire+ent of &ro(a(le ca"se differs fro+ case to case# In this one' since the &olice agents are confronted with large scale s+"ggling of &rohi(ited dr"gs' e%istence of which is of &"(lic 7nowledge' they can set "& chec7&oints at strategic &laces' in the sa+e way that of in a neigh(orhood a child is 7idna&&ed' it is lawf"l to search cars and vehicles leaving the neigh(orhood or village# This sit"ation is also si+ilar to warrantless searches of +oving vehicles in c"sto+ area' which searches have (een "&held# <)aa V ao, 22 SCRA 8$7. The r"le is (ased on &ractical necessity# ,= $O' the waiver of the right to co"nsel is not valid' since it was not red"ced in writing and +ade in the &resence of co"nsel# nder Section 1,<1=' rt# III of the !onstit"tion to (e valid' the waiver +"st (e +ade in writing and in the &resence of co"nsel#
Q. +o the or!i)r3 right )g)ist &re)so)-le se)rhes )! sei9&res )//l3 to se)rhes o!&te! )t the )ir/ort /&rs&)t to ro&tie )ir/ort se&rit3 /roe!&res' A.$o# Aersons +ay lose the &rotection of the search and sei0"re cla"se (y e%&os"re of their &ersons or &ro&erty to the &"(lic in a +anner reflecting a lac7 of s"(.ective e%&ectation of &rivacy' which e%&ectation society is &re&ared to recogni0e as reasona(le# S"ch recognition is i+&licit in air&ort sec"rity &roced"res# Aassengers atte+&ting to (oard an aircraft ro"tinely &ass thro"gh +etal detectorsE their carry on (aggage as well as chec7ed l"ggage are ro"tinely s"(.ected to %-ray scans# Sho"ld these &roced"res s"ggest the &resence of s"s&icio"s o(.ects' &hysical searches are cond"cted to
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS and sei0"res do not a&&ly to ro"tine air&ort &roced"res# )eole VS Leila Jo/nson, 'e#e!&er 18, 2
Q. w)s )rreste! for )! h)rge! with Ro--er3. /oste! -)il i or!er to -e rele)se! te,/or)ril3. +&rig tri)l )! -efore eterig his /le)2 r)ise! o-0etios reg)r!ig the leg)lit3 of his )rrest for ro--er3. The /rose&tio2 howe1er2 l)i,s th)t the /ostig of the -)il -o! w)s t)t),o&t to ) effeti1e w)i1er of the l)tter8s right to 7&estio the leg)lit3 of the )rrest. ). +i! the /ostig of the -)il -o! -3 ),o&t to ) w)i1er of the right to 7&estio the leg)lit3 of his )rrest' -. W)s there ) w)i1er of the right to 7&estio the leg)lit3 of the )rrest if the s),e w)s ,)!e )fter eterig ) /le). A. ).
$o# There was no waiver of the right to *"estion the legality of his arrest# nder R"le 113' Sec# ,5 of the Revised R"les on !ri+inal Aroced"re' an a&&lication for or ad+ission to (ail shall not (ar the acc"sed fro+ challenging the validity of his arrest &rovided he raises the+ (efore entering his &lea# The co"rt shall resolve the +atter as early as &ractica(le ("t not later than the start of the trial of the case# -. ?es# : will (e esto&&ed fro+ *"estioning the illegality of his arrest when he vol"ntarily s"(+itted to the ."risdiction of the co"rt (y entering a &lea of not g"ilty and (y &artici&ating in the trial# nder the Revised R"les on !ri+inal Aroced"re when the acc"sed enters his &lea he waives the right to *"estion the legality of his arrest#
PRIVACY O CO66UNICATIONS Q.A!re) )! 6oi) h)! ofrot)tio i the l)tter8s offie. A!re) seretl3 t)/e! the o1ers)tio. The o1ers)tio -etwee the, -or!ere! o h&,ili)tig )! 1e:ig the /erso)lit3 )! !igit3 of 6oi) for whih she file! ) i1il )se for !),)ges. +&rig the he)rig A!re) /ro!&e! the reor!e! t)/e to /ro1e th)t 6oi) i!ee! is<e! her. 6oi)2 i ) o&ters&it file! ) ri,i)l )se )g)ist A!re) for 1iol)tio of RA G@DD whih /rohi-its )! /e)li9es wire t)//ig )! other 1iol)tios of /ri1)te o,,&i)tio. A!re) ,o1e! to !is,iss the ri,i)l )se o the gro&! th)t the )lleg)tios !o ot ostit&te ) offese )! th)t the t)/ig of o1ers)tio -etwee the /)rties is ot o1ere! -3 RA G@DD. The tri)l o&rt gr)te! s)i! ,otio whih !eisio w)s re1erse! -3 the Co&rt of A//e)ls. A!re) ele1)te! the )se to the S&/re,e Co&rt o Certior)ri. Is A!re) li)-le for 1iol)tio of RA G@DD' +ei!e. A.?es# Section 1 of R 3,66 clearly and "ne*"ivocally &rohi(its any &erson' not a"thori0ed (y all the &arties to any &rivate conversation' to secretly ta&e record any co++"nication (y +eans of a ta&e recorder# !ongressional records s"&&ort the view that the intention of the law+a7ers in enacting R 3,66 is to +a7e illegal any "na"thori0ed ta&e recording of &rivate conversation or co++"nication ta7en (y either of the &arties the+selves or third &ersons# Ra!ire VS CA 248 SCRA $9 Q. The /olie h)! s&s/iios th)t J&) S),so
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
F )tio)l se&rit3. W)s the or!er of the Chief of /olie 1)li!' (B)r Q&estio* S&ggeste! Aswer= $o' the order of the !hief of Aolice is not valid (eca"se there is no law which a"thori0es hi+ to order the Aost+aster to o&en the letters addressed to and co+ing fro+ "an Sa+son# n official in the %ec"tive 2e&art+ent cannot interfere with the &rivacy of corres&ondence and co++"nication in the a(sence of a law a"thori0ing hi+ to do so or a lawf"l order of the co"rt#
REE+O6 O EPRESSION Q. The Iglesi) Ni Cristo (INC* w)s re7&ire! -3 the 6TRCB to s&-,it to it for re1iew the 1i!eo t)/es for its /rogr),s. The 6TRCB !is)//ro1e! the t)/es o the gro&! th)t the3 )tt)4e! the C)tholi religio. The INC ote!e! th)t re7&irig it to s&-,it 1i!eot)/es for re1iew -3 the Bo)r! 1iol)te! free!o, of s/eeh )! free!o, of religio. Who, wo&l! 3o& s&st)i2 the 6TRCB or the INC. A. The )TR!B# The video ta&es can (e s"(+itted for review# The right to act on one>s (elief can (e s"(.ect to reg"lation# The &"(lic (roadcast involve the real+ of action# Television reaches even children# However' the showing of the video ta&es cannot (e &rohi(ited# There is no clear and &resent danger of a s"(stantial evil which the state has a right to &revent# (Ilesia 0i Cristo VS CA, 2$9 SCRA $29 Q. +istig&ish >otet-)se! restritios? o free s/eeh fro, >otete&tr)l restritios?2 )! gi1e e:),/le of e)h. A.Content-based restritions are i+&osed (eca"se of the content of the s&eech and are' therefore' s"(.ect to the clear-and-&resent danger test# For e%a+&le' a r"le s"ch as that involved in Sanidad VS Co!ele# <181 S!R 4,9=' &rohi(iting col"+nists' co++entators and anno"ncers fro+ ca+&aigning either for or against an iss"e in a scr"tiny# These restrictions are censorial and therefore they (ear a heavy &res"+&tion of constit"tional invalidity# In addition' they will (e tested for &ossi(le over(readth and vag"eness# Content-ne!tral restritions on the other hand' li7e Sec# 11<(= of R $o# 5535' which &rohi(its the sale or donation of &rint s&ace and air ti+e to &olitical candidates d"ring the ca+&aign &eriod are not concerned with the content of the s&eech# These reg"lations need only a s"(stantial govern+ent interest to s"&&ort the+# deferential standard for review will s"ffice to test their validity# The clear-and-&resent danger r"le is ina&&ro&riate as a test for deter+ining the constit"tional validity of laws' li7e Sec# 11 <(= of R $o# 5535' which are not concerned with the content of the &olitical ads ("t only with their incidents# To a&&ly the clear-and-&resent danger test to s"ch reg"latory +eas"re wo"ld (e li7e "sing a sledgeha++er to drive a nail when reg"lar ha++er is all that is needed# The S"&re+e !o"rt a&&lied the O>Brien Test in the case of S;S VS Co!ele#, a $, 21. The test for this difference in the level of ."stification for the restriction of s&eech is that content(ased restrictions distort &"(lic de(ate' have i+&ro&er +otivation' and are "s"ally i+&osed (eca"se of fear of how &eo&le will react to a &artic"lar s&eech $o s"ch
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS )re) of /&-li)tio 4ow )s >Co,ele S/)e? to e)-le the )!i!)tes to ,)4e t heir 7&)lifi)tios )! other ifor,)tio rel)ti1es to the )!i!)tes. Is s&h ) resol&tio 1)li!' E:/l)i. B. Wo&l! 3o&r )swer -e the s),e if the resol&tio re7&ire! -ro)!)st ,e!i) to gi1e >free )irti,e? for the s),e /&r/ose' E:/l)i. A. A.
The resol"tion is invalid (eca"se the !O)L! cannot &roc"re &rint s&ace witho"t &aying ."st co+&ensation therefore# ()/iliine )ress Institute VS Co!ele#, 244 SCRA 272 ". $o# The resol"tion this ti+e is constit"tional' even as it &rovides that airti+e +ay (e &roc"red (y the !O)L! free of charge' the sa+e (eing an e%ercise of the &lenary &olice &ower of the State to &ro+ote general welfare# In tr"th' radio and television (roadcasting co+&anies' which are given franchises' do not own the airwaves and fre*"encies thro"gh which they trans+it their (roadcast signals and i+ages# They are +erely given the te+&orary &rivilege of "sing the+# Since a franchise is a +ere &rivilege' the e%ercise of the &rivilege +ay reasona(ly (e ("rdened with the &erfor+ance (y the grantee of so+e for+ of &"(lic service# S"ch reg"lation of the "se and ownershi& of teleco++"nications syste+s is in the e%ercise of the &lenary &olice &ower of the state for the general welfare# It is a fallacy that (roadcast +edia are entitled to the sa+e treat+ent "nder the free s&eech g"arantee of the !onstit"tion as the &rint +edia# There are i+&ortant differences in the characteristics of the two +edia which ."stify their differential treat+ent for free s&eech &"r&oses# Beca"se of the "ni*"e and &ervasive infl"ence of the (roadcast +edia' the freedo+ of television and radio (roadcasting is so+ewhat lesser in sco&e than the freedo+ accorded to news&a&er and &rint +edia# (%+L+BA) VS Co!ele#, Aril 21, 1998 Q. The Co,ele iss&e! ) or!er /rohi-itig the o!&t of e:it /oll s&r1e3 -3 ,)ss ,e!i) -3 ofi!eti)lit3 )s4ig r)!o,l3 selete! 1oters who, the3 h)1e 1ote! for i,,e!i)tel3 )fter the3 h)1e )st their -)llot2 )s the s),e 1iol)tes the /rii/le of -)llot sere3. ABSCBN Bro)!)stig Cor/. 7&estioe! the 1)li!it3 of the Co,ele Or!er o ostit&tio)l gro&!s. +ei!e. A. The reason (ehind the &rinci&le of (allot secrecy is to avoid vote ("ying thro"gh voter identification# This res"lt cannot' however' (e achieved +erely thro"gh voter>s ver(al and confidential disclos"re to a &ollsters of who+ they have voted for# In e%it &olls' the contents of the official (allot are not act"ally e%&osed# F"rther+ore' the revelation of who+ an elector has voted for is not co+&"lsory ("t vol"ntary# ;oters +ay choose not to reveal their identities# n a(sol"te &rohi(ition wo"ld (e "nreasona(ly restrictive' (eca"se it effectively &revents the "se of e%it &oll data not only for election day &ro.ections' ("t also for long ter+ research# The !o+elec concern with the &ossi(le non-co++"nicative effect of e%it &olls-disorder and conf"sion in the voting centers does not ."stify a total (an on the+# The holding of e%it &olls and the disse+ination of their res"lts thro"gh +ass +edia constit"te an essential &art of freedo+ of s&eech and of the &ress# ( ABS
; This legisl)tio w)s /)sse! i res/ose to fi!igs -3 the +e/)rt,et of He)th )-o&t the )l)r,ig rise i l&g !ise)se i the o&tr3. The Worl! He)lth Org)i9)tio h)s )lso re/orte! th)t US to-)o o,/)ies h)1e shifte! ,)r4etig efforts to the Thir! Worl! !&e to !wi!lig s)les i the he)lthosio&s A,eri) ,)r4et. Cow-o3 Le138s2 ) 0e)s o,/)32 reetl3 rele)se! ) )!1ertise,ets fe)t&rig ,o!el Rih)r! B&rgos we)rig Le138s 0)4ets )! 0e)s )! hol!ig ) /)4 of 6)rl-oro ig)rettes. The Asi) Bro)!)stig Networ4 (ABN*2 ) /ri1)tel3 owe! tele1isio st)tio2 ref&ses to )ir the )!1ertise,ets i o,/li)e with the l)w. )* Ass&,e th)t s&h ref&s)l )-ri!ges the free!o, of s/eeh. +oes the ostit&tio)l /rohi-itio )g)ist the )-ri!ge,et of free!o, of s/eeh )//l3 to )t !oe -3 ABN2 ) /ri1)te or/or)tio' E:/l)i. -* 6)3 Cow-o3 Le138s2 ) /ri1)te or/or)tio i1o4e the free!o, of s/eeh g&)r)tee i its f)1or' E:/l)i. * Reg)r!less of 3o&r )swer )-o1e !ei!e the ostit&tio)lit3 of the l)w i 7&estio. (B)r Q&estio* A. a= The constit"tional &rohi(ition against the freedo+ of s&eech does not a&&ly to B$' a &rivate cor&oration# s stated in =udens VS 0ational La&or Relations Board, 424 S $7,the constit"tional g"arantee of freedo+ of s&eech is a g"arantee only against a(ridg+ent (y the govern+ent.It does not therefore a&&ly against &rivate &arties# Alter)ti1e Aswer= Since B$ has a franchise' it +ay (e considered an agent of the govern+ent (y co+&lying with the law and ref"sing to air the advertise+ent' it alined itself with the govern+ent# Th"s it rendered itself lia(le for a laws"it which is (ased on a(ridge+ent of the freedo+ of s&eech# nder rt# /, of the !ivil !ode' even &rivate &arties +ay (e lia(le for da+ages for i+&air+ent of the freedo+ of s&eech# (= !ow(oy Levy>s +ay invo7e the constit"tional g"arantee of freedo+ of s&eech in its favor# In First 0ational Ban> o( Boston VS Bellotti, 43$ S 7*$ ' it was r"led that this g"arantee e%tends to cor&orations# In Virinia State Board o( )/ar!a# VS Virinia Citiens Consu!er Coun#il, In#. 42$ S 748, it was held that this right e%tends to co++ercial advertise+ents. In Aer )rodu#tions )t. Ltd. VS Caulon, 1* SCRA 8*1' the S"&re+e !o"rt held that even if the &rod"ction of a fil+ is a co++ercial activity that is e%&ected to yield &rofits' it is covered (y the g"arantee of freedo+ of s&eech# c= The law is constit"tional# It is valid e%ercise of &olice &ower' (eca"se s+o7ing is har+f"l to health# In )osadas de )uerto Ri#o Asso#iates Vs %ouris! Co!an :( )uerto Ri#o, 478 S 328, it was r"led that a law &rohi(iting certain ty&es of advertise+ents is valid if it was ado&ted in the interest of the health' safety' and welfare of the &eo&le# In Caital Broad#astin Co!an VS it#/ell, 333 F Su $82, a law +a7ing it "nlawf"l to advertise cigarettes on any +edi"+ of electronic co++"nication was "&held# The nited States S"&re+e !o"rt s"++arily s"stained this r"ling in Caital Broad#astin Co!an VS A#tin Attorne -eneral,
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
%
Q. The L)-or Co!e /rohi-its ,))geri)l e,/lo3ees fro, 0oiig2 )ssistig or for,ig )3 l)-or org)i9)tio. +oes this otr)1ee the ostit&tio)l right to for, )ssoi)tios' J&stif3 3o&r )swer. A.$o# The right g"aranteed in rt# III' Sec# 8 is s"(.ect to the condition that its e%ercise sho"ld (e for &"r&oses Cnot contrary to law#D There is a rational (asis for &rohi(iting +anagerial e+&loyees fro+ for+ing or .oining la(or organi0ation# Beca"se if these +anagerial e+&loyees wo"ld (elong to or (e affiliated with a nion' the latter +ight not (e ass"red of their loyalty to the nion in view of evident conflict of interest# The "nion can also (eco+e co+&any-do+inated with the &resence of +anagerial e+&loyee in the nion +e+(ershi&# ()S VS Laues!a, ar#/ 2$, 1998 Q. U!er the B)r)g)3 Eletio At (BP@@@* /oliti)l /)rties were /rohi-ite! fro, /)rtii/)tig i the -)r)g)3 eletios. It w)s h)llege! o the gro&! of 1iol)tio of the right to for, )ssoi)tios ot otr)r3 to l)w. W)s the otetio /ro/er' Wh3' A. $o' (eca"se the right to for+ associations is not a(sol"te or illi+ita(le' as it is s"(.ect to the +ost &ervasive and do+inant &olice &ower# It can (e reg"lated to serve a&&ro&riate and i+&ortant &"(lic interest# The law was designed to ins"late the (arangay fro+ the divisive effects of &artisan &olitical ca+&aign and the danger of disena(ling the (arangay officials fro+ efficiently &erfor+ing their d"ties as agents of a ne"tral co++"nity# :#eania VS Co!ele#, 127 SCRA 44 Q. I their 1)i efforts to o-t)i -eefits the3 were !e,)!ig2 the te)hers st)ge! ) series of !e,ostr)tios -efore the +ECS )! Cogress. A!,iistr)ti1e h)rges were file!. Se1er)l of the, were !is,isse! !&e to their f)il&re to o-e3 the ret&rtowor4 or!er fro, the +ECS. C) the te)hers st)ge ,)ss w )l4o&ts or stri4e' Wh3' A. $o# In )S%A, et al. VS Lauio2 , VS 0LRC
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS case of a la(or dis&"te (etween the e+&loyees and the govern+ent' Sec# 14 of %ec"tive Order $o# 186 dated "ne 1' 198 &rovides that the A"(lic Sector La(or )anage+ent !o"ncil' not the 2OL shall hear the dis&"te#
REE+O6 O RELIs religio"s (elief is not a(sol"te and is s"(.ect to &olice &ower for the &rotection of the general welfare# Hence the ta&es +ay (e re*"ired to (e reviewed &rior to airing# In Ilesia ni Cristo V Court o( Aeals, 2$9 SCRA $29, the S"&re+e !o"rt Held C@e th"s re.ect &etitioner>s &ost"late that its religio"s &rogra+ is &er se (eyond review (y the res&ondent (oard# Its &"(lic (roadcast on T; of its religio"s &rogra+ (rings it o"t of the (oso+ of internal (elief# Television is a +edi"+' that reaches even the eyes and ears of children# The co"rt reiterates the r"le
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
$ that the e%ercise of religio"s freedo+ can (e reg"lated (y the State when it will (ring a(o"t the clear and &resent danger of so+e s"(stantive evil which the State is d"ty (o"nd to &revent' i#e## serio"s detri+ent to the +ere overriding interest of &"(lic healyh' &"(lic +orals or &"(lic welfare#D However' the )TR!B cannot (an the ta&es on the gro"nd that they attac7ed other religions# In Ilesia ni Cristo VS C.A, the S! held Cven a sideglance at Section / of A2 $o# 1985 will reveal that it is not a+ong the gro"nds to ."stify an order &rohi(iting the (roadcast of &etitioner>s television &rogra+#D )oreover' the (roadcast do not give rise to a clear and &resent danger of a s"(stantive evil# In this case' it held that C&rior restraint on s&eech' incl"ding the religio"s s&eech' cannot (e ."stified (y hy&othetical fears ("t only (y the showing of a s"(stantive and i++inent evil which has ta7en the reality already on the gro"nd#D Q. >? is ser1ig his /riso setee i 6&tigl&/). He -elogs to ) religio&s set th)t /rohi-its the e)tig of ,e)t. He )s4e! the +iretor of Prisos th)t he -e ser1e! with ,e)tless !iet. The +iretor ref&se! )! >? s&e! the !iretor for !),)ges for 1iol)tig his religio&s free!o,. +ei!e. (B)r Q&estio* A. ?es' the 2irector of Arison is lia(le "nder rt# /, of the !ivil !ode for violating the religio"s freedo+ of :# according to the decision of the S S"&re+e !o"rt in the case of :Lone V +state o( S/a&a, convicted &risoners retain their right to free e%ercise of religion# t the sa+e ti+e' lawf"l incarceration (rings a(o"t necessary li+itations of +any &rivileges and rights ."stified (y the considerations "nderlying the &enal syste+# In considering the a&&ro&riate (alance (etween these two factors' reasona(leness sho"ld (e the test# cco++odation to religio"s freedo+ can (e +ade if it will not involve sacrificing the interest of sec"rity and it will have no i+&act on the allocation of the reso"rces of the &enitentiary# In this case' &roviding : with a +eatless diet will not create a sec"rity &ro(le+ or "nd"ly increase the cost of food (eing served to the &risoners# In fact' in the case of O>lone' it was noted that the )osle+ &risoners were (eing given a different +eal whenever &or7 wo"ld (e served# Alter)ti1e Aswer= The s"it sho"ld (e dis+issed# The free e%ercise cla"se of the !onstit"tion is essentially a restraint on govern+ental interference with the right of individ"als to worshi& as they &lease# It is not a +andate to the state to ta7e &ositive' affir+ative action to ena(le the individ"al to en.oy his freedo+# It wo"ld
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS have (een different had the 2irector of Arisons &rohi(ited +eatless diets in the &enal instit"tion#
LIBERTY O ABO+E Q. PC<< se7&estere! two go1er,et fir,s o the -)sis of the l)i, th)t the 6)roses owe! ;DK of the sh)res of sto4s. It )lso iss&e! ) or!er /rohi-itig the /etitioers fro, le)1ig the o&tr3 )s the3 were /re1etig or o-str&tig the o/er)tio of the o,/)3. W)s the or!er /ro/er' Wh3' A. The &etitioner>s right to travel has (een i+&aired# Since A!GG has already ta7en over the co+&anies' their o&eration can no longer (e o(str"cted# If &etitioners were o(str"cting the o&erations of the co+&anies' it wo"ld (e (etter that they (e o"t of the co"ntry# The right to travel is g"aranteed to all residents irres&ective of nationality# (ant ?on VS )C--, 'e#. 7, 1987 Q. J&) C)s)o1) otr)te! H)se8s !ise)se (le/ros3* with o/e lesios. A l)w re7&ires th)t le/ers -e isol)te! &/o /etitio of the Cit3 He)lth Offier. The wife of J&) C)s)o1) wrote ) letter to the Cit3 He)lth Offier to h)1e her for,erl3 /hil)!erig h&s-)! ofie! i so,e isol)te! le/ros)ri&,. J&) C)s)o1) h)llege! the ostit&tio)lit3 of the l)w )s 1iol)tig his li-ert3 of )-o!e. Will the s&it /ros/er' (B)r Q&estio* S&ggeste! Aswer= $o' the s"it will not &ros&er# Section 5' rticle III of the !onstit"tion &rovides CThe li(erty of a(ode and of changing the sa+e within the li+its &rescri(ed (y law shall not (e i+&aired e%ce&t "&on lawf"l order of the co"rt#D The li(erty of a(ode is s"(.ect to the &olice &ower of the State# Re*"iring the segregation of le&ers is a valid e%ercise of &olice &ower# In Loreno V 'ire#tor o( =ealt/ $ )/il $9$ ' the S! held C"dicial notice will (e ta7en of the fact that le&rosy is co++only (elieved to (e an infectio"s disease tending to ca"se one afflicted with it to (e sh"nned and e%cl"ded fro+ society' and that co+&"lsory segregation of le&ers as a +eans of &reventing the s&read of the disease is s"&&orted (y high scientific a"thority#D
Q. The ,ilit)r3 o,,)!er i h)rge of the o/er)tio )g)ist re-el gro&/s !irete! the ih)-it)ts of the isl)! whih wo&l! -e the t)rget of )tt)4 -3 go1er,et fores to e1)&)te the )re) )! offere! the resi!ets te,/or)r3 ,ilit)r3 h),let.
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
# C) the ,ilit)r3 o,,)!er fore the resi!ets to tr)sfer their /l)es of )-o!e witho&t ) o&rt or!er' E:/l)i. (B)r Q&estio* A. $o' the +ilitary co++ander cannot co+&el the residents to transfer their &laces of a(ode witho"t a co"rt order# nder Sec# 5' rt# III of the !onstit"tion' a lawf"l order of the co"rt is re*"ired (efore the li(erty of a(ode and of changing the sa+e can (e i+&aired# S&ggeste! Aswer= ?es' the +ilitary co++ander can co+&el the residents to transfer their &laces of a(ode witho"t a co"rt order# If there is no reasona(le ti+e to get a co"rt order and the change of a(ode is +erely te+&orary' (eca"se of the e%igency' this e%ercise of &olice &ower +ay (e ."stified# Q. 6r. Este-) ro32 ) ili/io iti9e2 is )rreste! for the ri,e of s,&gglig. He /osts -)il for his rele)se. S&-se7&etl32 he 0&,/s -)il )! is )-o&t to le)1e the o&tr3 whe the +e/)rt,et of oreig Aff)irs )els his /)ss/ort. He s&es the +A2 l)i,ig 1iol)tio of his free!o, to tr)1el itig the ew /ro1isio i the Bill of Rights of the "#$% Costit&tio2 to wit= >Neither sh)ll the right to tr)1el -e i,/)ire! e:e/t i the iterest of )tio)l se&rit32 /&-li s)fet3 or /&-li he)lth2 )s ,)3 -e /ro1i!e! -3 l)w. +ei!e the C)se. (B)r Q&estio* A. The case sho"ld (e dis+issed# ny &erson "nder an order of arrest is "nder restraint and therefore he can not clai+ the right to travel# If he is ad+itted to (ail his freedo+ of +ove+ent is confined within the co"ntry# Therefore' if he s"(se*"ently ."+&s (ail' he cannot de+and &ass&ort which in effect will facilitate his esca&e fro+ the co"ntry' he is in fact lia(le to (e arrested anyti+e# Indeed' the right to travel "nder the !onstit"tion &res"&&oses that the individ"al is "nder no restraint s"ch as that which wo"ld follow fro+ the fact that one has a &ending cri+inal case and has (een &laced "nder arrest# HABEAS CORPUS Q.A* Whe ,)3 the /ri1ilege of the writ of h)-e)s or/&s -e s&s/e!e!' B* If 1)li!l3 !el)re!2 wh)t wo&l! -e the f&ll ose7&ees of s&h s&s/esio' (B)r Q&estio* A. =nder Section 18' rt# ;II of the !onstit"tion' the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s +ay (e s"s&ended when there is an invasion of re(ellion and &"(lic safety re*"ire it# B=ccording to Sec# 18' rt# ;II of the !onstit"tion' the s"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s shall a&&ly only to &ersons ."dicially charged with re(ellion or offenses inherent in or directly
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS connected with invasion# ny &erson arrested or detained sho"ld (e ."dicially charged within three days# Otherwise' he sho"ld (e released# )oreover' "nder Section 1/' rt# III of the !onstit"tion' the right to (ail shall not (e i+&aired even when the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s is s"s&ended#
Q. Is the s&s/esio of the /ri1ilege of the writ of h)-e)s or/&s ) /oliti)l or 0&stii)-le otro1ers3' Wh3' A. It is a ."sticia(le controversy# The !onstit"tion a"thori0es the co"rts to review on the (asis of an a&&ro&riate action' the fact"al (asis for the s"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s# Q. A while ser1ig i,/riso,et for est)f)2 &/o reo,,e!)tio of the Bo)r! of P)r!os )! P)role2 w)s gr)te! /)r!o -3 the Presi!et o o!itio th)t he sho&l! ot )g)ist 1iol)te )3 /e)l l)w of the l)!. L)ter2 the -o)r! of P)r!os )! P)role reo,,e!e! to the Presi!et the )ell)tio of the P)r!o gr)te! hi, -e)&se A h)! -ee h)rge! with est)f) o @D o&ts )! w)s o1ite! of the offese h)rge! )ltho&gh he too4 ) )//e)l therefro, whih w)s still /e!ig. As reo,,e!e!2 the Presi!et )ele! the /)r!o he h)! gr)te! to A. A w)s th&s )rreste! )! i,/risoe! to ser1e the -)l)e of his setee i the first )se. A l)i,e! i his /etitio for h)-e)s or/&s file! i o&rt th)t his !etetio w)s illeg)l -e)&se he h)! ot 3et -ee o1ite! -3 fi)l 0&!g,et )! w)s ot gi1e ) h)e to -e he)r! -efore he w)s reo,,itte! to /riso. Is A8s )rg&,et 1)li!' (B)r Q&estio* A. The arg"+ent of is not valid# s held in %orres V -onales, 1$2 SCRA 272 ' a ."dicial &rono"nce+ent that a convict who was granted a &ardon s"(.ect to the condition that he sho"ld not again violate any &enal law is not necessary (efore he can (e declared to have violated the condition of his &ardon# )oreover' a hearing is not necessary (efore can (e reco++itted to &rison# By acce&ting the conditional &ardon' agreed that the deter+ination (y the Aresident that he violated the condition of his &ardon shall (e concl"sive "&on hi+ and an order for his arrest sho"ld at once iss"e# Q. Jo32 ) RTC steogr)/her2 retire! )t the )ge of ;F. She left &fiishe! the tr)sri/tio of her otes i ) ri,i)l )se whih w)s o )//e)l. The Co&rt of A//e)ls or!ere! Jo3 to tr)sri-e her otes. She ref&se! to o,/l3 with the or!er re)soig th)t she w)s o loger i the go1er,et ser1ie. The CA !el)re! Jo3 i ote,/t of o&rt )! she w)s i)rer)te!. Jo3 file! ) /etitio for h)-e)s or/&s )rg&ig th)t her i)rer)tio is t)t),o&t to
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
"D illeg)l !etetio )! to re7&ire her to wor4 s)s o,/es)tio wo&l! -e i1ol&t)r3 ser1it&!e. +ei!e. (B)r Q&estio* A. oy can (e incarcerated for conte+&t of co"rt for ref"sing to transcri(e her stenogra&hic notes# s held in A#lara#ion Vs -at!aitan *4 SCRA 132 ' her incarceration does not constit"te illegal detention# It is lawf"l' (eca"se it is the conse*"ence of her diso(edience of the co"rt order# $either can she clai+ that to re*"ire her to wor7 witho"t co+&ensation is tanta+o"nt to invol"ntary servit"de# Since co"rts have the inherent &ower to iss"e s"ch orders as are necessary for the ad+inistration of ."stice' the !o"rt of &&eals +ay order her to transcri(e her stenogra&hic notes even if she is no longer in the govern+ent service#
RI
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS are e%isting laws read into contracts in order to fi% the o(ligations as (etween &arties' ("t the reservation of essential attri("tes of sovereign &ower is also read into contracts as a (asic &ost"late of the legal order# Q. A go1er,et ir&l)r /rohi-its the /)3,)sters fro, gi1ig the s)l)ries of te)hers to other /ersos th) the /)3ees. It w)s 7&estioe! o the gro&! of 1iol)tio of the oi,/)ir,et l)&se. Is the otetio /ro/er' Wh3' A. $o' (eca"se the creditors can still collect thro"gh other +eans# Salary which is not yet delivered to a teacher is still govern+ent +oney and cannot (e assigned witho"t the consent of the State# Q. is i!e-te! to the PNB. He is ) hol!er of -)4/)3 ertifi)te -3 1irt&e of RA No. $#%. He offere! to /)3 it to the PNB whih ref&se! to )e/t2 l)i,ig i,/)ir,et of otr)t )s he )gree! to /)3 i )sh. Is the otetio /ro/er' Wh3' A. $o' A$B cannot ref"se' R $o# 89 +a7es it an o(ligation for all govern+ent entities to acce&t the (ac7&ay certificate for the &ay+ent of o(ligations# There is no i+&air+ent of o(ligations of contracts# However' for non-govern+ental agencies' they cannot (e co+&elled to acce&t' otherwise' there wo"ld (e i+&air+ent of o(ligations of contracts# Florentino Vs )0B, Aril 28, 19$* Q. Res/o!et file! ) )tio to /rohi-it /etitioer fro, forelosig ) ,ortg)ge &/o his /ro/ert3. U/o his ,otio2 the o&rt )&thori9e! hi, to /ost ) -o! )! i f)t2 or!ere! the )ell)tio of the ,ortg)ge. Is the or!er /ro/er' Wh3' A. $o' (eca"se it violates the constit"tional &rohi(ition against i+&air+ent of contracts# The s"(stit"tion of the +ortgage with a s"rety (ond wo"ld effect a change of the ter+s and conditions of +ortgage# -anon VS Inserto 123 SCRA 713
NONI6PAIR6ENT CLAUSE Q. +oes the i,/ositio of the VAT &/o s)les )! le)ses of re)l est)te etere! ito -efore the effeti1it3 of the EVAT L)w 1iol)te the r&le )g)ist oi,/)ir,et of otr)ts' Wh3' A. $o' (eca"se the law did not i+&air or effect a change in the rights of the &arties with res&ect to each other# ta% +eas"re which affects the relationshi& (etween one of the &arties to the contracts as ta%&ayers and the govern+ent does not i+&air the o(ligation of contracts# In %olentino VS Se#. :( Finan#e, it was said that it is eno"gh to say that the &arties to a contract cannot' thro"gh the e%ercise of &ro&hetic discern+ent' fetter the e%ercise of the ta%ing &ower of the State# For not only
RI
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
""
Q. Whe the )&se! w)s /i4e! &/ )s he w)s o,ig o&t of the o,,&)l -)throo, )! we)rig ) tshirt o1ere! with -loo!st)is whih he trie! to o1er with his h)!s2 he s&!!el3 -ro4e !ow )! 4elt -efore Sgt. 6)r)te )! ofesse! th)t he 4ille! Jeie B)g&is. Is the testi,o3 of Sgt. 6)r)te th)t the )&se! ofesse! the 4illig2 )!,issi-le i e1i!ee' Wh3' A. ?es' it is a co+&etent evidence to lin7 hi+ to the 7illing# The declaration of an acc"sed e%&ressly ac7nowledging his g"ilt of the offense charged +ay (e given in evidence against hi+#
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS o(tain +edical clearance to leave <+otrie of Costr&ti1e C&sto!3*
the
hos&ital#
Q. The )&se! w)s re7&ire! to /ost P".# ,illio )sh -o!. The o&rt ref&se! to )e/t the -)il -o!. Wh)t is the effet of the )tios of the 0&!ge' Wh3' A. The actions of the ."dge constit"te violation of the acc"sed>s right to (ail' (eca"se the a+o"nt is e%cessive# Q. Wh3 )ot the RTC gr)t -)il while the )se is /e!ig /reli,i)r3 i1estig)tio -3 the 6TC' A. The )T! is still cond"cting &reli+inary investigation' hence' the RT! has not yet ac*"ired ."risdiction# It cannot therefore' entertain the &etition for (ail' as there is no infor+ation filed in the RT! yet#
Q. At wh)t st)ge of the /olie lie&/ !oes the s&s/et ee! the )ssist)e of ) o&sel' Wh3'
Q. /oste! -)il2 -&t he 0&,/e! -)il. Wh)t is its effet' Wh3'
A. The +o+ent there is a +ove or "rge to investigate to elicit ad+ission or confession' or even &lain infor+ation' which +ay a&&ear innocent or innoc"o"s at the ti+e fro+ the s"s&ect' he sho"ld (e assisted (y co"nsel "nless there is a written waiver aided (y co"nsel#
A. n acc"sed who ."+&ed (ail waived his right to (e &resent# He cannot offer a ."stifia(le reason for his nona&&earance d"ring the trial# Hence' after trial in a(sentia' the co"rt can render ."dg+ent in the case and &ro+"lgation +ay (e +ade (y si+&ly recording the ."dg+ent in the cri+inal doc7et with a co&y served on the co"nsel' &rovided that notice re*"iring hi+ to (e &resent at the &ro+"lgation is served on the (onds+an' or warden and co"nsel#
Q. A w)s s&s/ete! of h)1ig 4ille! B. Is A etitle! to his rights &!er RA No. %G$ )! the ostit&tio if he is >i1ite!? to she! light o the offese' Wh3' A. ?es' nder Sec# ,' last &aragra&h of R $o# 3/8' as "sed in the law Cc"stodial investigationD shall incl"de the &ractice of iss"ing an CinvitationD to a &erson who is investigated in connection with an offense he is s"s&ected to have co++itted' witho"t &re."dice to the lia(ility of the CinvitingD officer for any violation of the law#
RI
RI
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
"@ SCRA 379' he sho"ld have (een warned also that he has the right to re+ain silent and that any state+ent he +a7es +ay (e "sed as evidence agaist hi+# Besides' "nder rt# III' Sec# 1,<1= of the !onstit"tion' the co"nsel assisting a &erson (eing investigated +"st (e inde&endent# ssistant Fiscal )ala&"to co"ld not assist ose @alangta7ot# s held in )eole V Vidua, 189 SCRA 43' his f"nction is to &rosec"te cri+inal cases# To allow hi+ to act as defense co"nsel d"ring c"stodial investigations wo"ld render n"gatory the constit"tional rights of the acc"sed d"ring c"stodial investigation# @hat the !onstit"tion re*"ires is a co"nsel who will effectively "nderta7e the defense of his client witho"t any conflict of interest# The answer of ose indicates that he did not f"lly "nderstand his rights# Hence' it cannot (e said that he 7nowingly and intelligently waived those rights#
Q. A ifor,)tio for /)rrii!e w)s file! )g)ist +)3. After the NBI fo&! ) e3ewitess to the o,,issio of the ri,e2 +)3 w)s /l)e! i ) /olie lie&/ where he w)s i!etifie! )s the oe who shot the 1iti,. After the lie&/2 +)3 ,)!e ) ofessio to ) ews/)/er re/orter who iter1iewe! hi,. "* C) +)3 l)i, th)t his i!etifi)tio -3 the e3ewitess -e e:l&!e! o the gro&! th)t the lie&/ w)s ,)!e witho&t -eefit of his o&sel' @* C) +)3 l)i, th)t his ofessio -e e:l&!e! o the gro&! th)t he w)s ot )ffor!e! his >6ir)!)? rights' (B)r Q&estio* A. 1= $o' the identification of 2anny' a &rivate &erson' (y an eyewitness d"ring the line-"& cannot (e e%cl"ded in evidence# In accordance with the r"ling in )eole VS =atton' 21 SCRA 1 the acc"sed is not entitled to (e assisted (y co"nsel d"ring a &olice line"&' (eca"se it is not &art of c"stodial investigation# Alternati6e Ans?er@ ?es' in nited States Vs ;ade, 338 S 218 19*7 and -il&ert V Cali(ornia, 338 S 2*3 19*7, it was held that on the (asis of the Si%th' rather than the Fifth +end+ent
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
RIs clai+ that she was not ade*"ately re&resented (y co"nsel at the trial d"e to the s"s&ension fro+ the &ractice of law of her co"nsel is "ntena(le# 2es&ite the s"s&ension of her first co"nsel' she was still re&resented (y other lawyers# ll evidence had (een &resented with (eing re&resented (y co"nsel# It is ."st that o&ted not to &resent any evidence for her defense relying on what she &erceived to (e glaringly wea7 &rosec"tion evidence# There is no denial of the right to co"nsel in this case# 'ans VS )eole, Januar 29, 1998 Q. "* A2 )s ) s&s/et i ) ,&r!er )se w)s ot re/resete! -3 o&sel !&rig the >7&estio )! )swer? st)ge. Howe1er2 -efore he w)s )s4e! to sig his st)te,ets to the /olie i1estig)tor2 the l)tter /ro1i!e! A with ) o&sel2 who h)//ee! to -e )t the /olie st)tio. After oferrig with A2 the o&sel tol! the /olie i1estig)tor th)t A w)s re)!3 to sig the st)te,ets. C) the st)te,ets of A -e /resete! i o&rt )s his ofessio' E:/l)i. @* O the first !)3 of the tri)l of ) r)/e,&r!er )se where the 1iti, w)s ) /o/&l)r st)r2 o1er ) h&!re! of her f)s r)llie! )t the etr)e of the o&rtho&se2 e)h )rr3ig ) /l))r! !e,)!ig the o1itio of the )&se! )! the i,/ositio of the !e)th /e)lt3 o hi,. The r)ll3 w)s /e)ef&l )! !i! ot !ist&r- the /roee!igs of the )se. )* C) the tri)l o&rt or!er the !is/ers)l of the r)ll3ist &!er /)i of -eig /&ishe! for ote,/t of o&rt2 if the3 f)il to !o so' E:/l)i. -* If iste)! of ) r)ll32 the f)s of the 1iti, wrote letters to the ews/)/er e!itors !e,)!ig the o1itio of the )&se!2 ) the tri)l o&rt /&ish the, for ote,/t' E:/l)i. (B)r Q&estio* A. 1= $o' the state+ents of cannot (e &resented in co"rt as his confession# He was not assisted (y co"nsel d"ring the act"al *"estioning# There is no showing that the lawyer who (elatedly conferred with hi+ f"lly e%&lained to hi+ the nat"re and conse*"ences of his
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
" confession# In )eole Vs Co!il, 244 SCRA 13$, the S"&re+e !o"rt held that the acc"sed +"st (e assisted (y co"nsel d"ring the act"al *"estioning and the (elated assistance of co"nsel (efore he signed the confession does not c"re the defect# Alter)ti1e Aswer= ?es' the state+ents of can (e &resented in co"rt as his confession# s held in )eole Vs Rous, 242 SCRA 732, even if the acc"sed was not assisted (y co"nsel d"ring the *"estioning' his confession is ad+issi(le if he was a(le to cons"lt a lawyer (efore he signed# ,= a= ?es' the trial co"rt can order the dis&ersal of the rally "nder &ain of (eing cited for conte+&t# The &"r&ose of the rally is to atte+&t to infl"ence the ad+inistration of ."stice# s stated in )eole Vs Flores, 239 SCRA 83' any cond"ct (y any &arty which tends to directly or indirectly i+&ede' o(str"ct or degrade the ad+inistration of ."stice is s"(.ect to the conte+&t &owers of the co"rt# (= $o' the trial co"rt cannot &"nish for conte+&t the fans of the victi+ who wrote letters to the news&a&er editors as7ing for the conviction of the acc"sed# Since the letters were not addressed to the ."dge and to the &"(lication of the letters occ"rred o"tside the co"rt' the fans cannot (e &"nished in the a(sence of a clear and &resent danger r"le to the ad+inistration of ."stice# In Ca&ansa VS Fernande, 12 )/il 1$2 ' it was held that a &arty who wrote to the Aresidential co+&laints and ction !o++ittee to co+&lain a(o"t the delay in the dis&osition of his case co"ld not (e &"nished for conte+&t in the a(sence of a clear and &resent danger to the fair ad+inistration of ."stice#
SPEE+Y2 I6PARTIAL AN+ PUBLIC TRIAL Q. A )! B were h)rge! with li-el. O Oto-er "$2 "#$$2 the3 file! ) ,otio to 7&)sh. The /rose&tio w)s gi1e "F !)3s to file ) o//ositios2 -&t f)ile! to !o so !es/ite e:tesios. O A&g&st D2 "##"2 the tri)l o&rt !is,isse! the )se o the gro&! of !el)3 i the /rose&tio of the )se whih 1iol)te! the right to s/ee!3 tri)l. Is the )tio of the o&rt /ro/er' Wh3' A. ?es# The fail"re of the &rosec"tion to file its o&&osition for +ore than two years violated the right of the acc"sed to s&eedy trial# Banas VS R%C o( )asi, :#to&er 1, 1993
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS The other )&se! l)i,e! th)t he w)s !e/ri1e! of his right to -e /reset (the oe who 0&,/e! -)il*. Is the otetio orret' Wh3' A. $o' it is devoid of +erit# The right referred to is &ersonal to the acc"sed who ."+&ed (ail# In fact' he has already testified' hence' trial &roceeded witho"t violating his right to (e &resent# Q. A w)s /resete! )s ) witess. S&-st)ti)ll32 the witesses h)! )lre)!3 -ee rosse:),ie!. The rosse:),i)tio w)s ot o,/lete!2 s)32 -e)&se A !ie!. Sho&l! the testi,o3 -e !elete! fro, the reor!' Wh3' A. $o' for as long as it has already covered the +aterial &oints to"ched "&on in the direct e%a+ination' the testi+ony sho"ld (e allowed to re+ain# If the fail"re to cross-e%a+ine is witho"t his fa"lt' the testi+ony can (e stric7en off the record# If it is attri("ta(le to hi+' it is waived#
CO6PULSORY PROCESS Q. +&e to the f)il&re of the witess to )//e)r !es/ite otie2 the 0&!ge or!ere! the w)i1er of the testi,o3. W)s the )t of the J&!ge /ro/er' Wh3' A. $o' (eca"se he sho"ld have ta7en effective +eas"re li7e the arrest of the witness in order to co+&el his a&&earance# TRIAL IN ABSENTIA Q. S&//ose the )&se! o&l! ot -e lo)te! )! the ifor,)tio w)s /&-lishe! i ) ews/)/er of ) geer)l ir&l)tio )! there)fter )rr)ige! i )-seti)2 !i! the o&rt )t orretl3' Wh3' A. $o' arraign+ent in a(sentia is not &ro&er (eca"se it needs the &ersonal a&&earance of the acc"sed# rraign+ent is the indis&ensa(le +eans of (ringing the acc"sed in co"rt# Fail"re to arraign is violative of the d"e &rocess of law cla"se and the right to (e infor+ed of the nat"re of the acc"sation against hi+# Q. Wh)t )re the effets of the w)i1er of the right to )//e)r -3 the )&se!'
RI
A. The effects are 1# there is a waiver of the right to &resent evidence ,# the &rosec"tion can &resent evidence if acc"sed fails to a&&ear /# the co"rt can decide witho"t acc"sed>s evidence
Q. Oe of the )&se! 0&,/e! -)il )fter testif3ig2 hee2 he w)s trie! i )-seti) for ) )/it)l offese.
PRESU6PTION O INNOCENCE
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
"G
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS RI
Q. A w)s re/resete! -3 ) l)w3er who )-)!oe! hi, whe he wet to the U.S.A. witho&t ifor,ig hi,. He f)ile! to /reset e1i!ee )s he w)s )-)!oe!. C) the )se -e reo/ee!' Wh3' A. ?es' (eca"se he was de&rived of the right to co"nsel# The negligence of the lawyer de&rived hi+ of the right to &resent evidence# Q. w)s h)rge! for h)1ig r)/e! ) wo,) oe. C) he -e o1ite! of two r)/es if the wo,) testifie! to th)t effet' Wh3' A. $o' (eca"se that wo"ld (e a de&rivation of his right to (e infor+ed of the nat"re of the acc"sation against hi+# Q. Is the /)r)!ig -3 the Presi!et of s&s/ets i the o,,issio of ri,es )//rehe!e! -3 l)w efore,et )geies ostit&tio)l'
Q=The /ri1ilege of selfiri,i)tio ,&st -e ti,el3 i1o4e!2 otherwise it is !ee,e! w)i1e!.
A. $o# &arading s"(.ects the s"s&ects to trial (y &"(licity which co"ld infl"ence the ad+inistration of ."stice to the &re."dice of the said s"s&ects' in violation of their rights to d"e &rocess and to an i+&artial trial "nder rt# III' Sec# 13 <1= and <,= of the !onstit"tion# )oreover' a cri+inal s"s&ect is &res"+ed innocent "nder rt# III' Sec# 13 <,= of the !onstit"tion and is' therefore' not legally g"ilty of a cri+e "nless &roven (eyond reasona(le do"(t in a cri+inal &roceedings#
Q. Is the !is7&)lifi)tio /ro1i!e! i Se. GD (e* &giti1e fro, 0&stie i ri,i)l or o/oliti)l )ses here or )-ro)! 1iol)ti1e of the right to -e /res&,e! ioet' A. The dis*"alification in *"estion does not' in reality' involve the iss"e of &res"+&tion of innocence# lsewise stated' one is not dis*"alified (eca"se he is &res"+ed g"ilty (y the filing of an infor+ation or cri+inal co+&laint against hi+# He is dis*"alified (eca"se he is Cf"gitive fro+ ."sticeD' i#e#' he was not (ro"ght within the ."risdiction of the co"rt (eca"se he had s"ccessf"lly evaded arrest' or if he was (ro"ght within the ."risdiction of the co"rt and was tried and convicted' he has s"ccessf"lly evaded service of sentence (eca"se he had ."+&ed (ail or esca&ed# The dis*"alification then is (ased on his flight fro+ ."stice# In the face of the settled doctrine that flight is an indication of g"ilt' it +ay even (e tr"ly said that it is not the challenged dis*"alifying &rovision which overco+es the &res"+&tion of innocence ("t rather the dis*"alified &erson hi+self who has &roven his g"ilt# arue Jr. VS Co!ele#, 243 SCRA $38
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
"F of the &rison in order to enforce sec"rity and order in &rison# It is a valid e%ercise of &olice &ower# driver was ca"ght violating traffic reg"lations and a&&ears to (e dr"n7# !an he (e co+&elled (y the &olice to ta7e a (reathaly0er test ?es# The &rohi(ition against self-incri+ination is a &rohi(ition against &hysical or +oral co+&"lsion to e%tort co++"nications fro+ hi+' and not an e%cl"sion of (ody as evidence# The (reathaly0er test does not co+&el the driver to &rod"ce testi+onial evidence# # !ongress is considering a law against dr"n7en driving# nder the legislation' &olice a"thorities +ay as7 any driver to ta7e a C(reathaly0er testD' wherein the driver e%hales several ti+es into a device which can deter+ines whether he was driving "nder the infl"ence of alcohol# The res"lt of the test can (e "sed in any legal &roceedings against hi+ # F"rther+ore' declaring that the iss"ance of the driver>s license gives rise only to a &rivilege to drive a +otor vehicles on &"(lic roads' the law &rovides that a driver who ref"ses to ta7e the test shall (e a"to+atically s"(.ected to a 96 days s"s&ension of his driver>s license# Cite @ /ossi-le ostit&tio)l o-0etios to this l)w. Resol1e the o-0etios )! e:/l)i whether )3 s&h ifir,ities ) -e &re!. (B)r Q&estio* A. Aossi(le o(.ections to the law are that re*"iring a driver to t)4e ) -re)th)l39er test will 1iol)te his rights )g)ist selfiri,i)tio2 th)t /ro1i!ig for the s&s/esio of his !ri1er8s liese witho&t )3 he)rig 1iol)tes !&e /roess2 )! th)t the /ro/ose! l)w will 1iol)te the rights )g)ist &re)so)-le se)rhes )! sei9&res2 -e)&se it )llows /olie )&thorities to re7&ire ) !ri1er to t)4e the -re)th)l39er test e1e if there is o /ro-)-le )&se. Re7&irig ) !ri1er to t)4e ) -re)th)l39er test !oes ot 1iol)te his right )g)ist self iri,i)tio2 -e)&se he is ot -eig o,/elle! to gi1e testi,oi)l e1i!ee. He is ,erel3 -eig )s4e! to s&-,it to ) /h3si)l test. This is ot o1ere! -3 the ostit&tio)l g&)r)t3 )g)ist selfiri,i)tio. Th&s2 i Sout/ 'a>ota VS 0e6ille 4$9 S $$3, it was held for this reason that re*"iring a driver to ta7e a (lood-alcohol test is valid# As hel! i a#>e VS ontrn, 443 S 1, (eca"se of co+&elling govern+ent interest and safety along the street' the license of a driver who ref"ses to ta7e the (reathaly0er +ay (e s"s&ended i++ediately
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS &ending a &ost- s"s&ension he)rig2 -&t there ,&st -e ) /ro1isio for ) /osts&s/esio he)rig. Th&s2 to s)1e the /ro/ose! l)w fro, &ostit&tio)lit3 o the gro&! of !ei)l of !&e /roess it sho&l! /ro1i!e for ) i,,e!i)te he)rig &/o s&s/esio of the !ri1er8s liese. The /ro/ose! l)w 1iol)tes the right )g)ist &re)so)-le se)rh )! sei9&res. It will )&thori9e! /olie )&thorities to sto/ )3 !ri1er )! )s4 hi, to t)4e the -re)th)l39er test e1e i the )-set of the /ro-)-le )&se.
I66UNITY RO6 PROSECUTION Q= +is&ss the t3/es of I,,&it3 St)t&tes. I++"nity stat"tes +ay (e generally classified into two one' which grants !se o# #r!it i$$!nit%& and the other' which grants what is 7nown as transational i$$!nit%.The distinction (etween the two is as followsse i++"nity &rohi(its "se of witness> co+&elled testi+ony and its fr"its in any +anner in connection with the cri+inal &rosec"tion of the witness# On the other hand' transactional i++"nity grants i++"nity to the witness fro+ &rosec"tion for an offense to which his co+&elled testi+ony relates# -al!an 6. )a!aran, 138 SCRA 274 198$D n e%a+&le of transactional i++"nity is rt# :III' Section 18<8= which refers to i++"nity that +ay (e granted (y the !o++ission on H"+an Rights to any &erson whose testi+ony or whose &ossession of doc"+ents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to deter+ine the tr"th in any investigation cond"cted (y it or "nder its a"thority' which +a7es the witness i++"ne fro+ cri+inal &rosec"tion for an offense to which his co+&elled testi+ony relates#
INVOLUNTARY SERVITU+E sian Trans+ission !or&# is an e%&ort oriented co+&any e+&loying /46 wor7ers# The wor7ers declared a stri7e# fter the case was certified to the $LR!' the latter iss"ed a ret"rn-to-wor7 order "nder &ain of se&aration# The wor7ers contended that the order was violative of the Cno invol"ntary servit"deD cla"se of the !onstit"tion# R"le on the contention of the wor7ers and e%&lain# The order of the $LR! is not violative of the Cno invol"ntary servit"deD cla"se (eca"se it is anchored on its a"thority to ass"+e ."risdiction over cases which affect national interest li7e e%&ort oriented ind"stries# The ret"rn-to-wor7 order not so +"ch
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
"; confers a right as it i+&oses a d"tyE while as a right it +ay (e waived' it +"st (e discharged as a d"ty even against the wor7er>s will# Ret"rning to wor7 is not a +atter of o&tion or invol"ntariness ("t of o(ligation# The wor7er +"st ret"rn to his .o( together with his cowor7ers so the o&erations of the co+&any can (e res"+ed and it can contin"e serving the &"(lic and &ro+oting its interests# That is the real reason s"ch ret"rn can (e co+&elled# It is not violative of the right against invol"ntary servit"de#
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS (etrayal of the &"(lic tr"st' the &enalty i+&osed is not so dis&ro&ortionate to the cri+e co++itted as to shoc7 the +oral sense#
+OUBLE JEOPAR+Y Q. A P)0ero !ri1e -3 Joe si!eswi/e! ) ,otor3le !ri1e -3 Nelso res<ig i !),)ge to ) ,otor3le )! i0&ries to Nelso. Joe s/e! o witho&t gi1ig )ssist)e to Nelso. The is)l file! two ifor,)tios )g)ist Joe2 to wit= ("* re4less i,/r&!ee res<ig i !),)ge to /ro/ert3 with /h3si)l i0&ries &!er Art. ;F of RPC2 )! (@* )-)!o,et of oe8s 1iti, &!er /)r)gr)/h @2 Art. @%F -efore the 6TC. Joe w)s )rr)ige!2 trie! )! o1ite! for )-)!o,et of oe8s 1iti, i the 6TC. He )//e)le! to the RTC. It w)s ol3 ) 3e)r l)ter th)t he w)s )rr)ige! i the re4less i,/r&!ee h)rge -efore the RTC. He /le)!e! ot g&ilt3. S&-se7&etl32 the RTC )ffir,e! the !eisio of the 6TC rel)ti1e to the )-)!o,et of oe8s 1iti, h)rge. Joe file! ) /etitio for re1iew -efore the Co&rt of A//e)ls2 i1o4ig his rights )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!32 ote!ig th)t the /rose&tio &!er Art. @%F of the RPC is ) -)r to the /rose&tio for egligee &!er Art. ;F of the s),e o!e. +ei!e. (B)r Q&estio* A. oe cannot clai+ that his conviction for the a(andoning his victi+ in violation of rt# ,4 of the RA! is a (ar to his &rosec"tion for negligence "nder rt# /54 of the RA!# s held in La!era VS CA, 198 SCRA 18*, there is no do"(le .eo&ardy (eca"se these two offenses are not identical# Rec7less i+&r"dence is a cri+e falling "nder the cha&ter on cri+inal negligence' while a(andon+ent of one>s victi+ is a cri+e falling "nder cri+e against sec"rity# The for+er esti+ated (y +eans of c"l&a' while the latter is co++itted (y +eans of dolo# Fail"re to hel& one>s victi+ is not an offense (y itself nor an ele+ent of rec7less i+&r"dence# It +erely increases the &enalty (y one degree# @hen will dis+issal give rise to do"(le .eo&ardy <1= @ here the dis+issal is (ased on a Cde+"rrer to evidenceD filed (y the acc"sed after the &rosec"tion has restedE or (ased on ins"fficiency of evidence# (Peo/le 1. Cit3 Co&rt of Sil)3* <,= @here the dis+issal is +ade' also on +otion of the acc"sed' (eca"se of the denial of his right to s&eedy trial which is in effect a fail"re to &rosec"te# ( Es,e) 1. Pogo3*
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
"%
Q= Whe ) the Peo/le or the /rose&tio )//e)l' 1# @hen the acc"sed has waived or is esto&&ed fro+ invo7ing his right against do"(le .eo&ardy# ,# @hen the &rosec"tion is denied d"e &rocess of law# /# @hen the dis+issal or ac*"ittal is +ade with grave a("se of discretion# Q= Whe is the )&se! !ee,e! to h)1e w)i1e! or is esto//e! fro, i1o4ig !o&-le 0eo/)r!3' 1# The dis+issal is ind"ced (y the acc"sed or his co"nselE and ,# s"ch dis+issal +"st not (e on the +erits and +"st not necessarily a+o"nt to an ac*"ittal# (Peo/le 1. S)lio*
Q. The S)gg&i)g P)l&gso! of 6)il) )//ro1e! ) or!i)e (No. "DDD* /rohi-itig the o/er)tio i the streets within the city li+its of ta%ica( "nits over 8 years old fro+ year of +an"fact"re# The i+&osa(le &enalty for violation thereof is a fine of A3'666 or i+&rison+ent for one year "&on the erring o&erator# Thereafter and while the city ordinance was already in effect' !ongress enacted a law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS ,1' rt# III of the !onstit"tion' if an act is &"nished (y a law and an ordinance' conviction or ac*"ittal "nder either (ars another &rosec"tion for the sa+e act# Q= A&se! w)s h)rge! with 7&)lifie! se!&tio -efore the 6&ii/)l Co&rt. He /le)!e! ot g&ilt3 whe )rr)ige!. The /rose&tio /resete! e1i!ee2 the the !efese /resete! its e1i!ee. Whe the !efese w)s )-o&t to rest its )se2 the /rose&tio ,o1e! th)t )&se! -e ,)!e to )swer to ) h)rge of r)/e sie the e1i!ee s&-,itte! i!i)te! th)t r)/e w)s o,,itte!. The )se w)s !is,isse!. Si:(;* o&ts of r)/e were file!. He /le)!e! ot g&ilt32 -&t the )ses were !is,isse! /ro1isio)ll3 for the !el)3s ,)!e -3 the /rose&tio. It w)s reosi!ere!2 hee2 ) /etitio for ertior)ri w)s file!. The -)si iss&e w)s whether the )&se! )2 &!er the ir&,st)es2 i1o4e !o&-le 0eo/)r!3' $o' (eca"se the dis+issal of the infor+ation (efore the )T! was to &ave the way for the filing of the &ro&er offense of ra&e# The )T! had no ."risdiction to try the offense of ra&e at it is within the &rovince of the RT! to ta7e cogni0ance of# )oreover' the dis+issal of the *"alified sed"ction case was &rovisional and with the consent of the acc"sed#
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER
"$ vs# l(ano' s"&raE Saldana vs# !' 196 S!R /95 1996M=# Q= A w)s h)rge! with ) offese. U/o his ,otio2 the )se w)s !is,isse!. C) he i1o4e !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 i )se he is h)rge! with the s),e )se'Wh3' $o#s a r"le' he cannot invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy (eca"se when he +oved for the dis+issal' he waived the right to inter&ose it# He &revented the State fro+ &resenting evidence and the co"rt fro+ &rono"ncing his g"ilt or innocence# 9Aeo&le vs# Tagle' 164 Ahil# 1,5E Aeo&le vs# Gines' et al#' G#R# $o# 8/35/' )ay ,' 1991=# Q= S&//ose i the 7&estio )-o1e2 the )&se i1o4e! the right to s/ee!3 tri)l2 ) he i1o4e !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 i )se he is h)rge! )g)i' Wh3' ?es' (y way of e%ce&tion to the r"le#
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS In Aeo&le vs# Bocar' 1/8 S!R 155<1984=' it was said that the &rosec"tion was denied d"e &rocess as it never had the chance to offer its evidence for+ally in accordance with the R"les of !o"rt in view of the trial co"rt>s order of dis+issal# The trial co"rt was there(y o"sted fro+ its ."risdiction when it violated the right of the &rosec"tion to d"e &rocess (y a(orting its right to co+&lete the &resentation of its evidence and' therefore' the first .eo&ardy had not (een ter+inated#
<,=
when the delay was ca"sed (y the acc"sed# It wo"ld (e a +oc7ery of ."stice to allow hi+ to (enefit o"t his wrongdoing or tactical +ane"vers#
Fo"r <3= cri+inal cases were filed against the acc"sed# 2"ring the trial on an"ary ,3' 1955' or after eleven <11= years' acc"sed was ready# There was no a&&earance for the &rosec"tion' hence' on +otion of
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
"# the acc"sed' the cases were dis+issed &rovisionally# On +otion for reconsideration' the cases were reinstated# cc"sed +oved to reconsider on the gro"nd of do"(le .eo&ardy# It was denied' hence' a &etition for ertiorari (efore the S! was filed# R"le on the &etition#
A= The /etitio will /ros/er. There is !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 e1e if the !is,iss)l w)s /ro1isio)l i h)r)ter )! e1e &/o ,otio of the )&se! if he i1o4es the right to s/ee!3 tri)l. +is,iss)l )fter ele1e 3e)rs is e7&i1)let to )7&itt)l. There w)s &re)so)-le !el)3. (Peo/le 1s. B)l!0)32 "" SCRA @$G*.
!an the acc"sed invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy in case the infor+ation is dis+issed on the gro"nd of lac7 of ."risdiction%&lain#
A= No2 the !is,iss)l o the gro&! of l)4 of 0&ris!itio is ot e7&i)let to )7&itt)l. (Peo/le 1s. <)l)o2 %F SCRA "# Peo/le 1s. E!&)rte2 <.R. No. $$@@2 e-. @;2 "##D*. He w)s e1er /&t to 0eo/)r!3.
case for li(el was dis+issed for the fail"re of the co+&lainant to &rosec"te' d"e to his fail"re to a&&ear# It was shown however that he was in )anila rec"&erating fro+ the second eye o&eration after his left eye was re+oved# The +otion for reconsideration as7ing that the case (e reinstated was denied on the gro"nd of do"(le .eo&ardy# Is the denial &ro&er
A= No. The )lleg)tio of !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 is &,eritorio&s2 -e)&se the )se w)s !is,isse! &/o ,otio with the oset of the )&se!. or !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 to )tt)h2 the geer)l r&le is th)t the !is,iss)l of the )se ,&st -e witho&t the e:/ress oset of the )&se!.
I Peo/le 1s. Q&i9)!)2 it w)s s)i! th)t there )re ol3 two o)sios whe !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 will )tt)h e1e if the ,otio to !is,iss the )se is ,)!e -3 the )&se! hi,self. The first is where the gro&! is is&ffiie3 of e1i!ee of the /rose&tio )! the seo! is whe the /roee!igs h)1e -ee &re)so)-l3 /rologe! i 1iol)tio of the right to s/ee!3 tri)l. I the ist)t )se2 the )se w)s ,erel3 $ M ,oths ol!. This /erio! is ot s&h ) e:te!e! 2 /rologe! or legth3 !&r)tio )s to )&se )/riio&s )!
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS eg)tio&s !el)3. (Peo/le 1s.
: was charged with the cri+e of ho+icide# &on arraign+ent' he &leaded g"ilty# He was allowed however' to &resent evidence to show +itigating circ"+stances# @hen he testified' he inter&osed selfdefense (eca"se there was strangling# He also invo7ed vol"ntary s"rrender# He was ac*"itted' hence' the &rosec"tion a&&ealed# The acc"sed invo7ed that the a&&eal wo"ld &lace hi+ in do"(le .eo&ardy# Is the contention valid @hy
A= No2 -e)&se the )7&itt)l w)s 1oi!. A /le) of g&ilt is ) &o!itio)l )!,issio of g&ilt. It foreloses the right to !efe! hi,self. The o&rt h)s o other )lter)ti1e e:e/t to i,/ose the /e)lt3 fi:e! -3 l)w. The testi,o3 to /ro1e ,itig)tig ir&,st)es o&l! ot -e t)4e to !eter,ie the g&ilt or ioee of the )&se!. +&e to the )ssertio of self!efese2 the tri)l o&rt sho&l! h)1e t)4e his /le) )ew )! /roee!e to tri)l. I !ei!ig o the ,erits2 the o&rt erre! i the /roe!&re )! !e/ri1e! the /rose&tio of its !)3 i o&rt. His testi,o3 o self!efese 1)te! his for,er /le) of g&ilt3 )! 3et2 ) 1)li! /le) is ) o!itio for !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 to e:ist. (Peo/le 1s. B)lis))2 <.R. No. L@;%;2 )&g&st "2 "#;;*.
The acc"sed re*"ested the ."dge to wait for his lawyer when as7ed to &resent evidence# The ."dge considered it an assa"lt on the dignity of the co"rt' hence' he dis+issed the case# @as the dis+issal valid @hy
A= No2 -e)&se it 1iol)te! the right of the )&se! to !&e /roess. +o&-le 0eo/)r!3 wo&l! ot )tt)h sie the !is,iss)l w)s witho&t !&e /roess. If there w)s )ss)< o the !igit3 of the o&rt2 the2 ote,/t o&l! h)1e -ee /ro/er. (Serio 1s. os)2 GD SCRA G*.
fter the ac*"ittal of the acc"sed in the 7illing of $inoy *"ino' the S! created an ad ho co++ittee <;as*"e0 !o++ittee= which reco++ended the retrial of the case (eca"se the for+er trial was scri&ted' stage-+anaged' a +oro-+oro' hence' the State was denied d"e &rocess# 2o"(le .eo&ardy was invo7ed (y the acc"sed# @as the invocation of do"(le .eo&ardy &ro&er@hy
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@D A= No2 the reo/eig of the )se !i! ot ),o&t to !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 -e)&se the S)!ig)-)3) /roee!ig w)s sh), )! ) ,o4 tri)l. The St)te w)s !eie! !&e /roess )! !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 )ot -e i1o4e! i ri,i)l )ses where there w)s !ei)l of !&e /roess. (<)l,) 1s. SB2 "GG SCRA G*.
In a cri+inal case where was charged' the sa+e was dis+issed# !an the State a&&eal re there e%ce&tions
A= No2 -e)&se the )//e)l wo&l! /)le the )&se! i !o&-le 0eo/)r!3.
There )re howe1er2 e:e/tios to the r&le s&h )s whe ("* the !is,iss)l is ,)!e &/o ,otio or with the e:/ress oset of the !efe!)t (@* the !is,iss)l is ot ) )7&itt)l or -)se! &/o osi!er)tio of the e1i!ee or the ,erits of the )se )! (* the 7&estio to -e /)sse! &/o -3 the )//ell)te o&rt is /&rel3 leg)l so th)t sho&l! the !is,iss)l -e fo&! iorret2 the )se wo&l! h)1e to -e re,)!e! to the o&rt of origi for f&rther /roee!igs2 to !eter,ie the g&ilt or ioee of the !fe!)t. (P)&li2 et )l. 1s.
fter the &rosec"tion rested its case' the acc"sed filed a de+"rrer to evidence# @o"ld do"(le .eo&ardy (e a valid defense if he is charged for the sa+e offense@hy
A= Yes2 -e)&se the !is,iss)l of ) )se o !e,&rrere ro e1i!ee or is&ffiie3 of e1i!ee is ) !is,iss)l o the ,erits2 ),o&tig to )7&itt)l. +o&-le 0eo/)r!3 wo&l! )tt)h. (Peo/le 1s. Sil)32 %G SCRA @G%("#%;* Peo/le 1s. r)iso2 "@$ SCRA ""D*.
S"&&ose the acc"sed filed a +otion to *"ash and the co"rt granted it' can he invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy if he is charged with the sa+e offense@hy A= No2 -e)&se it w)s with his e:/ress oset )! ist)e. There w)s ) w)i1er of his right
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 for he /re1ete! the o&rt fro, re!erig ) 0&!g,et of )7&itt)l or o1itio. The !is,iss)l w)s ot -)se! o the ,erits. (Cei9) 1s. Peo/le2 "F# SCRA "; 6ilo 1s. S)l)g)2 "F@ SCRA ""*.
fter having &leaded not g"ilty to a case of grave coercion' the acc"sed was ready to (e tried# The &rosec"tion as7ed for &ost&one+ents thrice# The acc"sed +oved to dis+iss and it was granted# Twentyone days later' the &rosec"tor +oved for revival' It was granted# cc"sed invo7ed do"(le .eo&ardy# @as the revival a sit"ation where acc"sed was &laced in do"(le .eo&ardy@hy
A= Yes2 -e)&se there w)s 1iol)tio of his right to s/ee!3 tri)l .Altho&gh the !is,iss)l w)s /ro1isio)l i h)r)ter2 it ),o&te! to )7&itt)l. (Es,e) 1s. Pogo32 "D@ SCRA $;"*.
cc"sed was charged with estafa "nder rt# /14 of the Revised Aenal !ode# @o"ld his (eing charged "nder BA ,, a+o"nt to do"(le .eo&ardy@hy
A= No2 -e)&se the two )re !istit offeses. +eeit )! !),)ge )re esseti)l ele,ets i ) h)rge &!er Art. "F2 RPCot i BP @@ ,ere iss&)e of the he4 gi1es rise to /rose&tio &!er BP @@ ot i Art. "F2 RPC the !r)wer ,)3 -e o1ite! of 1iol)tio of BP @@ e1e if there is ) /ree:istig otr)t&)l rel)tioshi/ ot i the Pe)l Co!e. Prose&tio for the s),e )t is ot /rohi-ite!. Wh)t is /rohi-ite! is /rose&tio for the s),e offese. (Nierr)s 1s. +)&3&32 <.R. Nos. F#F;$%;2 J). ""2 "##D Peo/le 1s. 6ir)flores2 ""F SCRA F%D Peo/le 1s. 6ilit)te2 ""% SCRA #"D* This is tr&e )lso i illeg)l rer&it,et where here the )&se! ) li4ewise -e h)rge! with est)f). A sigle )t ,)3 1iol)te two st)t&tes. If e)h st)t&te re7&ires /roof o )!!itio)l ele,et whih the other !oes ot2 ) )7&itt)l or o1itio &!er either st)t&te !oes ot -)r /rose&tio &!er the other. +),)ge is esseti)l i est)f)2 -&t ot i illeg)l rer&it,et. (Peo/le 1s. 6)&g)s2 G# SCA+ %;2 <.R. Nos. #"FF@FF2 6)rh "D2 "##G Peo/le 1s. T&r!)2 F SCA+ #"2 <.R. Nos. #%DGGG;2 J&l3 ;2 "##G.
cc"sed Tio0on was charged and convicted for violation of A#2# $o# 1855 for illegal &ossession of firear+s' for having in his &ossession and control one # /8 cal# Revolver which was "sed to shoot one
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@" Leonardo Boli+a# Later' he was charged with the cri+e of +"rder for the 7illing of Leonardo Boli+a# In his defense' he inter&osed his constit"tional right against do"(le .eo&ardy# Is the defense valid @hy
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS @hat is +eant (y the Csa+e offenseD for &"r&oses of do"(le .eo&ardy
A= S),e offese ,e)s= A= No2 -e)&se the 4illig of ) /erso with the &se of ) &liese! fire)r, ,)3 gi1e rise to se/)r)te /rose&tio for ()* 1iol)tio of Setio " of P.+. No. "$;; )! (-* 1iol)tio of either Art. @G$ or Art @G# of the Re1ise! Pe)l Co!e. The )&se! )ot /le)! oe )s ) -)r to the other. The r&le )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 )ot -e i1o4e! -e)&se the first is /&ishe! -3 ) s/ei)l l)w2 while the seo!2 ho,ii!e or ,&r!er2 is /&ishe! -3 the Re1ise! Pe)l Co!e. It is ) )r!i)l r&le th)t the /rotetio )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 ,)3 -e i1o4e! ol3 if the seo! /rose&tio is for the s),e offese or i!eti)l offeses. (Peo/le 1s. Ti9o2 "#$ SCRA ;$ Peo/le 1s. +e&i!)2 G# SCA+ $F#2 <.R. Nos. "DF"##@DD2 6)rh @$2 "##G Peo/le 1s. er)!e92 F% SCA+ G$"2 <.R. No. ""G%G2 +e. "2 "##G*.
liseo Soriano iss"ed a &ostdated chec7 which was dishonored when &resented for &ay+ent# He was charged with two<,= se&arate offenses for violation of B#A# ,, and estafa# The charge "nder B#A# ,, was dis+issed for (eing fatally defective# He was' however convicted of estafa# On a&&eal' he was ac*"itted# The State a&&ealed (y way of a &etition for ertiorari and $anda$!s. The alleged defect in the infor+ation "nder B#A# ,, was the fail"re to state that the acc"sed' as drawer of the chec7 at the ti+e of iss"e' 7new of the ins"fficiency of f"nds in the (an7 for &ay+ent "&on its &resentation# Is the co"rt correct @hy
A= No. The iter/ret)tio is erroeo&s2 the ,)4er8s 4owle!ge of is&ffiie3 of his f&!s is leg)ll3 /res&,e! fro, the !ishoor of his he4 for is&ffiie3 of f&!s.
Altho&gh its !eisio is erroeo&s2 th)t !eisio ,)3 ot -e )&lle! or set )si!e -e)&se it ),o&te! to ) 0&!g,et of )7&itt)l. The St)te ,)3 ot )//e)l th)t !eisio for it wo&l! /l)e the )&se! twie i !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 for /&ish,et for the s),e offese i 1iol)tio of his ostit&tio)l right )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3. (Peo/le 1s. Ho. L)gg&i2 et )l.2 <.R. Nos. %;@;@;2 6)rh ";2 "#$#*.
("* the 1er3 s),e offese or (@* )tte,/t or fr&str)tio of ) offese or (* th)t whih eess)ril3 il&!es or is il&!e! i the offese h)rge! i the for,er o,/l)it or ifor,)tio. @hat is the test in deter+ining whether the for+er co+&laint or infor+ation charges the sa+e offense
A= The test is whether the e1i!ee to /ro1e the s),e or the two )re the s),e. Or2 if the ele,ets or igre!iets i the for,er ostit&te the l)tter or 1ie 1ers).
: was charged with fr"strated ho+icide# He &leaded not g"ilty# ;icti+ died later' hence' he was charged again with ho+icide# He &leaded in a +otion to *"ash' do"(le .eo&ardy# Is the contention correct @hy
A= No2 -e)&se the seo! offese w)s ot 3et e:istig )t the ti,e of the first /rose&tio. There w)s o /ossi-ilit3 for hi, to -e o1ite! for ) oe:istig ri,e )s it ,erel3 s&/er1ee! )fter his i!it,et for the offese of fr&str)te! ho,ii!e. (Peo/le 1s. 6elo*.
was charged with slight &hysical in."ries# He &leaded not g"ilty# !an he invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy if he is charged with serio"s &hysical in."ries@hy A= No2 -e)&se the !efor,it3 !i! ot e:ist )! o&l! ot h)1e e:iste! )t the s),e ti,e of the first ifor,)tio. (Peo/le 1s. A!il2 %; SCRA G;@*. )r# ? was charged with less serio"s &hysical in."ries# He was convicted' ("t later on' he was charged with serio"s &hysical in."ries# !an he invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy @hy A= Yes2 -e)&se there w)s o ew s&/er1eig e1et. The !efor,it3 w)s )lre)!3 e:istig )t the ti,e of his o1itio for less serio&s /h3si)l i0&ries. With /ro/er ,e!i)l e:),i)tio2 the !efor,it3 o&l! h)1e -ee !etete!. (Peo/le 1s. Yor)2 G@ SCRA @D*.
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@@ Two infor+ations were filed against )r# G for <1= ;iolation of Section of R## $o# /656' &"nishing a &erson who e%hi(its any +otion &ict"re in a theater' &"(lic &lace witho"t s"ch &ict"re (eing d"ly &assed (y the Board of )otion Aict"res
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS for whih leg)l 0eo/)r!3 i oe ,)3 -e i1o4e! i the other. The e1i!ee re7&ire! to /ro1e oe offese is ot the s),e e1i!ee re7&ire! to /ro1e the other. E,/h)si9ig the )-see of !o&-le 0eo/)r!32 the SC s)i!= >It is ) )r!i)l r&le th)t the /rotetio )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 ,)3 -e i1o4e! ol3 for the s),e offeses. A3 sigle )t ,)3 offe! )g)ist two (or ,ore* etirel3 !istit )! &rel)te! /ro1isios of l)w2 )! if oe /ro1isio re7&ires /roof of ) )!!itio)l f)t or ele,et whih the other !oes ot2 ) )7&itt)l or o1itio or ) !is,iss)l of the ifor,)tio &!er oe !oes ot -)r /rose&tio &!er the other. : : : Phr)se! elsewhere2 where two !ifferet l)ws !efie two ri,es2 /rior 0eo/)r!3 )s to oe of the, is o o-st)le to ) /rose&tio of the other2 )ltho&gh -oth offeses )rise fro, the s),e f)ts2 e)h ri,e i1ol1es so,e i,/ort)t )t whih is ot ) esseti)l ele,et of the other.? (Peo/le 1s. Cit3 Co&rt of 6)il)2 "FG SCRA "%F "#$%*.
: was charged for violation of an ordinance which &rohi(its installation of electrical devices or contra&tions witho"t &er+it# He filed a )otion to "ash on the gro"nd of &rescri&tion which was granted# Fo"rteen <13= days later' the fiscal filed a theft case against hi+# He filed a +otion to *"ash invo7ing do"(le .eo&ardy# @ill the +otion &ros&er@hy A= Yes2 there is !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 -e)&se the !is,iss)l o the gro&! of /resri/tio ),o&te! to )7&itt)l. Oe w)s ) ,e)s of o,,ittig the other. ( Peo/le 1s. Relo1)*
BILL OF TTI$2R state the constit"tional &rovision &rohi(iting the &assage of a (ill of attainder and e' (ost #ato law# A= No e5 ost (a#to l)w or -ill of )tt)i!er sh)ll -e e)te!. (Art. III2 Se. @@2 "#$% Costit&tio* The Ahili&&ines and "stralia entered into an %tradition Treaty &roviding that e%tradition +ay (e granted irres&ective of when the offense was
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@ co++itted &rovided that s"ch offense is an offense &enali0ed "nder the laws of the re*"esting State# A"rs"ant to s"ch treaty' Aa"l ose&h @right was so"ght to (e e%tradited for having co++itted certain offenses in "stralia' ("t he contended that since he co++itted the offenses (efore the treaty (eca+e effective' retroactivity wo"ld (e violative of the constit"tional &rohi(ition against e' (ost #ato law# Is his contention valid @hy A= No2 -e)&se the /rohi-itio )g)ist the /)ss)ge of e5 ost (a#to l)w )//lies ol3 to ri,i)l legisl)tio whih )ffets the s&-st)ti)l rights of the )&se!. The tre)t3 is either ) /iee of ri,i)l legisl)tio or ) ri,i)l /roe!&r)l st)t&te. It ,erel3 /ro1i!es for the e:tr)!itio of /ersos w)te! for /rose&tio of ) offese or ) ri,e whih offese or ri,e w)s )lre)!3 o,,itte! or os&,,)te! )t the ti,e the tre)t3 w)s r)tifie!. (Wright 1s. CA2 et )l .2 FG SCA+ GD;2 <.R. No. ""@"2 )&g. "F2 "##G*. In @right vs# !' et al#' ,/4 S!R /31' it was contended (y the &erson so"ght to (e e%tradited that the &hrase Cwanted for &rosec"tionD +eans that a &erson sho"ld have a cri+inal case &ending (efore a co+&etent co"rt of the re*"esting State# Is the contention correct@hy A= No2 otherwise it wo&l! streth the ,e)ig of the /hr)se -e3o! the itetio of the St)tes2 -e)&se the tre)t3 /ro1isios ,erel3 re7&ire ) w)rr)t for the )rrest or ) o/3 of the w)rr)t. &rther,ore2 the >Ch)rge )! W)rr)t of Arrest Sheets? )ttest to the f)t th)t he is ot ol3 w)te! for /rose&tio2 -&t h)s i f)t2 )-so!e! to e1)!e )rrest )! ri,i)l /rose&tio. To li,it the iter/ret)tio to /ersos h)rge! with ) ifor,)tio or o,/l)it re!ers the Tre)t3 ieffeti1e o1er i!i1i!&)ls who )-so!e! for the /&r/ose of e1)!ig )rrest )! /rose&tio. : was charged with illegal recr"it+ent (efore the effectivity of A#2# ,618 &enali0ing illegal recr"it+ent on a large scale# !an this 2ecree (e "sed to &enali0e : @hy A= No2 -e)&se it wo&l! -eo,e retro)ti1e whih wo&l! 1iol)te the ostit&tio)l /rohi-itio )g)ist the e)t,et of e5 ost (a#to l)w. (Peo/le 1s. T)g&-)2 G% SCA+ "%@2 <.R. Nos. #F@D%"%2 J). "D2 "##G*.
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
!ITI$SHIA @hen does an ad+inistrative &roceeding on citi0enshi& ac*"ire res j!diata effect A= A!,iistr)ti1e /roee!ig o iti9eshi/ )7&ire res Eudi#ata effet if the followig re7&isites o&r= ("*Citi9eshi/ is resol1e! )s ) ,)teri)l iss&e i the otro1ers3 (@*After ) f&ll -low he)rig (* Ati1e /)rtii/)tio of the Soliitor
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@G
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
f)thers o&tr3 s&h hil!re )re iti9es of th)t o&tr3.
)ll otests rel)tig to the eletio ret&rs )! 7&)lifi)tios of their res/eti1e ,e,-ers.?
(* Those who ,)rr3 )lies if -3 the l)ws of the l)tter8s o&tr3 the for,er )re osi!ere! iti9es2 &less -3 their )t or o,issio the3 )re !ee,e! to h)1e reo&e! Phili//ie Citi9eshi/# Merado Vs Man*ano, 30/ SCRA 630
<,= ?es' ? is a Fili&ino citi0en# )ore than that he is a nat"ral (orn citi0en of the Ahili&&ines *"alified to (eco+e a Senator# Since ? is an illegiti+ate child of a Fili&ino +other' he follows the citi0enshi& of his +other# He need not elect Ahili&&ine citi0enshi& "&on reaching the age of +a.ority as held +n re Mallare, SCRA 4. +n 5sias V Antonio, letoral ase No. 11, A!)!st 6, 1/1, the Se)te Eletor)l Tri-&)l hel! th)t the illegiti,)te hil! of ) )lie f)ther )! ) ili/io ,other is ) ili/io iti9e )! is 7&)lifie! to -e ) Se)tor.
# B' an Indian national' was nat"rali0ed as a Fili&ino citi0en in accordance with ! 3/' as a+ended# s an effect of B>s nat"rali0ation' his wife and +inor children were derivatively nat"rali0ed# Three years after his nat"rali0ation' B ret"rned to his native India and esta(lished residence there# B>s wife and children were left in the Ahili&&ines# nder the law' B>s esta(lishing a residence in any foreign co"ntry within 4 years is a gro"nd for denat"rali0ation# @o"ld B>s wife and +inor children also lose their Fili&ino !iti0enshi& # No. it is ol3 whe the gro&! for !e)t&r)li9)tio )ffets the itrisi 1)li!it3 of the /roee!igs !oes it !i1est the wife )! hil!re of their !eri1)ti1e )t&r)li9)tio. U!er the l)w2 these )re whe ("* the )t&r)li9)tio ertifi)te w)s o-t)ie! fr)&!&letl3 or illeg)ll32 )! (@* )t&r)li9)tio w)s o-t)ie! thro&gh i1)li! !el)r)tio of itetio. If the gro"nd is &ersonal to the &erson nat"rali0ed' s"ch as in this case' the wife and children shall retain their Fili&ino citi0enshi&# # ? was elected Senator in the )ay 198 national election# He was (orn o"t of wedloc7 in 1939 of an +erican father and a nat"rali0ed Fili&ina +other# ? never elected Ahili&&ine citi0enshi& "&on reaching the age of +a.ority# <1= Before what (ody sho"ld T' the losing candidate *"estion the election of ? State the reasons for yo"r answer# <,= Is ? a Fili&ino citi0en %&lain yo"r answer# The Se)te )! the Ho&se of Re/reset)ti1es sh)ll e)h h)1e ) Eletor)l Tri-&)l whih sh)ll -e the sole 0&!ge of
# <1= Lily Teh arrived in )anila on one of her reg"lar to"rs to the Ahili&&ines fro+ Tai&eh# She +et Aeter Go' a nat"rali0ed Fili&ino citi0en# fter a whirlwind co"rtshi&' Lily and Aeter were +arried at the San g"stin !h"rch# wee7 after the wedding' Lily The &etitioned in ad+inistrative &roceedings (efore i++igration a"thorities to declare her a Fili&ino citi0en stating that she had none of the dis*"alifications &rovided in the Revised $at"rali0ation Law# The .ilted Fili&ino girlfriend of Aeter Go o&&osed the &etition clai+ing that Lily Teh w)s still ) ,ior who h)! ot e1e ele-r)te! her @"st -irth!)32 who e1er resi!e! i the Phili//ies e:e/t !&rig her oe wee4 1isit )s to&rist fro, T)i/eh !&rig the Chiese New Ye)r2 who s/o4e ol3 Chiese2 )! who h)! r)!i)l i!e)s li4e )!1o)tig &ifi)tio of T)iw) with ,)il)! Chi). Lil3 Teh 2 howe1er2 swore th)t she w)s reo&ig her Chiese )llegi)e )! while she 4ew o ili/io &sto,s )! tr)!itios )s 3et2 she e1ie! ) siere !esire to le)r )! e,-r)e the,. Wo&l! Lil3 The s&ee! i -eo,ig ) ili/io Citi9es thro&gh her ,)rri)ge to Peter
# ("* Yes2 Lil3 The i/so f)to -e),e ) Phili//ie Citi9e &/o her ,)rri)ge to Peter
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@F the 7&)lifi)tios /resri-e! i Se. @ of the Re1ise! N)t&r)li9)tio L)w /ro1i!e! she /ossesses oe of the !is7&)lifi)tios set forth i Se. G of the s),e l)w. All of the gro&!s i1o4e! -3 the for,er girlfrie! of Peter
# :' was (orn in the S of a Fili&ino father and a )e%ican +other' he ret"rned to the Ahili&&ines when he was ,5 years old carrying an +erican &ass&ort and he was registered as an alien with the B"rea" of I++igration# @as : *"alified to r"n for +e+(ershi& in the Ho"se of re&resentatives in the 1994 elections %&lain# <1995 Bar "estion=
# +e/e!s i the ir&,st)es. If : was an illegiti+ate child' he is not *"alified to r"n for the Ho"se of Re&resentatives# ccording to the case +n Re Mallare, SCRA 4, ) illegiti,)te hil! follows the iti9eshi/ of the ,other. Sie the ,other of is ) 6e:i)2 he will -e ) 6e:i) iti9e2 if he is ) illegiti,)te hil! e1e if his f)ther is ) ili/io. If : is a legiti+ate child' he is a Fili&ino citi0en# nder Sec# ,<,=' rt# I; of the !onstit"tion' those whose fathers are citi0ens of the Ahili&&ines are Fili&ino !iti0ens# Since : was (orn in the S' which follows ."s soli' : also is an +erican citi0en# In accordance with A*nar VS C5MLC, 17 SCRA /03, the ,ere f)t ) /erso with !&)l iti9eshi/ registere! )s ) )lie with the Co,,issio o I,,igr)tio )! +e/ort)tio does not necessarily +ean that he is reno"ncing his Ahili&&ine !iti0enshi&# Li7ewise' the +ere fact that : "sed an +erican &ass&ort did not res"lt in the lose of his Ahili&&ine citi0enshi&# s held in 8a9a:ita VS ;S, sie ) /erso with !&)l iti9eshi/ h)s the rights of iti9eshi/ i -oth o&tries2 the &se of ) /)ss/ort
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS iss&e! -3 oe o&tr3 is ot iosistet with his iti9eshi/ i the other o&tr3.
# "lian Hortal was (orn of Fili&ino &arents# &on reaching the age of +a.ority' he (eca+e a nat"rali0ed citi0en in the other co"ntry# Later' he reac*"ired Ahili&&ine !iti0enshi&# !o"ld Hortal regain his stat"s as nat"ral (orn Fili&ino !iti0en @o"ld yo"r answer (e the sa+e whether he reac*"ires his Fili&ino !iti0enshi& (y re&atriation or (y act of !ongress %&lain# <1999 Bar "estion=
# First lternative nswer J&li) Hort)l ) reg)i his st)t&s )s ) )t&r)l -or iti9e -3 re/)tri)tig. Sie re/)tri)tio i1ol1es restor)tio of ) /erso to iti9eshi/ /re1io&sl3 lost -3 e:/)tri)tio )! J&li) Hort)l w)s /re1io&sl3 ) )t&r)l -or iti9e2 i )se he re/)tri)tes he will -e restore! to his st)t&s )s ) )t&r)l -or iti9e. If he )7&ire! his iti9eshi/ -3 ) )t of Cogress2 J&li) Hort)l will ot -e ) )t&r)l -or iti9e2 sie he )7&ire! his iti9eshi/ -3 legisl)ti1e )t&r)li9)tio.
Second lternative nswer J&li) Hort)l )ot reg)i his st)t&s )s ) )t&r)l -or iti9e -3 re/)tri)tig. He h)! to /erfor, ) )ts to )7&ire his iti9eshi/2 i.e.2 re/)tri)tio. U!er Se. @2 Art. IV of the Costit&tio2 )t&r)l -or iti9es )re those iti9es fro, -irth witho&t h)1ig to /erfor, ) )t to )7&ire or /erfet their iti9eshi/. If he re)7&ire! his iti9eshi/ -3 ) )t of Cogress2 J&li) Hort)l will ot -e ) )t&r)l -or iti9e sie he re)7&ire! his iti9eshi/ -3 legisl)ti1e )t&r)li9)tio.
# @hat are the effects of +arriages of ". citi0en to an alien @. an alien to a citi0en on their s&o"ses and children 2isc"ss# <1999 Bar "estion= # ". Aor!ig to Se. G2 Art. IV of the Costit&tio2 ili/io Citi9es who ,)rr3 )lies ret)i their iti9eshi/ &less -3 their )t or o,issios the3 )re !ee,e! to h)1e reo&e! it &!er the l)w. @. Aor!ig to Mo%a Li$ VS Co$$issioner o# +$$i)ration, &!er Se. "F of the Re1ise! N)t&r)li9)tio L)w2 ) foreig wo,) who ,)rries )
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
@;
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS
ili/io Citi9e -eo,es ) ili/io Citi9e /ro1i!e! she /ossesses oe of the !is7&)lifi)tio for )t&r)li9)tio. A foreig ,) who ,)rries ) ili/io Citi9es !oes ot )7&ire Phili//ie Citi9eshi/. Howe1er2 &!er Se. of the Re1ise! N)t&r)li9)tio At2 i s&h ) )se the resi!ets re7&ire,et for )t&r)li9)tio sh)ll -e re!&e! fro, te to fi1e 3e)rs. U!er Se. "(@*2 Art. IV of the Costit&tio2 the hil!re of ) )lie )! ) ili/io iti9es )re iti9es of the Phili//ies.
Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief 6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hief CATHY AQUINO )e+(ers 6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN
