Police Power

White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila

The test of a valid ordinance is well established. A long line of decisions including City of Manila has held that for an ordinance to be
valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure
prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements:
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;
(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and
(6) must not be unreasonable.

Valid exercise of Police of Police Power:

1. Lawful subject- can be regulate by the government
- as it promotes welfare.
2. Lawful means- cause & effect, purpose must be lawful
- narrowly tailored, if its NOT narrowly tailored if suffers overbreadth doctrine and its too sweeping.

MMDA vs. Trackworks

- MMDA has no police power
- Prohibition is only for Public areas not for private properties since MRT is owned by MRTC then.

Eminent Domain
Elements:
- Private Property
- General purpose/ Public purpose
- Genuine Necessity
- Payment of Just Compensation
- Due Process

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8974 November 7, 2000 AN ACT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, SITE OR LOCATION FOR NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - Article III, Section 9 of the Constitution states that private property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation. Towards this end, the State shall ensure that owners of real property acquired for national government infrastructure
projects are promptly paid just compensation.
Section 2. National Government Projects. - The term "national government projects" shall refer to all national government infrastructure,
engineering works and service contracts, including projects undertaken by government-owned and controlled corporations,all projects covered
by Republic Act No. 6957, as amended by Republic Act No. 7718, otherwise known as the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Law, and other related
and necessary activities, such as site acquisition, supply and/or installation of equipment and materials, implementation, construction,
completion, operation, maintenance, improvement, repair, and rehabilitation, regardless of the source of funding.
Section 3. Modes of Accounting Real Property. - The government may acquire real property needed as right-of-way, site or location for any
national government infrastructure project through donation, negotiated sale, expropriation or any other mode of acquisition as provided by
law.
Section 4. Guidelines for Expropriation Proceedings. - Whenever it is necessary to acquire real property for the right-of-way or location for any
national government infrastructure project through expropriation, the appropriate implementing agency shall initiate the expropriation
proceedings before the proper court under the following guidelines:
(a) Upon the filing of the complaint, and after due notice to the defendant, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the
property the amount equivalent to the sum of (1) one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the property based on the current relevant zonal
valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR); and (2) the value of the improvements and/or structures as determined under Section 7
hereof;
(b) In provinces, cities, municipalities and other areas where there is no zonal valuation, the BIR is hereby mandated within the period of sixty
(60) days from the date of the expropriation case, to come up with a zonal valuation for said area; and
(c) In case the completion of a government infrastructure project is of utmost urgency and importance, and there is no existing valuation of the
area concerned, the implementing agency shall immediately pay the owner of the property its proffered value taking into consideration the
standards prescribed in Section 5 hereof.
Upon compliance with the guidelines abovementioned, the court shall immediately issue to the implementing agency an order to take
possession of the property and start the implementation of the project.
Before the court can issue a Writ of Possession, the implementing agency shall present to the court a certificate of availability of funds from the
proper official concerned.
In the event that the owner of the property contests the implementing agency’s proffered value, the court shall determine the just
compensation to be paid the owner within sixty (60) days from the date of filing of the expropriation case. When the decision of the court
becomes final and executory, the implementing agency shall pay the owner the difference between the amount already paid and the just
compensation as determined by the court.
Section 5. Standards for the Assessment of the Value of the Land Subject of Expropriation Proceedings or Negotiated Sale. - In order to facilitate
the determination of just compensation, the court may consider, among other well-established factors, the following relevant standards:
(a) The classification and use for which the property is suited;
(b) The developmental costs for improving the land;
(c) The value declared by the owners;
(d) The current selling price of similar lands in the vicinity;
(e) The reasonable disturbance compensation for the removal and/or demolition of certain improvement on the land and for the value of
improvements thereon;
(f) This size, shape or location, tax declaration and zonal valuation of the land;
(g) The price of the land as manifested in the ocular findings, oral as well as documentary evidence presented; and
(h) Such facts and events as to enable the affected property owners to have sufficient funds to acquire similarly-situated lands of approximate
areas as those required from them by the government, and thereby rehabilitate themselves as early as possible.
Section 6. Guidelines for Negotiated Sale. - Should the implementing agency and the owner of the property agree on a negotiated sale for the
acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project, the standards prescribed under Section 5 hereof
shall be used to determine the fair market value of the property, subject to review and approval by the head of the agency or department
concerned.
Section 7. Valuation of Improvements and/or Structures. - The Department of Public Works and Highways and other implementing agencies
concerned, in coordination with the local government units concerned in the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national
government infrastructure project, are hereby mandated to adopt within sixty (60) days upon approval of this Act, the necessary implementing
rules and regulations for the equitable valuation of the improvements and/or structures on the land to be expropriated.
Section 8. Ecological and Environmental Concerns. - In cases involving the acquisition of right-of-way, site or location for any national
government infrastructure project, the implementing agency shall take into account the ecological and environmental impact of the project.
Before any national government project could be undertaken, the agency shall consider environmental laws, land use ordinances and all
pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7160, as amended, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.
Section 9. Squatter Relocation. - The government through the National Housing Authority, in coordination with the local government units and
implementing agencies concerned, shall establish and develop squatter relocation sites, including the provision of adequate utilities and
services, in anticipation of squatters that have to be removed from the right-of-way or site of future infrastructure projects. Whenever
applicable, the concerned local government units shall provide and administer the relocation sites.
In case the expropriated land is occupied by squatters, the court shall issue the necessary " Writ of Demolition" for the purpose of dismantling
any and all structures found within the subject property. The implementing agency shall take into account and observe diligently the procedure
provided for in Sections 28 and 29 of Republic Act No. 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992.
Funds for the relocation sites shall come from appropriations for the purpose under the General Appropriations Act, as well as from
appropriate infrastructure projects funds of the implementing agency concerned.
Section 10. Appropriations for Acquisitions of Right-of -Way, Site or Location for Any National Government Infrastructure Project in Advance of
Project Implementation. - The government shall provide adequate appropriations that will allow the concerned implementing agencies to
acquire the required right-of-way, site or location for any national government infrastructure project.
Section 11. Sanctions. - Violation of any provisions of this Act shall subject the government official or employee concerned to appropriate
administrative, civil and/or criminal sanctions, including suspension and/or dismissal from the government service and forfeiture of benefits.
Section 12. Rules and Regulations. - A committee composed of the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways as chairperson,
and the secretaries of the Department of Transportation and Communications, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice, and
the presidents of the leagues of provinces, cities and municipalities as members shall prepare the necessary rules and regulations for the proper
implementation of this Act within sixty (60) days from its approval.

Due Process
ECRETARY OF JUSTICE vs. LANTION: In the absence of a law or principle of law, we must apply the rules of fair play. An application of the basic
twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not go against the treaty or the implementing law. Neither the Treaty nor the Extradition Law
precludes these rights from a prospective extraditee.

Twin Rights- Due process is comprised of two components — substantive due process which requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, and procedural due process which consists of the two basic rights of
notice and hearing, as well as the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and competent tribunal.
Exception of right to be heard or due process: (underlined phrases are the key words)
1. In proceeding where there is an urgent need for immediate action, like the summary abatement of a nuisance per se (Article 704, Civil Code),
the preventive suspension of a public servant facing administrative charges (Section 63, Local Government Code, B.P. Blg. 337), the padlocking
of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene movies or like establishments which are immediate threats to public health and decency, and
the cancellation of a passport of a person sought for criminal prosecution;
2. Where there is tentativeness of administrative action, that is, where the respondent is not precluded from enjoying the right to notice and
hearing at a later time without prejudice to the person affected, such as the summary distraint and levy of the property of a delinquent
taxpayer, and the replacement of a temporary appointee; and
3. Where the twin rights have previously been offered but the right to exercise them had not been claimed.

Ang Tibay vs. Court of Industrial Relations- Cardinal Primary requirements in ADMINITRATIVE PROCEEDINGS by Justice Laurel:
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and
submit evidence in support thereof.
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
(3) The decision must have something to support itself.
(4) The evidence must be "substantial." It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected.
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
(7) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision rendered.
Note*:
- In administrative due process, if the officer does not give you counsel there is no violation. Because it is not an aspect of due process.
- In its only violative, if you have not given the opportunity to be heard or defend yourself.
- if you are not heard but subsequently heard, it cures the defect.

Philippine Guardians Brotherhood Inc vs. COMELEC

2 separate grounds to be delisted in a party list system:
a. first ground is that, it failed to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections.
b. second is, failure to obtain at least 10 percent of the votes cast under the party-list system in either of the last two preceding elections.
- "MINERO" v. Commission on Elections: cannot apply in the instant controversy for two reasons: (a) the factual milieu of the cited case is
removed from PGBI’s; (b) MINERO, prior to delisting, was afforded the opportunity to be heard, while PGBI and the 25 others similarly affected
by Resolution No. 8679 were not. Additionally, the requirement of Section 6(8) has been relaxed by the Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 179271 (Banat
v. COMELEC) and the exclusion of PGBI and the 25 other party-list is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. Since petitioner by its own
admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two per
centum (2%) of the votes cast in the two preceding elections. COMELEC, therefore, is not duty bound to certify it.

There is a violation in administrative due process if there are no basis.

Publishing is substantive due process, because it must be a law.

Equal Protection
Olaguer Doctrine- (OLAGUER V. MILITARY COMMISSION) Military Commission No. 34 against Olaguer, et al. and declaring that military
commissions and tribunals have no jurisdiction, even during the period of martial law, over civilians charged with criminal offenses properly
cognizable by civil courts, as long as those courts are open and functioning as they did during the period of martial law. This Court declared
unconstitutional the creation of the military commissions to try civilians, and annulled all their proceedings as follows:
- Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands to lose either his life or his liberty), the accused shall
be entitled to, among others, a trial. The trial contemplated by the due process clause of the Constitution, in relation to the Charter as a whole,
is a trial by judicial process, not by executive or military process, Military commissions or tribunals, by whatever name they are called, are not
courts within the Philippine judicial system

Search and Seizure

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. IDEL AMINNUDIN
Facts: The PC (Philippine Constabulary) officer received a tip from one of their informers that the accused was on board a vessel bound for Iloilo
City and was carrying marijuana. He was identified by name. Acting on this tip, they waited for him in the evening and approached him as he
descended from the gangplank after the informer pointed at him. They detained him and inspected the bag he was carrying. It was found to
contained three kilos of what were later analyzed as marijuana leaves by the NBI forensic examiner. On the basis of the finding, the
corresponding charge was then filed against Aminnudin.
Issue: Whether or not accused constitutional right against unreasonable serach and seizure is violated
Ruling: The Supreme Court Held that warrantless arrest allowed under Rule 113 of the rules of court not justified unless the accused was caught
in flagrante or a crime was about to be committed or had just been committed.
A vessels and aircraft are subject to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these vehicles may be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction before the warrant can be secured.
In the present case, from the conflicting declarations of the PC witnesses, it is clear that they had at least two days within which they could
have obtained a warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V Wilcon 9. His name was known. The vehicle was
identified. The date of his arrival was certain. And from the information they have received, they could have persuaded a judge that there was a
probable cause, indeed, to justify the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did nothing. The Bill of Rights was ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the arresting team had determine on his own authority that a search warrant was not necessary.
The evidence of probable cause should be determined by a judge and not law enforcement agents. ACQUITTED

Privacy Communication
Republic Act No. 9372
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
SEC. 1. Short Title. - This Act shall henceforth be known as the "Human Security Act of 2007."
SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. -The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-Wire
Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a 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, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization,
association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and
their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.
SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. - The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down, tap,
listen to, intercept, and record communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person suspected of
the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals
upon an ex parte written application of a police or of a law enforcement official who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism
Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte application, and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he may produce to establish: (a) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (b)
that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the
conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained; and, (c) that there is
no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence.
SEC. 9. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. - The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as
well as its order, if any, to extend or renew the same, the original application of the applicant, including his application to extend or renew, if
any, and the written authorizations of the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information: Provided,
That the person being surveilled or whose communications, letters, papers, messages, conversations, discussions, spoken or written words and
effects have been monitored, listened to, bugged or recorded by law enforcement authorities has the right to be informed of the acts done by
the law enforcement authorities in the premises or to challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the legality of the interference before the Court
of Appeals which issued the written order. The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall specify the following: (a)
the identity, such as name and address, if known, of the charged or suspected person whose communications, messages, conversations,
discussions, or spoken or written words are to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and, in the case of radio,
electronic, or telephonic (whether wireless or otherwise) communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words,
the electronic transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and their
locations or if the person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is not fully known, such person shall be subject
to continuous surveillance provided there is a reasonable ground to do so; (b) the identity (name, address, and the police or law enforcement
organization) of the police or of the law enforcement official, including the individual identity (names, addresses, and the police or law
enforcement organization) of the members of his team, judicially authorized to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record the
communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words; (c) the offense or offenses committed, or being committed,
or sought to be prevented; and, (d) the length of time within which the authorization shall be used or carried out.
SEC. 10. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. - Any authorization granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, pursuant to
Section 9(d) of this Act, shall only be effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals, which shall not exceed a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order of the authorizing division of the Court
of Appeals by the applicant police or law enforcement official.
The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals may extend or renew the said authorization for another non-extendible period, which shall not
exceed thirty (30) days from the expiration of the original period: Provided, That the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals is satisfied that
such extension or renewal is in the public interest: and Provided, further, That the ex parte application for extension or renewal, which must be
filed by the original applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council.
In case of death of the original applicant or in case he is physically disabled to file the application for extension or renewal, the one next in rank
to the original applicant among the members of the team named in the original written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals
shall file the application for extension or renewal: Provided, That, without prejudice to the liability of the police or law enforcement personnel
under Section 20 hereof, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall have thirty (30) days after the termination of the period granted
by the Court of Appeals as provided in the preceding paragraphs within which to file the appropriate case before the Public Prosecutor's Office
for any violation of this Act.
If no case is filed within the thirty (30)-day period, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall immediately notify the person subject
of the surveillance, interception and recording of the termination of the said surveillance, interception and recording. The penalty of ten (10)
years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the applicant police or law enforcement official who fails to
notify the person subject of the surveillance, monitoring, interception and recording as specified above.
SEC. 11. Custody of Intercepted and Recorded Communications. - All tapes, discs, and recordings made pursuant to the authorization of the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, including all excerpts and summaries thereof as well as all written notes or memoranda made in
connection therewith, shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the written order of the authorizing division
of the Court of Appeals or within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of any extension or renewal granted by the authorizing division of
the Court of Appeals, be deposited with the authorizing Division of the Court of Appeals in a sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case
may be, and shall be accompanied by a joint affidavit of the applicant police or law enforcement official and the members of his team.

In case of death of the applicant or in case he is physically disabled to execute the required affidavit, the one next in rank to the applicant
among the members of the team named in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall execute with the members
of the team that required affidavit.

It shall be unlawful for any person, police officer or any custodian of the tapes, discs and recording, and their excerpts and summaries, written
notes or memoranda to copy in whatever form, to remove, delete, expunge, incinerate, shred or destroy in any manner the items enumerated
above in whole or in part under any pretext whatsoever.

Any person who removes, deletes, expunges, incinerates, shreds or destroys the items enumerated above shall suffer a penalty of not less than
six years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

Exclusionary Rules are separated:

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn
terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime
against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.
In the implementation of the policy stated above, the State shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in
the Constitution.
The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, comprising political, economic, diplomatic, military,
and legal means duly taking into account the root causes of terrorism without acknowledging these as justifications for terrorist and/or criminal
activities. Such measures shall include conflict management and post-conflict peace-building, addressing the roots of conflict by building state
capacity and promoting equitable economic development.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of constitutionally recognized powers of the executive branch
of the government. It is to be understood, however that the exercise of the constitutionally recognized powers of the executive department of
the government shall not prejudice respect for human rights which shall be absolute and protected at all times.
SEC. 3. Terrorism.- Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters); b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection); c. Article
134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons; d. Article 248 (Murder); e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention); f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), or under
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson); 2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act
of 1990); 3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968); 4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law); 5.
Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974); and, 6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives) thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
SEC. 17. Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons. - Any organization, association, or group of persons organized
for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this
Act or to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon application of the Department of Justice before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice
and opportunity to be heard given to the organization, association, or group of persons concerned, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed
organization, association, or group of persons by the said Regional Trial Court.
SEC. 19. Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. - In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack,
suspects may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a
Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the
place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law enforcement
personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the
accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned
within five days after the date of the detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That within three days after the detention the
suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established, shall be released immediately.

Freedom of Expression
Newsounds vs Dy- Governemnt limitations of freedom of speech:
1. CONTENT-BASED restraint or censorship, i.e., the restriction is based on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.Content-based laws
are generally treated as more suspect than content-neutral laws because of judicial concern with discrimination in the regulation of expression.
The Court is of the position that the actions of the respondents warrant heightened or strict scrutiny from the Court, the test which we have
deemed appropriate in assessing content-based restrictions on free speech, as well as for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting
the political process, of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights as expansion from its
earlier applications to equal protection.
2. CONTENT-NEUTRAL regulation, i.e., merely concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the time, place or
manner, and under well defined standards. Content-neutral regulations of speech or of conduct that may amount to speech, are subject to
lesser but still heightened scrutiny. While this may lead to some concern that requiring media entities to secure licenses or permits from local
government units infringes on the constitutional right to a free press, we see no concern so long as such requirement has been duly ordained
through local legislation and content-neutral in character, i.e., applicable to all other similarly situated businesses. The act of an LGU requiring a
business of proof that the property from which it operates has been zoned for commercial use can be argued, when applied to a radio station,
as content-neutral since such a regulation would presumably apply to any other radio station or business enterprise within the LGU.

J.B.L. Reyes vs Bagatsing , GR No. 65366, October 25, 1983

Facts : Petitioner retired Justice J.B.L Reyes on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful
march and rally starting from the Luneta Park (public park) to the gates of the United States Embassy. There was an assurance in the petition
that in the exercise of the constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be taken “to ensure a peaceful march
and rally.”
It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. Petitioner was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary
mail.
The reason of refusing the permit was due to “police intelligence reports which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit.
To be more specific, reference was made to “persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate
and/or disrupt any assembly or congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend. Mayor suggested, however, that a
permit may be issued for the rally if it will be held in Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed areas where the safety of the participants and general
public may be assured. The Mayor also posed the applicability of Ordinance No.7925 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding and staging of
rallies or demonstration within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery in this case the US Embassy. However, there was no
proof that the US Embassy was indeed 500 feet away.
Issue : Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is valid.
Held : Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away), it does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he
did. Such denial can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance.
The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission. But, the denial of
permit to rally in front of the US Embassy is only justified in the presence of clear and present danger to life or property of the embassy. This is
binding on the Philippines to take appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion or damage and prevent any
disturbance of peace or impairment of its dignity. To the extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted
principles of international law, it should be part of the law of the land. That being the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any
intrusion or damage or disturbance of peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a justification for the denial of the
permit insofar as the terminal point would be the US Embassy - but there was none. Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit.
Mandatory injunction prayed for is GRANTED. No cost.

GSIS vs. Villaviza

The Civil Service Commission is correct when it found that the act sought to be punished hardly falls within the definition of a prohibited
concerted activity or mass action. The petitioners failed to prove that the supposed concerted activity of the respondents resulted in work
stoppage and caused prejudice to the public service.
Section 5. As used in this Omnibus Rules, the phrase ''prohibited concerted activity or mass action'' shall be understood to refer to any
collective activity undertaken by government employees, by themselves or through their employees organizations, with intent of effecting work
stoppage or service disruption in order to realize their demands of force concession, economic or otherwise, from their respective agencies or
the government. It shall include mass leaves, walkouts, pickets and acts of similar nature. (underscoring supplied).
As defined in Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 which serves to regulate the political rights of those in the government service, the
concerted activity or mass action proscribed must be coupled with the "intent of effecting work stoppage or service disruption in order to
realize their demands of force concession." Wearing similarly colored shirts, attending a public hearing at the GSIS-IU office, bringing with them
recording gadgets, clenching their fists, some even badmouthing the guards and PGM Garcia, are acts not constitutive of an (i) intent to effect
work stoppage or service disruption and (ii) for the purpose of realizing their demands of force concession.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880

AN ACT ENSURING THE FREE EXERCISE BY THE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
Section 1. Title - This Act shall be known as "The Public Assembly Act of 1985."
Section 2.Declaration of policy - The constitutional right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances is essential and vital to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, the State shall ensure the free exercise of such right
without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.
Section 3.Definition of terms - For purposes of this Act:
(a)"Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public
place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or
influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the government for redress of grievances.
The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local
ordinances: Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed. The definition
herein contained shall not include picketing and other concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a labor dispute
as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.
(b)"Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open
space of public ownership where the people are allowed access.
(c)"Maximum tolerance" means the highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe
during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.
(d)"Modification of permit" shall include the change of the place and time of the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the
volume of loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.
Section 4.Permit when required and when not required - A written permit shall be required for any person or persons to organize and hold a
public assembly in a public place. However, no permit shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made in a freedom park duly
established by law or ordinance or in private property, in which case only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is
required, or in the campus of a government-owned and operated educational institution which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of
said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this
Act.
Section 5.Application requirements - All applications for a permit shall comply with the following guidelines:
(a) The applications shall be in writing and shall include the names of the leaders or organizers; the purpose of such public assembly; the date,
time and duration thereof, and place or streets to be used for the intended activity; and the probable number of persons participating, the
transport and the public address systems to be used.
(b) The application shall incorporate the duty and responsibility of applicant under Section 8 hereof.
(c) The application shall be filed with the office of the mayor of the city or municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held,
at least five (5) working days before the scheduled public assembly.
(d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be duly acknowledged in writing, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same
to immediately be posted at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal building.
Section 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.
(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.
Section 7.Use of public thoroughfare - Should the proposed public assembly involve the use, for an appreciable length of time, of any public
highway, boulevard, avenue, road or street, the mayor or any official acting in his behalf may, to prevent grave public inconvenience, designate
the route thereof which is convenient to the participants or reroute the vehicular traffic to another direction so that there will be no serious or
undue interference with the free flow of commerce and trade.
Section 9.Non-interference by law enforcement authorities - Law enforcement agencies shall not interfere with the holding of a public
assembly. However, to adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may
be detailed and stationed in a place at least one hundred (100) meter away from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and order at all
times.
Section 10.Police assistance when requested - It shall be imperative for law enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the
leaders or organizers, to perform their duties always mindful that their responsibility to provide proper protection to those exercising their right
peaceably to assemble and the freedom of expression is primordial. Towards this end, law enforcement agencies shall observe the following
guidelines:
(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in complete uniform with their nameplates and units
to which they belong displayed prominently on the front and dorsal parts of their uniform and must observe the policy of "maximum tolerance"
as herein defined;
(b)The members of the law enforcement contingent shall not carry any kind of firearms but may be equipped with baton or riot sticks, shields,
crash helmets with visor, gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with shin guards;

(c)Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or any similar anti-riot device shall not be used unless the public assembly is attended by actual
violence or serious threats of violence, or deliberate destruction of property.
Section 11. Dispersal of public assembly with permit - No public assembly with a permit shall be dispersed. However, when an assembly
becomes violent, the police may disperse such public assembly as follows:
(a)At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall call the attention of the leaders of the
public assembly and ask the latter to prevent any possible disturbance;
(b)If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-
participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent shall audibly warn the
participants that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed;
(c)If the violence or disturbances prevailing as stated in the preceding subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law
enforcement contingent shall audibly issue a warning to the participants of the public assembly, and after allowing a reasonable period of time
to lapse, shall immediately order it to forthwith disperse;
(d)No arrest of any leader, organizer or participant shall also be made during the public assembly unless he violates during the assembly a law,
statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended:
(e)Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or branch of the peace during the public assembly shall not constitute a group for dispersal.
Section 12.Dispersal of public assembly without permit - When the public assembly is held without a permit where a permit is required, the said
public assembly may be peacefully dispersed.
Section 13.Prohibited acts - The following shall constitute violations of this Act:
(a)The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any leader or organizer without having first secured that written permit where a
permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place other than those set out in said permit:
Provided, however, That no person can be punished or held criminally liable for participating in or attending an otherwise peaceful assembly;
(b)Arbitrary and unjustified denial or modification of a permit in violation of the provisions of this Act by the mayor or any other official acting
in his behalf.
(c)The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept or acknowledge receipt of the application for a permit by the mayor or any official acting in his
behalf;
(d)Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or otherwise denying the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly;
(e)The unnecessary firing of firearms by a member of any law enforcement agency or any person to disperse the public assembly;
(f)Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof;
(g)Acts described hereunder if committed within one hundred (100) meters from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion
thereof;
1.the carrying of a deadly or offensive weapon or device such as firearm, pillbox, bomb, and the like;
2.the carrying of a bladed weapon and the like;
3.the malicious burning of any object in the streets or thoroughfares;
4.the carrying of firearms by members of the law enforcement unit;
5.the interfering with or intentionally disturbing the holding of a public assembly by the use of a motor vehicle, its horns and loud sound
systems.

A strike is a temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of the employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

Sec. 12 Art. 3
Republic Act No. 7438 - AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL
AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human
rights.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
(a)Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
(b)Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a
competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ
(c)The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or
thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his
counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person,
otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d)Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers
and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by
him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e)Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation,
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
(f)Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate
family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by
any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée,
parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection
with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

Right to Information
EXECUTIVE ORDER No. 2 OPERATIONALIZING IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THE PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION AND THE
STATE POLICIES TO FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND PROVIDING GUIDELINES THEREFOR
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 28, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest, subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law;
WHEREAS, Section 7, Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to information on matters of public concern;
WHEREAS, the incorporation of this right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free and open exchange of information
in a democracy, meant to enhance transparency and accountability in government official acts, transactions, or decisions;
WHEREAS, the Executive Branch recognizes the urgent need to operationalize these Constitutional provisions;
WHEREAS, the President, under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution, has control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices, and
the duty to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed;
WHEREAS, the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173), including its implementing Rules and Regulations, strengthens the fundamental human
right of privacy, and of communication while ensuring the free flow of information to promote innovation and growth;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and
existing laws, do hereby order:
SECTION 1. Definition. For the purpose of this Executive Order, the following terms shall mean:
(a) “Information” shall mean any records, documents, papers, reports, letters, contracts, minutes and transcripts of official meetings, maps,
books, photographs, data, research materials, films, sound and video recording, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data, computer stored
data, any other like or similar data or materials recorded, stored or archived in whatever format, whether offline or online, which are made,
received, or kept in or under the control and custody of any government office pursuant to law, executive order, and rules and regulations or in
connection with the performance or transaction of official business by any government office.
(b) “Official record/records” shall refer to information produced or received by a public officer or employee, or by a government office in an
official capacity or pursuant to a public function or duty.
(c) “Public record/records” shall include information required by laws, executive orders, rules, or regulations to be entered, kept and made
publicly available by a government office.
SECTION 2. Coverage. This order shall cover all government offices under the Executive Branch, including but not limited to the national
government and all its offices, departments, bureaus, offices, and instrumentalities, including government-owned or -controlled corporations,
and state universities and colleges. Local government units (LGUs) are encouraged to observe and be guided by this Order.
SECTION 3. Access to information. Every Filipino shall have access to information, official records, public records and to documents and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development.
SECTION 4. Exception. Access to information shall be denied when the information falls under any of the exceptions enshrined in the
Constitution, existing law or jurisprudence.
The Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General are hereby directed to prepare an inventory of such exceptions and submit
the same to the Office of the President within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of effectivity of this Order.
The Office of the President shall thereafter, immediately circularize the inventory of exceptions for the guidance of all government offices and
instrumentalities covered by this Order and the general public.
Said inventory of exceptions shall periodically be updated to properly reflect any change in existing law and jurisprudence and the Department
of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General are directed to update the inventory of exceptions as the need to do so arises, for
circularization as hereinabove stated.
SECTION 5. Availability of SALN. Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 3 and 4 of this Order, all public officials are reminded of their
obligation to file and make available for scrutiny their Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) in accordance with existing laws,
rules and regulations, and the spirit and letter of this Order.
SECTION 6. Application and Interpretation. There shall be a legal presumption in favor of access to information, public records and official
records. No request for information shall be denied unless it clearly falls under any of the exceptions listed in the inventory or updated
inventory of exceptions circularized by the Office of the President provided in the preceding section.
The determination of the applicability of any of the exceptions to the request shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Office which is in
custody or control of the information, public record or official record, or the responsible central or field officer duly designated by him in
writing.
In making such determination, the Head of the Office or his designated officer shall exercise reasonable diligence to ensure that no exception
shall be used or availed of to deny any request for information or access to public records, or official records if the denial is intended primarily
and purposely to cover up a crime, wrongdoing, graft or corruption.
SECTION 7. Protection of Privacy. While providing access to information, public records, and official records, responsible officials shall afford full
protection to the right to privacy of the individual as follows:
(a) Each government office per Section 2 hereof shall ensure that personal information in its custody or under its control is disclosed or released
only if it is material or relevant to the subject-matter of the request and its disclosure is permissible under this order or existing law, rules or
regulations;
(b) Each government office must protect personal information in its custody or control by making reasonable security arrangements against
leaks or premature disclosure of personal information which unduly exposes the individual whose personal information is requested, to
vilification, harassment or any other wrongful acts.
(c) Any employee, official or director of a government office per Section 2 hereof who has access, authorized or unauthorized, to personal
information in the custody of the office, must not disclose that information except when authorized under this order or pursuant to existing
laws, rules or regulation.
SECTION 8. People’s Freedom to Information (FOI) Manual. For the effective implementation of this Order, every government office is directed
to prepare within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days from the effectivity of this Order, its own People’s FOI Manual, which shall include
among others the following provisions:
(a) The location and contact information of the head, regional, provincial, and field offices, and other established places where the public can
obtain information or submit requests;
(b) The person or office responsible for receiving requests for information;
(c) The procedure for the filing and processing of the request as specified in the succeeding section 8 of this Order.
(d) The standard forms for the submission of requests and for the proper acknowledgment of requests;
(e) The process for the disposition of requests;
(f) The procedure for the administrative appeal of any denial for access to information; and
(g) The schedule of applicable fees.
SECTION 9. Procedure. The following procedure shall govern the filing and processing of request for access to information:
(a) Any person who requests access to information shall submit a written request to the government office concerned. The request shall state
the name and contact information of the requesting party, provide valid proof of his identification or authorization, reasonably describe the
information requested, and the reason for, or purpose of, the request for information: Provided, that no request shall be denied or refused
acceptance unless the reason for the request is contrary to law, existing rules and regulations or it is one of the exceptions contained in the
inventory or updated inventory of exception as hereinabove provided.
(b) The public official receiving the request shall provide reasonable assistance, free of charge, to enable, to enable all requesting parties and
particularly those with special needs, to comply with the request requirements under this Section.
(c) The request shall be stamped by the government office, indicating the date and time of receipt and the name, rank, title and position of the
receiving public officer or employee with the corresponding signature, and a copy thereof furnished to the requesting party. Each government
office shall establish a system to trace the status of all requests for information received by it.
(d) The government office shall respond to a request fully compliant with requirements of sub-section (a) hereof as soon as practicable but not
exceeding fifteen (15) working days from the receipt thereof. The response mentioned above refers to the decision of the agency or office
concerned to grant or deny access to the information requested.
(e) The period to respond may be extended whenever the information requested requires extensive search of the government office’s records
facilities, examination of voluminous records, the occurrence of fortuitous cases or other analogous cases. The government office shall notify
the person making the request of the extension, setting forth the reasons for such extension. In no case shall the extension go beyond twenty
(20) working days unless exceptional circumstances warrant a longer period.
(f) Once a decision is made to grant the request, the person making the request shall be notified of such decision and directed to pay any
applicable fees.
SECTION 10. Fees. Government offices shall not charge any fee for accepting requests for access to information. They may, however, charge a
reasonable fee to reimburse necessary costs, including actual costs of reproduction and copying of the information required, subject to existing
rules and regulations. In no case shall the applicable fees be so onerous as to defeat the purpose of this Order.
SECTION 11. Identical or Substantially Similar Requests. The government office shall not be required to act upon an unreasonable subsequent
identical or substantially similar request from the same requesting party whose request from the same requesting party whose request has
already been previously granted or denied by the same government office.
SECTION 12. Notice of Denial. If the government office decides to deny the request, in whole or in part, it shall as soon as practicable, in any
case within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of the request, notify the requesting party the denial in writing. The notice shall clearly
set forth the ground or grounds for denial and the circumstances on which the denial is based. Failure to notify the requesting party of the
action taken on the request within the period herein stipulated shall be deemed a denial of the request for access to information.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464

ENSURING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS, ADHERENCE TO THE RULE ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND RESPECT
FOR THE RIGHTS OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS APPEARING IN LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES IN AID OF LEGISLATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the Constitution guarantees the separate of powers of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government:
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution provides that heads of departments may, with the prior consent of the President, appear
before and be heard by either House of Congress on any matter pertaining to their departments and, when the security of the State or the
public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, such appearance shall be conducted in executive session;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the rule of executive privilege, the President and those who assist her must be free to explore alternatives in the process
of shaping policies and making decisions since this is fundamental to the operation of the government and is rooted in the separation of powers
under the Constitution;
WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution mandates that the rights of persons appearing in or affected by inquiries in aid of legislation
by the Senate or House of Representatives shall be respected;
WHEREAS, recent events, particularly with respect to the invitation of a member of the Cabinet by the Senate as well as various heads of
offices, civilian and military, have highlighted the need to ensure the observance of the principle of separation of powers, adherence to the rule
on executive privilege and respect for the rights of persons appearing in such inquiries in aid of legislation and due regard to constitutional
mandate;
WHEREAS, there is a need to prevent such inquires in aid of legislation from being used for partisan political purposes, disrupting diplomatic
relations with foreign government, and weakening the stability of the State, thereby impeding the efforts of the government to generate and
attract foreign investments;
WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public official
and employees shall not use or divulge confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made
available to the public to prejudice the public interest;
WHEREAS, Article 229 of the Revised Penal Code prohibits any public officer from revealing any secret known to him by reason of his official
capacity or wrongfully delivering papers or copies thereof which he may have charge and which should not be published;
WHEREAS, the 1987 Constitution and the Administrative Code of 1987 provide that the President shall have control of all government
departments, bureaus and offices and shall ensure that all the laws be faithfully executed.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by the powers vested in me by law, do hereby
order:
SECTION 1. Appearance by Heads of Departments Before Congress. - In accordance with Article VI, Section 22 of the Constitution and to
implement the Constitutional provisions on the separation of powers between co-equal branches of the government, all heads of departments
of the Executive Branch of the government shall secure the consent of the President prior to appearing before either House of Congress.
When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted
in executive session.
SECTION 2. Nature, Scope and Coverage of Executive Privilege. -
(a) Nature and Scope. - The rule of confidentiality based on executive privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in
the separation of powers under the Constitution (Almonte vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995). Further, Republic Act No. 6713 or the
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides that public officials and employees shall not use or divulge
confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public to prejudice the
public interest.
Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the President and the public officers covered by this executive
order, including:
i. Conversations and correspondence between the President and the public official covered by this executive order (Almonte vs. Vasquez G.R.
No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002);
ii. Military, diplomatic and other national security matters which in the interest of national security should not be divulged (Almonte vs.
Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, 23 May 1995; Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998).
iii. Information between inter-government agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements (Chavez v. Presidential
Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
iv. Discussion in close-door Cabinet meetings (Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716, 9 December 1998);
v. Matters affecting national security and public order (Chavez v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250, 9 July 2002).
(b) Who are covered. - The following are covered by this executive order:
i. Senior officials of executive departments who in the judgment of the department heads are covered by the executive privilege;
ii. Generals and flag officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered
by the executive privilege;
iii. Philippine National Police (PNP) officers with rank of chief superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment of the Chief
of the PNP are covered by the executive privilege;
iv. Senior national security officials who in the judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the executive privilege; and
v. Such other officers as may be determined by the President.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10173

Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Data Privacy Act of 2012″.
Section 7. Functions of the National Privacy Commission. – To administer and implement the provisions of this Act, and to monitor and ensure
compliance of the country with international standards set for data protection, there is hereby created an independent body to be known as
the National Privacy Commission, winch shall have the following functions:
(a) Ensure compliance of personal information controllers with the provisions of this Act;
(b) Receive complaints, institute investigations, facilitate or enable settlement of complaints through the use of alternative dispute resolution
processes, adjudicate, award indemnity on matters affecting any personal information, prepare reports on disposition of complaints and
resolution of any investigation it initiates, and, in cases it deems appropriate, publicize any such report: Provided, That in resolving any
complaint or investigation (except where amicable settlement is reached by the parties), the Commission shall act as a collegial body. For this
purpose, the Commission may be given access to personal information that is subject of any complaint and to collect the information necessary
to perform its functions under this Act;
(c) Issue cease and desist orders, impose a temporary or permanent ban on the processing of personal information, upon finding that the
processing will be detrimental to national security and public interest;
(d) Compel or petition any entity, government agency or instrumentality to abide by its orders or take action on a matter affecting data privacy;
(e) Monitor the compliance of other government agencies or instrumentalities on their security and technical measures and recommend the
necessary action in order to meet minimum standards for protection of personal information pursuant to this Act;
(f) Coordinate with other government agencies and the private sector on efforts to formulate and implement plans and policies to strengthen
the protection of personal information in the country;
(g) Publish on a regular basis a guide to all laws relating to data protection;
(h) Publish a compilation of agency system of records and notices, including index and other finding aids;
(i) Recommend to the Department of Justice (DOJ) the prosecution and imposition of penalties specified in Sections 25 to 29 of this Act;
(j) Review, approve, reject or require modification of privacy codes voluntarily adhered to by personal information controllers: Provided, That
the privacy codes shall adhere to the underlying data privacy principles embodied in this Act: Provided, further, That such privacy codes may
include private dispute resolution mechanisms for complaints against any participating personal information controller. For this purpose, the
Commission shall consult with relevant regulatory agencies in the formulation and administration of privacy codes applying the standards set
out in this Act, with respect to the persons, entities, business activities and business sectors that said regulatory bodies are authorized to
principally regulate pursuant to the law: Provided, finally. That the Commission may review such privacy codes and require changes thereto for
purposes of complying with this Act;
(k) Provide assistance on matters relating to privacy or data protection at the request of a national or local agency, a private entity or any
person;
(l) Comment on the implication on data privacy of proposed national or local statutes, regulations or procedures, issue advisory opinions and
interpret the provisions of this Act and other data privacy laws;
(m) Propose legislation, amendments or modifications to Philippine laws on privacy or data protection as may be necessary;
(n) Ensure proper and effective coordination with data privacy regulators in other countries and private accountability agents, participate in
international and regional initiatives for data privacy protection;
(o) Negotiate and contract with other data privacy authorities of other countries for cross-border application and implementation of respective
privacy laws;
(p) Assist Philippine companies doing business abroad to respond to foreign privacy or data protection laws and regulations; and
(q) Generally perform such acts as may be necessary to facilitate cross-border enforcement of data privacy protection.
Section 12. Criteria for Lawful Processing of Personal Information. – The processing of personal information shall be permitted only if not
otherwise prohibited by law, and when at least one of the following conditions exists:
(a) The data subject has given his or her consent;
(b) The processing of personal information is necessary and is related to the fulfillment of a contract with the data subject or in order to take
steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract;
(c) The processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the personal information controller is subject;
(d) The processing is necessary to protect vitally important interests of the data subject, including life and health;
(e) The processing is necessary in order to respond to national emergency, to comply with the requirements of public order and safety, or to
fulfill functions of public authority which necessarily includes the processing of personal data for the fulfillment of its mandate; or
(f) The processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the personal information controller or by a third party or
parties to whom the data is disclosed, except where such interests are overridden by fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject
which require protection under the Philippine Constitution.