bill of rightss2

7/17/2019 Bill of Rightss2

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bill-of-rightss2 1/4

Bill of Rights

Article 3 Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without

due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

!unicipal "rdinance cannot, as a rule prohibit the doing of an act but can #erelyregulate the#. Any #unicipal act which co#pletely prohibits a doing of an act is

dee#ed an ultra vires act which has been e$clusively lodged with the legislature

hence unconstitutional.%

&rit of A#paro

Section 1 the petition for a writ of a#paro is a re#edy available to any persons

whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an

unlawful act or o#ission of a public o'cial or e#ployee, or of a private individual or

entity.

(he writ shall cover e$tralegal )illings and enforced disappearance of threats

thereof

(he property covered by the *ue +rocess clause e$tends to property rights, e$cept

the following

1- !ere privileges however there are instances where the privilege has been

e$ercised for a a #aterial period of ti#e and that the holder thereof has put

in a su

/- 0ranchises

3- icenses however when livelihood depends upon the license granted,

suspension thereof involves a state action that ad2udicate the i#portantinterest of the licenses.

- +ublic o'ce save that to wages already earned

*ue +rocess in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings

and hearings si#ilar to those prescribed for actions and proceeding in courts of

2ustice. (he proceedings in student cases #ay be su##ary4 and cross e$a#ination

is not necessary. 5owever to satisfy the de#ands of due process the following are

required

1- (he students #ust be infor#ed in writing of the nature and cause of any

accusation against hi#/- (hey shall have the right to answer the charges against the#

3- (hey shall be infor#ed of the evidence sub#itted against the#

- (hey shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf

6- (he evidence #ust be duly considered by the investigating co##ittee or

o'cial designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

3 reasons why a law #ay be declared unconstitutional for being void for vagueness



1- 7t violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties

targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid

/- eaves the law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions

and beco#e an arbitrary 8e$ing of the govern#ent #uscle

3- 9$press provision of the constitution. (est for void for vagueness

A statue is said to be vague when it lac)s co#prehensible standards that #en of

co##on intelligence #ust necessarily guess at its #eaning and di:er in its

application

"r ;for penal statutes-

&hether the language conveys a su'ciently de<nite warning as to the proscribed

conduct when #easured by co##on understanding and practice=

(he vagueness doctrine si#ply requires a reasonably degree of certainty for the

statute to be upheld. 7t does not require an absolute precision or #athe#atical

e$actitude%

"verbreadth doctrine

*ecrees that a govern#ental purpose #ay not be achieved by #eans which sweep

unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedo#s li)e

freedo# of speech and other funda#ental freedo#s.

the overbreadth doctrine allows a facial challenge to a statute which see)s tocurtail a funda#ental right such as in the case where the allowance of the statute

#ay result to a violation to a funda#ental right. >nli)e the void for vafueness rule

which in order for a statute to be declared invalid #ust be so void that a #an of

co##on understanding #ust necessarily guess at the laws #eaning and its

application, #eaning that in all circu#stances the law is vague and therefore no

circu#stance?s e$ist where the law would be clear and therefore valid. 5ence the

overbreadth doctrine has no application in the constitutionality of penal statues

otherwise the courts #ay declare a law unconstitutional even in the absence of an

actual controversy and thereby re#ove the State@s power to prosecute a cri#e by a

#ere showing by the accused that the law is vague in its application to other partiesor in another set of circu#stance which is not under 2udicial review.

(he equal protection clause

(he equal protection clause does not per#it absolute equality since to allow the

contrary would result to inequality and unreasonableness. 5ence the constitution

allows recognition of actual factual di:erences between individuals provided that it

is based on reasonable classi<cations.



Requisites of reasonable classi<cation

1- !ust rest upon substantial distinction

/- !ust be ger#ane to the purpose of the law

3- !ust not be li#ited to e$isting conditions only

- !ust apply equally to all #e#bers of the sa#e class

(he equal protection clause does not only prohibit a law which denies equal

protection but also a law which per#its such denial%

Article 3 Section /.

(he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e:ects

against unreasonable searches and seiures of whatever nature and for any purpose

shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue e$cept

upon probable cause to be deter#ined personally by the 2udge after e$a#ination

under oath or a'r#ation of the co#plainant and the witnesses he #ay produce,

and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be

seied.

+robable ause

7s the presence of such facts and circu#stances which would lead a reasonable

discreet and prudent #an to believe that an o:ense has been co##itted and the

ob2ects sought in connection to the o:ense are in the place sought to be searched.

Requisites of a valid warrant

1- 7t #ust be based upon probable cause

/- *eter#ined personally by the 2udge

3- After e$a#ination under oath or a'r#ation of the co#plainant or thewitnesses he #ay produce

- +articularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to

be seied.

A #otion to quash a warrant #ust be <led in the court which issued the warrant

e$cept where a cri#inal case has been instituted in another court, in which case the

#otion #ust be <led in the latter court%

"nly 2udges #ay issue warrants of arrest however the co##issioner of

i##igration #ay order the arrest of an alien in order to carry out a deportationorder that has already beco#e <nal.%

(he ter# deter#ined personally% #eans that the issuing 2udge #ust satisfy

hi#self of the e$istence of probable cause, he not required to e$a#ine the

co#plainant or his witnesses personally bit it is su'cient that he personally

evaluate the report and other supporting docu#ents sub#itted to hi# by the <scal

regarding the e$istence of probable cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant



of arrest4 or if on the basis thereof he <nds no probable cause, he #ay disregard the

<scal@s report and require the sub#ission of supporting a'davits of witnesses to adi

hi# in arriving at a conclusion as to the e$istence of probable cause%

(he require#ent of particularity requires that the warrant su'ciently describes the

place to be searched and the things to be seied by which the o'cer of the law isleft without any discretion as what place they will search and the things they shall

siee.%

&arrantless searches and seiures

1- Search incidental to lawful arrest

/- Search of #oving vehicles

3- Seiure of evidence in plain view

- usto# searches

6- &aiver of the right against unreasonable searches and seiures.

C- Stop and fris)

(he purpose of the stop and fris) e$ception is to protect the arresting o'cer fro#

physical har# fro# the person being arrested who #ight be ar#ed with a concealed

weapon and also to prevent the arrested person fro# destroying evidence within his

reach. 5ence the search #ust be li#ited only to the area within the i##ediate

control of the person being arrested.%

bill of rightss2

Documents