CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II FINALS

1. Remedies available in case an application for a permit to hold a rally is denied.BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880 - The Public Assembly Act of 1985 Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the application- (b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf shall act on the application within two (2) working days from the date the application was filed, failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted. Should for any reason the mayor or any official acting in his behalf refuse to accept the application for a permit, said application shall be posted by the applicant on the premises of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed.(c) If the mayor is of the view that there is imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the permit, he shall immediately inform the applicant who must be heard on the matter.(d) The action on the permit shall be in writing and served on the application within twenty-four hours.(e) If the mayor or any official acting in his behalf denies the application or modifies the terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may contest the decision in an appropriate court of law.(f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or the Intermediate Appellate Court, its decisions may be appealed to the appropriate court within forty-eight (48) hours after receipt of the same. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A decision granting such permit or modifying it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall, be immediately executory.(g) All cases filed in court under this Section shall be decided within twenty-four (24) hours from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the executive judge for disposition or, in his absence, to the next in rank.(h) In all cases, any decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court.(i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed.2. Grounds for the denial of an application to hold a rally at a particular area.BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880 - The Public Assembly Act of 1985 Sec. 6. Action to be taken on the application-(a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health.3. Instances when a warrantless arrest is considered lawful.THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (RULE 113 Arrest)Section 5. Arrest without warrant;when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;(In flagrante delicto) Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore a rebel may be arrested without warrant at any time of the day or the night as he is deemed to be in the act of committing a crime. (Umil vs Ramos, 1991) Though kidnapping with illegal detention is a continuing offense, it can be considered as such only when the deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place to another. Hot pursuit: The arrest of the accused inside his house following hot pursuit of a person who committed the offense in flagrante is valid. (People vs De Lara) Buy-bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrantearrest. The subsequent-search of the person arrested and the premises within his immediate control is valid as an incident to a lawful arrest.i. Exception to buy-bust: If the person is not immediately arrested.

(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and NOTE: There must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest Personal knowledge: Experience of an officer which gives the idea that there is probable cause that the person caught is responsible. Probable cause: actual belief or reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested committed the crime.

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)Additional exceptions:d) When the right is voluntarily waived. (Estoppel)e) Violent Insanity4. Extent of police power of the State.

It is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enable to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of the society.

To promote the general welfare, it may interfere with personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the genral comfort, health and prosperity of the state and to the fundamental aim of the government, the rights of the individual are subordinated.

Extending to all public needs.

Cannot be bargained away through treaty or contract.

Taxation and eminent domain may be used to exercise police power ( Tiu vs Videogram Regulatory Board; Association of Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform)

Specific Coverage1. Public Health2. Public Morals3. Public Safety4. Public Welfare

Test of Reasonability

1. Lawful object2. Lawful means3. Least Restrictions of individual rights

The limit of police power is reasonability. The court looks at the test of reasonability to decide whether it encroached on the right of an individual. So long as legitimate means can reasonably lead to create that end, it is reasonable.

Since the courts cannot foresee the needs and demands of the public interest and welfare, they cannot delimit beforehand the extent or scope of police power by which and through which the state seeks to attain or achieve public interest of welfare.

Police power as one of the fundamental powers of the State can be exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some relevance to public welfare. Practically, everything an individual does or owns comes under the police power; it rests upon the public necessity and upon the right of the State and the public for self-protection. The police power being the most essential and insistent power of the State is also the least limitable. The limitations to this are provided in the Bill of Rights.The Bill of Rights provides for the Constitutional guarantee on the protection of ones right to life, liberty and property against the intrusion of the government thru police power. The Bill of Rights is a set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as means of securing the enjoyment of those rights. In general, any governmental action in violation of the Bill of Rights is void.Additional note: Civil Rights- those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights to property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc.. they are the rights capable of being enforced ot redressed in a civil action.Political Rights- refers to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, e.g., the right to suffrage, right to hold public office, the right to petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis--vis the management of government.5. Instances when a person may invoke his right against self-incrimination.

No person shall be compelled to be witness against himself (Art III, Sec. 17) Applies only to compulsory testimonial, and doesnt apply to material objects

It refers therefor to the use of mental process and the communicative faculties and not to mere physical activities.

If the act is physical or mechanical, the accused can be compelled to allow or perform the act, and result can used against him.

Examples:

Not allowed:a. Handwriting in connection with a prosecution for falsificationb. Re-enactment of the crime by the accused/Allowed:a. Required to allow sample substance taken from his bodyb. To expel morphine from his mouthc. Take off her garments and be photographedd. Compelled to show her body for physical investigation to see if she is pregnant by an adulterous relatione. Order to give footprint sample to see if it matches the ones found in the scene of ten crime.

The right against self-incrimination, as a rule, may be invoked by an accused from the moment he is asked to testify as he has the absolute right to be silent; a person who is a witness may assert the right only when the incriminating question is already asked. It is available in any judicial or administrative proceedings or in any official government enquiry and applies only to testimonial compulsion.

A. ACCUSED At all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will be incriminate himB. WITNESS only when an incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the question to be put to him. He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination wheni. The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil liability. ii. The question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no longer be prosecuted.iii. He has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute. Only natural persons may invoke this right. Judicial persons are subject to the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the conditions of the charter granted them.

6. People considered as natural-born Filipino citizen.

Sec.2 Article 4: Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Phils. from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Phil. Citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3, sec. 1 hereof shall be deemed natural born citizens.

a.) Those who are born to Filipino father or motherPar. 3, Sec.1: Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mother who elect the Philippine citizenship upon attaining the age of majority7. Period to elect Filipino citizenship.

Period to elect Filipino citizenship: the election must be made within reasonable period after reaching majority. Three years, however, from attainment of majority may still be considered as reasonable.

Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution: Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien, she lost her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Under the 1973 Constitution, however, children born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos. Therefore, the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935 Constitution. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. So, if your mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. When must election be made: The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority.

8. Requirements for expropriation to be exercised by a national government agency and by a local government unit.

A. National government agency - i. Expropriator must enter a private property ii. Entry must not be for a momentary period only iii. Entry must be under a warrant of color of authority iv. Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected v. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property

B. Local government unit - i. Ordinance by the local legislative council authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power of eminent domain ii. For public use, purpose or welfare or for the benefit of the poor and the landless iii. Payment of just compensation iv. Valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated but such offer was refused

9. Rights of the accused (Filipino citizen and foreigner). CPHISMC i. Criminal due process ii. Presumption of innocence iii. Right to be heard by himself and counsel iv. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him v. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial vi. Right to meet witness face to face vii. Right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of the witnesses and the production of evidence

10. Instances when bail is a matter of right.RULE 114 ROC - Section 4. Bail, a matter of right;exception. All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death,reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. (4a)11. Freedom of expression in the campus.

The right of students to free speech in school premises is not absolute. The Campus Journalism Act providesthat the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has written, except when such a) article materially disrupts class work or 2) involves substantial disorder 3) invasion of rights of others. Miriam College Foundation v. CA

12. Extent of the States power of taxation.

A. Due Process of law - tax should not be confiscatory, except where they are intended precisely for destruction as an instrument of the police power. Ex. A tax that would claim 80% of one's net income would be oppressive and could questionably be struck down as a deprivation of his property without due process of law.

B. Equal Protection Clause - taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The former means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. While the latter means that the tax should be apportioned among the people according to their capacity to pay.Allows classification, provided, SNAGAE

C. Public Purpose - "life blood theory"; to generate revenues for public benefit and maintenance of government services. Ex. Construction of roads, bridges, schools, museums, etc. All of which inure benefit and enjoyment of the people.It might be justied as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries are private individuals.

13. Right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping Law.

Requisites of existence of privacy of rights1. A person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and2. The expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable (objective).

Forms of correspondence and communication covered1. Letters2. Messages3. Telephone calls4. Telegrams 5. Those analogous to the foregoing

When is intrusion allowed?1. By lawful order of the court2. When public safety or order requires otherwise, as may be provided by law (Art. III Sec. 3) There must be a requirement of probable cause

Right to privacy of detainees Under sec. 4 of RA 7438, any public officer with custodial responsibility over the detainee may undertake such measures to secure his safety and prevent his escape. By the very fact of their detention, pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of privacy rights (Trillanes III vs. Cabuay)

Limitation of Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372) The authorities may, upon written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of terrorist groups as defined in the RA 9372. Surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources, and confidential business correspondence shall not be allowed.

Letters and sealed packages in the mails may be examined only as to their external appearance and weight and may not be opened except in accordance with the constitutional requirements of search and seizure (Ex parte Johnson)

Writ of Habeas corpus A remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. Sought to secure destruction of secret information gathered in violation of the persons right to privacy to justify summary action against him by the government or any private entity.

Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200) Prohibits any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word to tap any wire or cable , or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record the same, or to communicate the content thereof to any other person (Sec. 1, RA 4200) Congress passed the Anti-Wiretapping Law, R.A. 4200, in 1965. The law seeks to punish wiretapping and other related violations of the right to privacy of communication. It also intends to stop the practice by officers of the government of spying on one anothera "most obnoxious instrument of oppression or arbitrary power." The law also declares inadmissible such illegally obtained recordings in civil, criminal, administrative and legislative hearings or investigations. A telephone extension is not among the devices covered The law does not prohibit the recording of all private communications, but provides a limited and narrowly drawn exception for law enforcers. The law provides that police and other law enforcement agencies may wiretap private communications but law enforcers must first secure a court order; and only in cases involving crimes against national security under the Revised Penal Code (treason, espionage, rebellion or sedition) and kidnapping. The law further says that in cases involving rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, there must be prior proof that rebellion or acts of sedition have actually been or are being committed. The law does not prohibit the recording of private communications that are authorized by ALL parties. These recordings are admissible in evidence and the person/s who made the recording are not liable. Thus, a person who attaches an answering machine to his telephone, and records a message inviting callers to leave a message after the tone, would not be covered by the Anti-Wiretapping Law. The consent or authorization need not be express as long as it is evident from the circumstances. What is essential, however, is that ALL the parties to the private conversation expressly or impliedly consent to its being recorded.

What are the acts punished? Wiretapping or using any other device or arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or record a private communication or spoken word, except where the same is done pursuant to a court order and complies with all the conditions imposed by section 3 of R.A. 4200 Possessing any tape, wire, disc or other record, or copies, of an illegally obtained recording of a private communication, knowing that it was illegally obtained Replaying an illegally obtained recording for another person, or communicating its contents, or furnishing transcripts of the communication, whether complete or partial Acts of peace officers (law enforcement agents) in violation of section 3 of R.A. 4200 on the proper procedure for securing and implementing a court order authorizing the wiretapping of a private communication. The law also makes persons who "wilfully or knowingly aid, permit or cause to be done the acts described above, equally liable as direct participants to the illegal wiretap or secret recording

14. Fruit of the poisonous tree.

The fruit of thepoisonoustreedoctrineis an exclusionary rule of evidence that precludes theadmissioninto evidence of the product of evidence obtained unlawfully through illegalsearchor seizure. Pursuant to thisdoctrine, evidence obtained improperly through illegalsearchor seizure cannot yield admissible outcome or fruits. Even knowledge learned from the inadmissible evidence is also inadmissible. As held in EJERCITO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al. [G.R. Nos. 157294-95.November 30, 2006.]:The "fruit of the poisonous tree" principle, which states that once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible, xxx This means that any evidence that is to be used against the accused must have been obtained through legitimate means.Anything that can be traced to an unlawful search or seizure may not be used as evidence against the accused.

15. Republic Act 9225.What is the policy of the State regarding dual citizenship?

All Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of RA 9225.

How can Philippine citizenship be reacquired by a Filipino who has been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign country?

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippine who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the Republic:"I, _________________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily with no mental reservation or purpose of evasion."Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath stated above.

What is derivate citizenship?

The unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship upon effectivity of RA 9225 shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.

What are the civil and political rights and responsibilities of those who retain or re-acquire Filipino citizenship?

Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:1. Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189 otherwise known as "The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;2. Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath;3. Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to the country where they took that oath.4. Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice; and5. That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to, those who: (a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or (b) are in active services as commissioned or non-commissioned officers in the armed forces of the country which they are naturalized citizens. 16. Miranda rights; Time when an accused may invoked his Miranda rights.

MirandaDoctrine(Mirandavs.Arizona)-nowinSection12,Art.IIIof1987Constitution.SECTION12.(1)Anypersonunderinvestigationforthecommissionofanoffenseshallhavetherighttobeinformedofhisrighttoremainsilentandtohavecompetentandindependentcounselpreferablyofhisownchoice.Ifthepersoncannotaffordtheservicesofcounsel,hemustbeprovidedwithone.Theserightscannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandinthepresenceofcounsel.(2)Notorture,force,violence,threat,intimidation,oranyothermeanswhichvitiatethefreewillshallbeusedagainsthim.Secretdetentionplaces,solitary,incommunicado,orothersimilarformsofdetentionareprohibited.(3)AnyconfessionoradmissionobtainedinviolationofthisorSection17hereofshallbeinadmissibleinevidenceagainsthim.(4)Thelawshallprovideforpenalandcivilsanctionsforviolationsofthissectionaswellascompensationtoandrehabilitationofvictimsoftortureorsimilarpractices,andtheirfamilies.Mirandarightsunderaboveprovisionexistsonlyin"custodialinvestigation"or"in-custodyinterrogationofaccusedpersons".Rulebeginstooperateatonceassoonastheinvestigationceasestobeageneralinquiryintoanunsolvedcrime,anddirectionisthenaimeduponaparticularsuspectwhohasbeentakenintocustodyandtowhomthepolicewouldthendirectinterrogatoryquestionswhichtendtoelicitincriminatingstatements.Rightsguaranteedbytheprovisionrefertotestimonialcompulsion.Custodialinvestigation-anyquestioninginitiatedbylawenforcementofficersafterapersonhasbeentakenintocustodyorotherwisedeprivedofhisfreedomofactioninanysignificantway-includespracticeofissuinganinvitationtoapersonwhoisinvestigatedinconnectionwithanoffenseheissuspectedtohavecommitted,withoutprejudicetotheliabilityoftheinvitingofficerforanyviolationoflaw(basedonRA7438)NOTE:InstanceswhenMirandaRightscannotbeinvokedorwhere aninstancecannotbecalledacustodialinvestigation:(1)spontaneousstatements;(2)policeline-up;(3)out-of-courtidentification;(4)normalauditinvestigation;(5)admissionsbythesuspectbeforehewasplacedundercustodialinvestigation(morediscussioninNachurareviewer) SPONARightsavailableunderMirandaDoctrineentitledtoapersonundercustodialinvestigation(circumstancesofeacharecomprehensivelydiscussedinNachurareviewer):1. Toremainsilent2. Toacompetentandindependentcounsel3. Tobeinformedofsuchrights4. Rightscannotbewaivedexceptinwritingandsignedbythepersoninthepresenceofhiscounsel-onlytherighttoremainsilentandtoacounselmaybewaived,butnottherighttobeinformedoftheserights;burdenofproofofavalidwaiverrestsontheprosecution;mustbeexecutedvoluntarily,knowingly,intelligently5. Notorture,force,etc.whichvitiatesfreewillshallbeused6. Secretdetentionplacesetc.areprohibited7. Confession/admissionobtainedinviolationofrightsareinadmissibleinevidence

Guidelinesforarresting/investigatingofficers(Peoplevs.Mahinay;summarizedinNachurareviewer):1. personarrestedorinvitedforinvestigationbeinformedinalanguageknownandunderstoodbyhim,reasonforarrest,shownthearrestwarrant2. Warnedofhisrighttoremainsilentandthatanystatementhemakesmaybeusedasevidenceagainsthim3. Informedofhisrighttobeassistedbyanindependentandcompetentlawyer,preferrablyofhischoice4. Thatifhehasnoorcannotaffordalawyer,hewillbeprovidedwithone5. Informedthatnocustodialinvestigationwillbeconductedexceptinthepresenceofhiscounselorafterheexecutesavalidwaiver6. Informedofhisrighttocommunicateorconferbythemostexpedientmeans(i.e.alternativeswhenindependentandcompetentlawyerisnotimmediatelyavailable)7. Informedofhisrighttowaivehisrights8. Warnedthatwaiverwillbevoidifhewillnotexecuteitinavalidmanner,evenifheinsists9. Informedofhisrighttoindicateifheisnotwillingtobequestionedwithawarningthatpolicemaynotproceedhisinthequestioning10. Informedofhisrighttorevokethewaiveratanytimeduringtheprocess11. Informedthatanyinfoobtainedfromhiminviolationofhisrightsisnotadmissibleasevidence

17. Extent of power of the MTRCB.

onlyforclassificationpurposes,butnotcensorship(explainedthrucitedcasesinNachurareviewer,pp.149to150)18. Instances when an owner may recover and/or repurchase an expropriated property.1.) Whenthepurposeforwhichpropertyexpropriatedhasalreadyceasedorwasnotfulfilledbytheexpropriator(MCIAAvs.CA;Nachurareviewerp.66)

2.) whengovernmentfailstopayjustcompensationwithin5yrsfromthefinalityofjudgmentintheexpropriationproceedings(RepublicofthePhilippinesvs.Vicente;Nachurareviewerp.65)

19. Instances when warrantless search and seizure are considered lawful.Code WSS PEM IEVa. When the right is voluntarily waived; b. Stop and friskc. Where search is incidental to a valid arrest;d. Where the prohibited articles are in plain view;e. Enforcement of fishing, immigration and customs law;f. Search of moving vehicles;g. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations;h. Search and seizure under exigent and emergency measures ; andi. Search and seizure of vessels and aircraft for violation of customs law

20. Freedom of religion.No law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of the religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of the civil and political rights. Art III Sec 5Two fold aspect

a. Freedom to believe - Individual is free to believe as he pleases concerning the hereafter. He may indulge his own theories pertaining to his own beliefs. Everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to account because he cannot prove the same.

b. Freedom to act on one's beliefs

Religious test - Constitutional prohibition against religious tests is aimed against clandestine attempts on the part of the government to prevent a person from exercising his civil or political rights because of his religious beliefs.

Basis: Separation of state and the church

Benevolent Neutrality Doctrine: Gives room for accommodating religion, holding that the wall is instead meant to protect the church from the state. It allows interaction between the church and the state but is strict regarding state action, which would threaten the integrity of religious commitment.

The breach of the wall in between church and the state is allowed in order to uphold religious liberty which is the integral purpose of the religion clauses. The purpose of the accommodation is to remove the person on the persons exercise of his religion.

TESTS Clear and Present Danger Benevolent-Neutrality-Compelling State Interest Has the government created burden on the free exercise? Court must look on the sincerity (not truth) of the belief. Is there a compelling state interest to justify infringement? Are the means to achieve legitimate state objective the least intrusive?

21. Distinction between overbreadth doctrine and void-for-vagueness doctrine (You may consider reading the case of Spouses Romualdez v. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 167011)It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms." Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to "`steer far wider of the unlawful zone' . . . than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked."In sum, the doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth, and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases or, as they are called in American law, First Amendment cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal statute. With respect to such statute, the established rule is that 'one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional.' As has been pointed out, 'vagueness challenges in the First Amendment context, like overbreadth challenges typically produce facial invalidation, while statutes found vague as a matter of due process typically are invalidated [only] 'as applied' to a particular defendant.'" (underscoring supplied)Moreover, the overbreadth doctrine is not intended for testing the validity of a law that "reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful, constitutionally unprotected conduct." Related to the "overbreadth" doctrine is the "void for vagueness doctrine" which holds that "a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application." It is subject to the same principles governing overbreadth doctrine. For one, it is also an analytical tool for testing "on their faces" statutes in free speech cases. And like overbreadth, it is said that a litigant may challenge a statute on its face only if it is vague in all its possible applications.----------The void for vagueness doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that the average person could not figure out what is being prohibited or what the penalties are for breaking that law.A principle of Judicial Review that holds that a law is invalid if it punishes constitutionally protected speech or conduct along with speech or conduct that the government may limit to further a compelling government interest.

22. Persons considered as competent counsel for the accused.

To be considered competent and independent counsel, it is required that a lawyer is willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused, as distinguish to one who merely a routine, peremptory and meaningless recital of individuals constitutional rights. (People vs Porio) This is to assure that during custodial infestation, informed judgment on the choices are explained to the accused by a diligent and capable lawyer.

23. Effect of the silence of the accused during the police investigation and trial of his case.

If the suspect refuses to give a statement, no adverse interference shall be made from his refusal to answer.

24. Instances when equal protection clause is violated.

There is a violation of the clause when persons or things similarly situated are not treated alike as to the rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. It is therefore violated when a certain law applies arbitrarily and there is no valid classification and does not conform with the following requirements:1. It is based on substantial distinctions.1. It must be germane to the purpose of the law.1. It must not limited to the the existing condition only.1. It must apply equally to all members other class.

25. Violation of the doctrine on the separation of the Church and the State. The offenses defined and punished under the Revised Penal Code which are violative of religious freedoms are the following: interruption of religious worships committed with violence or threats, interruption of religious worships, and offending religious feelings. The government is also prohibited from establishing a state religion as it will violate the freedom to practice other religion/s other than what is prescribed by the government. Other violations are when the state passes laws aiding one or all religions or prefer one over another; when the state influences a person to go to or remain away from Church against his will; and when the state forces him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion

26. Violation of the guaranty of press freedom.

The 2 prohibitions of the free speech and of the press are: The prohibition to prior restraint; prior restraint means official government restricts on the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination and its blatant form is a system of licensing administered by an executive officer The prohibition of subsequent punishment which have the effect of unduly curtailing expression ]

The exam consists of 35 questions. 30 questions are hypothetical in nature and the remaining 5 questions are objective in character. You are required to finish answering the 35 questions in 2 hours. Therefore, keep your answers concise.