and power of taxation.
A constitution does
BILL OF RIGHTS
BILL OF RIGHTS
PRELIMINARIES
Government Power vs. Individual Freedom
1. Among the changes brought about by the
Period of Enlightenment was the shift of
power from the crown to the individual. The
long reign of monarchs came to an end, and
the rule of the people became the standard.
The government, while still the repository of
power, was limited to its role as the protector
of the people and the guardian of rights.
Liberalism, which took its cue from
individualism, advocated the principle of
egalitarianism, in which men, regardless of
their status in life, are regarded as equals in
terms of rights before the law. Modern
democracies are founded on these liberal
ideals, in that the heart of democratic
objectives is the protection of human dignity
and respect for human rights.
2. Nonetheless, the government remains to be
a powerful institution, capable of summoning
the military, evoking its past image as the
uncontestable holder of sovereignty. In fact,
republicanism essentially requires delegation
of powers to the government; that although
the people remain to be the sovereign, actual
exercise of it is given to the government.
Protection and service of the people is the
primal duty of the government, but be that as
it may, the government is still the single
biggest institution that exercises sovereign
powers.
3. More so, it possesses the inherent powers
which the Constitution itself does not confer.
Every government for it to exist exercises
police power, power of eminent domain,
not grant such powers to the government; a
constitution can only define and delimit them
and allocate their exercise among various
government agencies.[1] These are awesome
powers, which, if left uncheck, may seriously
restrict and jeopardize the freedom of
individuals. Thus, it is inbuilt in every
democratic constitution to meticulously
include provisions guaranteeing the rights of
the individuals and those restricting the
powers of the government. This is to prevent
the tragedy that the government created by
the people will in turn be the instrument to
enslave and abuse them.
4. The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an
indispensable part of the Constitution. In fact,
it is one of the most important parts of the
fundamental law since it aims at balancing the
power of the government and the various
freedoms of the individual. As will be seen
below, the Bill of Rights provide for two
things: first, restrictions directed against the
state, and, second, explicit identification and
limitation of rights of the individuals. On the
one hand, the government exercises its
tremendous powers, but its powers are limited
by the Constitution. On the other hand, the
individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but
subject also to limitations in recognition of the
powers of the government. What balances the
two (power and freedom) are the limitations
provided by the Constitution, which
limitations are by nature compromises or
solutions to situations resulting from the
overlapping or conflict of the two realms. For
example, while the government has the
inherent authority to take and convert a
property for public use, and the people on the
other have the right to hold their private
property, the Constitution, contemplating a
case of overlap or conflict between the two,
compromises both by prescribing that the
government gives just compensation to the
private owner who in turn must surrender his
property.
Meaning of the Bill of Rights
1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to
understand that the Bill of Rights refers to the
declaration and enumeration of the fundamental
civil and political rights of a person with the
primary purpose of safeguarding the person from
violations by the government, as well as by
individuals and group of individuals. It includes
the protection of the following rights:
(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to
individuals by virtue of their citizenship, such
as freedom to contract, right to property, and
marriage among others;
(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining
to the citizenship of the individual vis--vis
the administration of the government, such as
right of suffrage right to hold office, and right
to petition for redress of wrong;
(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure
the well-being and economic security of an
individual; and
(d) Rights of the accused which refer to
protections given to the person of an accused
in any criminal case.
2. It must be noted that the restriction
provided in the Bill of Rights is directed
against the government, so that it does not
govern private relations. As far as the
Constitution is concerned, Article III can be
invoked only against the government.
Nonetheless, with the inclusion of almost all
the constitutional rights in Article 32 of the
Civil Code, the same may now be invoked in
civil cases involving relations between private
persons. Thus, the definition above indicates
that the bill of rights is a safeguard not just
against the abuses of the government but also
of individuals or group of individuals.
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION
Life, Liberty, and Property
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III
of the Constitution states 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. The
provision speaks of due process and equal
protection.
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all
persons, whether citizens or aliens, natural or
juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due
process and equal protection cover the right to
life, liberty, and property. It is important
therefore to know the meaning of the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right
to life, it refers not just to physical safety but
also to the importance of quality of life. Thus,
right to life means right to be alive, right to
ones limbs against physical harm, and,
equally important, right to a good quality of
life.[2] Life means something more than mere
animal existence.[3]
(b) Liberty. It includes negative and
positive freedom. Negative freedom means
freedom from, or absence of, physical
constraints, while positive freedom means
freedom to exercise ones faculties. Right to
liberty therefore includes the two aspects of
freedom and it cannot be dwarfed into mere
freedom from physical restraint or servitude,
but is deemed to embrace the right of man to
enjoy his God-given faculties in all lawful
ways, to live and work where he will, to earn
his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue
any vocation, and enter into contracts.[4]
(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself
or right over the thing. As a thing, property is
anything capable of appropriation, and it
could be personal or real. As a right, it refers
to right to own, use, possess, alienate, or
destroy the thing. The constitution uses
property in the sense of right, and as such it
includes, among others, right to work, ones
employment, profession, trade, and other
vested rights. It is important to note however
that privileges like licenses are not protected
property; but they may evolve in a protected
right if much is invested in them as means of
livelihood. Public office is not also a property;
but to the extent that security of tenure cannot
be compromised without due process, it is in a
limited sense analogous to property.[5]
5. These rights are intimately connected. For
example, if ones property right over
employment is taken away, the same will
adversely affect ones right to life since quality
of living is jeopardized. Consequently, in the
absence of property and a good quality of life,
the ability to do what one wants is impeded.
6. Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are
intimately related, they have a hierarchy. As to
their order of importance, right to life comes
first, followed by right to liberty, and then
right of property.
Due Process
1. Meaning. Due process of law is a
constitutional guarantee against hasty and
unsupported deprivation of some persons life,
liberty, or property by the government. While
is it true that the state can deprive its citizens
of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so
in observance of due process of law. This right
is the embodiment of the supporting idea
of fair play[6] and its essence is that it is a
law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial.[7]
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the
act of the government is arbitrary, oppressive,
whimsical, or unreasonable. It is particularly
directed against the acts of executive and
legislative department.
3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of
law has two aspects: procedural and substantive.
Basically, the procedural aspect involves the
method or manner by which the law is
enforced, while the substantive aspect
involves the law itself which must be fair,
reasonable, and just.
4. Procedural due process requires, essentially,
the opportunity to be heard in which every
citizen is given the chance to defend himself or
explain his side through the protection of
general rules of procedure. It contemplates
notice and opportunity to be heard before
judgment is rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of
procedural due process are:[8]
(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal
with jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant or the property which is the
subject of the proceeding;
(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be
heard (requirement on notice and hearing);
and
(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Since some cases are decided by
administrative bodies, the Court also provides
requirements of procedural due process
in administrative proceedings. These
requirements, also known as seven cardinal
primary rights, are:[9]
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may
present evidence in support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal
must be supported by evidence;
(d) The evidence must be
substantial. Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(e) The evidence must have been presented at
the hearing, or at least contained in the record
and known to the parties affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges
must rely on its own independent
consideration of evidence, and not rely on the
recommendation of a subordinate; and
(g) The decision must state the facts and the
law in such a way that the parties are apprised
of the issues involved and the reasons for the
decision.
5. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. What
matters in procedural due process
are notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(a) Notice. This is an essential element of
procedural due process, most especially in
judicial proceedings, because without notice
the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its
judgment will not bind the defendant. The
purpose of the notice is to inform the
defendant of the nature and character of the
case filed against him, and more importantly,
to give him a fair opportunity to prepare his
defense. Nevertheless, the notice is useless
without the opportunity to be heard.
(b) Opportunity to be Heard. It must be
emphasized that what is required is not
actual hearing but a real opportunity to be void because annoying act could mean
heard.[10] If, for instance, a person fails to
actually appear in a hearing even though he
was given the chance to do so, a decision
rendered by the court is not in violation of due
process. Moreover, strict observance of the
rule is not necessary, especially in
administrative cases. In fact, in administrative
proceedings, notice and hearing may be
dispensed with for public need or for practical
reasons. It is also sufficient that subsequent
hearing is held if the same was not previously
satisfied.
6. Substantive due process requires that the
law itself is valid, fair, reasonable, and just.
For the law to be fair and reasonable it must
have a valid objective which is pursued in a
lawful manner. The objective of the
government is valid when it pertains to the
interest of the general public, as distinguished
from those of a particular class. The manner
of pursuing the objective is lawful if the means
employed are reasonably necessary and not
unduly oppressive.
7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a
statute or law that is vague is void because it
violates the rights to due process. A statute is
vague when it lacks comprehensible standards
which men of ordinary intelligence must
necessarily know as to its common meaning
but differ as to its application. Such kind of
statute is opposed to the Constitution because
it fails to accord persons proper
understanding or fair notice, and because the
government is given unbridled freedom to
carry out its provision. For this doctrine to be
operative, however, the statute must be utterly
vague. Thus, if a law, for example, could be
interpreted and applied in various ways, it is
void because of vagueness. Corollary to this is
the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a
statute that is overly broad is void. This is
because it prevents a person from exercising
his constitutional rights, as it fails to give an
adequate warning or boundary between what
is constitutionally permissive and not. If a law,
for instance, prohibits a bystander from doing
any annoying act to passersby, the law is
anything to a passerby and as such, overly
broad.
Equal Protection
1. Meaning. The guarantee of equal protection
means that no person or class of persons
shall be deprived of the same protection of the
laws which is enjoyed by other persons or
other classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.[11] It means that all persons
or things similarly situated should be treated
alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. The guarantee does
not provide absolute equality of rights or
indiscriminate operation on persons. Persons
or things that are differently situated may thus
be treated differently. Equality only applies
among equals. What is prohibited by the
guarantee is the discriminatory legislation
which treats differently or favors others when
both are similarly situated.
2. Purpose. The purpose of the guarantee is to
prohibit hostile discrimination or undue favor
to anyone, or giving special privilege when it is
not reasonable or justified.
3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is
the rule that reasonable classificationdoes not
violate the guarantee, provided that the
classification has the following requisites:[12]
(a) It must be based upon substantial
distinctions;
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the
law;
(c) It must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and
(d) It must apply equally to all members of the (b) Intermediate review in which the
class. substantiality of the governmental interest is
closely scrutinized as well as the availability of
4. Example. In one case,[13] Section 66 of the
less restrictive means or alternatives. This
Omnibus Election Code was challenged for
standard is used if the classification involves
being unconstitutional, as it is violative of the
important but not fundamental interests; and
equal protection clause. The provision
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is
distinguishes between an elective official and
required to show the presence of a compelling
an appointive official in the filing of theire
government interest, rather than a mere
certificate of candidacy. While elective officials
substantial interest, and the absence of a less
are not deemed resigned upon the filing their
restrictive means for achieving the interest.
certificates, appointive officials are. The
Upon showing of these requirements, the
Supreme Court held that the law is
limitation of a fundamental constitutional
constitutional and not violative of equal
right is justified. This standard is used if the
protection since the classification is valid. The
law classifies persons and limits others of
Court argues that elective office is different
their exercise of fundamental rights.
from appointive office, in that the mandate of
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
the former is from the people, while that of the
Right against Unreasonable Searches and
latter is from the appointing authority. The
Seizures
term of the elective officials are likewise
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 2, Article III
longer than that of the appointive officials.
states that people have the inviolable right to
Thus, the classification is adjudged reasonable
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
and valid.
effects against unreasonable searches and
5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the
seizures of whatever nature and for any
protection extends to both citizens and aliens,
purpose, and a search warrant or warrant of
discrimination against aliens may be held
arrest can only be issued upon showing of a
valid under certain circumstances. For
probable cause determined personally by the
example, citizens by virtue of their
judge after examination under oath or
membership to the political community
affirmation of the complainant and the
possess complete civil and political rights,
witnesses he may produce, and particularly
while aliens do not have complete political
describing the place to be searched and the
rights. The former can vote during elections,
persons or things to be seized.
run for public office, own real property, while
2. Scope. The protection extends to all persons,
aliens cannot.
aliens or citizens, natural or juridical. It is a
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by
personal right which may be invoked or
the court, it said to be subject to judicial
waived by the person directly
review. There are three standards followed by
affected[14]against unreasonable arrests or
the court in judicial review, these are:
searches by the government and its agencies.
(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld
It cannot, however, be invoked against private
to be valid or consistent to the guarantee of
individuals.
equal protection when they are rational and
Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant
the classifications therein bear a relation to a
legitimate governmental interests or purpose. 1. Generally, the right against unreasonable
In here the courts do not seriously inquire into searches and seizures requires that before a
the substantiality of the interest and person is arrested or a personal property
possibility of alternative means to achieve the seized, it must be supported by a valid warrant
objectives; of arrest or a search warrant. The exceptions
are in cases of valid warrantless arrests and complainant and the witness he may produce;
searches. and

2. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the (d) It must particularly describe the place to
court, issued in the name of the Philippines, be searched and the persons or things to be
authorizing a peace officer to arrest a person, seized. The property subject to search includes
and put him under the custody of the court. those used in the commission of the offense,
3. A search warrant is a written order of the stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or
court, authorizing or directing a peace officer fruits of the offense, or used or intended to be
to search a specific location, house, or other used in the commission of the offense.
premises for a personal property allegedly
2. General warrants are those that do not
used in a crime or may be utilized as a tool to
particularly describe the place to be searched
prove a crime.
or the persons or things to be seized. They are
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
unconstitutional because the sanctity of the
1. Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is
domicile and privacy of communication and
reasonable when it is covered by a valid
correspondence of individuals are placed at
warrant, it is thus important to know
the mercy, caprice, and passion of peace
the requisites a valid warrant. The Court
officers.[17]
enumerates the requisites as follows:
Warrantless Arrest
(a) It must be based upon a probable cause.
1. When Warrantless Arrest Valid. Arrest without
Probable cause refers to such facts and
warrant is strictly construed as an exception to
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
the general rule requiring warrant. Under the
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
Rules of Court,[18] a peace officer or a private
offense has been committed and that the
person may arrest a person even without a
objects sought in connect with the offense are
warrant under the following instances:
in the place sought to be searched;
(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his
(b) The probable cause must be determined
presence, the person to be arrested has
personally by the judge. That the judge
committed, is actually committing, or is
personally determines the probable cause
attempting to commit an offense;
means that he personally evaluates the report
(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact
and the supporting documents submitted by
just been committed, and he has personal
the public prosecutor regarding the existence
knowledge of facts indicating that the person
of the probable cause, or, if the same is
to be arrested has committed it; and
insufficient, require additional evidence to
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. When the person
aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
existence of probable cause.[15]Thus,
from a penal establishment of place where he
personal determination does not mean that he
is serving final judgment or temporarily
must personally examine the complainant and
confined while his case is pending, or has
his witnesses.[16] He may rely on reports and
escaped while being transferred from one
evidence submitted to him, on the basis of
confinement to another.
which he determines the existence of probable
2. Citizen Arrest. It must be noted that a lawful
cause and orders the issuance of warrant.
warrantless arrest may be performed not just
What is prohibited is to rely solely on the
by a peace officer but also by a civilian. This is
recommendation of the prosecutors without
permitted under the rules under limited
doing any determination on his own;
circumstances, and it is called citizen arrest.
(c) The determination must be made after 3. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an
examination under oath or affirmation of the offense is committed in the presence of the
arresting officer or civilian. For example, if a
person pushes illegal drugs in the presence of
a police officer, the latter can arrest the pusher
even without a warrant of arrest because an
offense is actually being committed in his
presence. The same principle underlies the
buy-bust or entrapment operations 1. In cases of deportation, where the State
conducted by police officers in catching law
offenders. In one case,[19] the Court held that
rebellion is a continuing offense, and so the
rebel may be arrested anytime even without a
warrant because he is deemed to commit the
offense in the presence of the arresting officer
or person.
4. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by
the arresting officer or civilian if the
warrantless arrest is performed outside the
above rules.
Warrantless Searches
A search is valid even without a warrant,
under the following instances:
(a) Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. When
a valid arrest precedes the search or
contemporaneous with it, and the search is
limited to the immediate vicinity of the place
of arrest, for purposes of securing dangerous
objects and effects of the crime;
(b) Consented search. When the right has been
voluntarily waived by person who has a right,
aware of such right, and has an actual
intention to relinquish such right;
(c) Plainview search. When prohibited articles
are within the sight of an officer who has the
right to be in a position to that view;
(d) Visual search at checkpoints. When the
search at stationary checkpoints is pre-
announced, and limited to a visual search
only;
(e) Terry search. When a police officer, in
interest of effective crime prevention,
performs a stop-and-frisk or patting of outer
clothing for dangerous weapons, after
observing a suspicious conduct on the part of
a citizen;
(f) Search of moving vehicles, vessels, and
aircrafts for violation of laws;
(g) Inspection of buildings and other premises
for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and
building regulations; and
(h) Search in airports and other populous
places.
Administrative Searches and Arrests
expels an undesirable alien from its territory,
court intervention and proceedings are not
required. Nonetheless, the aliens
constitutional rights are still preserved
because they are given fair trial and
administrative due process.
2. Important to note is that no probable cause
is required in deportation proceedings.[20] It
is the Commissioner of Immigration or any
officer designated by him, not the judge, who
issues the administrative warrant, after
determination by the Board of Commissioners
of the existence of a ground for deportation.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy
1. Constitutional Provisions. The right to privacy
is scattered throughout the Bill of
Rights.[21] The right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, in Section 2, is an
expression of this right, inasmuch as it is
based on the sacred right to be secure in the
privacy of ones person, house, paper, and
effects. Due process of law, in Section 1, also
provides the same privacy security by
protecting an individuals life, liberty, and
property against undue interference by the
government. Section 6 speaks of the right to
establish and change ones home which
likewise deals with the privacy and comfort of
ones home. The right to form unions or
associations under Section 8, and the right
against self-incrimination under Section 17
are also privacy rights which need protection
against undue intrusion by the government.
2. Nonetheless, the word privacy is expressly
provided in Section 3(1), Article III, which
states that the privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public
safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. Privacy of communication
and correspondence is also an expression of
the right to privacy.
3. Statutory Reinforcements. To reinforce these
constitutional provisions, the Congress has
passed laws that recognize and protect the
zones of privacy of an individual. These laws
include: (a) The Civil Code of the Philippines;
(b) The Revised Penal Code; (c) Anti-Wire
Tapping Act; (d) The Secrecy of Bank
Deposits; and (e) Intellectual Property Code.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
1. Subject of the Right. Invasion of
communication and correspondence is one
kind of search.[22] However the subject of
search is not a tangible object but
an intangible one, such as telephone calls, text
messages, letters, and the like. These forms of
communication and correspondence may be
intruded into by means of wiretapping or other
means of electronic eavesdropping. What the
constitution prohibits is government
intrusion, by means of wiretapping or
electronic eavesdropping, into the privacy of
communication without a lawful court order
or when public safety and order does not
demand.
2. Rule. As a rule, the government cannot
intrude into the privacy of communication
and correspondence. The exceptions are: (a)
when the court allows the intrusion, and (b)
when public safety and order so demands.
Anti-Wire Tapping Act
1. R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as
a reinforcement of privacy of communication,
is a law which prohibits a person not
authorized by all the parties to any private
communication, to wire tap or use any devise
to secretly overhear, intercept, record, or
communicate the content of the said
communication to any person.
2. Wire tapping or the use of record may be
permitted in civil or criminal proceedings
involving specified offenses principally
affecting national security, and only with
previous authorization by the court which
must comply with the requirements of a
warrant. The authority is effective only for
sixty days.
Writ of Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available
to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty, or security is violated or threatened to
be violated 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.
Exclusionary Rule
1. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence
unlawfully obtained is inadmissible as
evidence before the courts. This is based on
Section 3(2), Article III which provides that
any evidence obtained in violation of right to
privacy of communication or right to due
process of law shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. The same rule is
applied to any evidence taken in violate of
R.A. 4200.
2. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous
Tree Doctrine. The name of the doctrine
metaphorically describes what happens to an
evidence (fruit) taken through unlawful
means (poisonous tree). The evidence-fruit is
discarded because it may infect or destroy the
integrity of the case and forfeit the purpose of
the law.
3. For example, if police officers search a
house without a search warrant and the same
does not fall under any of the instances of a
valid warrantless search, the evidence
obtained even if material in the case cannot be
admitted in court. Or if police officers wiretap
a conversation without court authorization,
the recorded conversation shall be excluded as
an evidence in court. Thus, the evidences are
said to be fruits of a poisonous tree.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meaning and Scope
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 4, Article III
provides that no law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances. The
right underscores tolerance to different views
and thoughts.
2. Aspects of the Right. Freedom of expression
has four aspects, to wit: (a) freedom of speech;
(b) freedom of expression; (c) freedom of the
press; and (d) freedom of assembly.
Nonetheless, the scope of the protection
extends to right to form associations or
societies not contrary to law, right to access to
information on matters of public concern, and
freedom of religion. These are all crucial to the
advancement of beliefs and ideas and the
establishment of an uninhibited, robust and
wide-open debate in the free market of
ideas.[23]
3. Importance of the Right. Freedom of
expression is accorded the highest protection
in the Bill of Rights since it is indispensable to
the preservation of liberty and democracy.
Thus, religious, political, academic, artistic,
and commercial speeches are protected by the
constitutional guarantee.
4. Limitation. The right is not absolute. It must
be exercised within the bounds of law, morals,
public policy and public order, and with due
regard for others rights. Thus, obscene,
libelous, and slanderous speeches are not
protected by the guarantee. So are seditious
and fighting words that advocate imminent
lawless conduct.
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent
Punishment
1. Freedom of speech and of the press has two
aspects: (a) freedom from prior restraint, and
(b) freedom from subsequent punishment.
2. On the one hand, freedom from prior
restraint means freedom from censorship or
governmental screening of what is politically,
morally, socially, and artistically correct. In
here, persons and the media are freed from
total suppression or restriction by the
government of what could be disseminated,
and prevents the government from being a
subjective arbiter of what is acceptable and
not. Although the system of prior restraint is
presumed unconstitutional, it is allowed
under the following instances:[24]
(a) Undue utterances in time of war;
(b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized
dissemination of military information;
(c) Obscene publication; and
(d) Inciting to rebellion.
3. On the other hand, freedom from subsequent
punishment refers to the assurance that citizens
can speak and air out their opinions without
fear of vengeance by the government.
Subsequent chastisement has the effect of
unduly curtailing expression, and thus
freedom therefrom is essential to the freedom
of speech and the press. The State, however,
can validly impose subsequent punishment
under the following instances:
(a) Libel which is the most common form of
subsequent punishment, refers to a public and
malicious imputation of a crime, vice or
defect, real or imaginary or any act or
omission, status tending to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or blacken the memory of one who is
dead;[25]
(b) Obscenity which includes works (taken as a
whole) appealing to prurient interest or
depicting sexual conduct as defined by law or
lacking of serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value;[26]
(c) Criticism of official conduct made with
actual malice;[27] and
(d) School articles which materially disrupt
class work or involves substantial disorder or
invasion of rights of others.[28]
Tests to Determine When Right Maybe
Suppressed
There are six tests or rules to determine when
the freedom may be suppressed. These are:
(1) Dangerous Tendency Test which provides
that if a speech is capable of producing a
substantive evil which the State is mandated
to suppress or prevent, even if it did not
materialize, the State is justified of restricting
the right. This rule has already been
abandoned;
(2) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a
more libertarian rule, provides that the
finding out of substantive evil is not enough to
suppress the right. Rather the substantive evil
must have clear and present danger type
depending on the specific circumstances of the
case. This rule is consistent with the principle
of maximum tolerance and is often applied
by the Court in freedom of expression cases;
(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides
that when there is conflict between a
regulation and freedom of speech, the court
has the duty to determine which of the two
demands greater protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which
was meant to supplant the clear and present
danger test, determines whether the gravity of
the evil, less its improbability to happen, can
justify the suppression of the right in order to
avoid the danger;[29]
(e) OBrien Test which provides that when
speech and non-speech elements are
combined in the same course of conduct, a
sufficiently important government interest
that warrants the regulation of the non-
speech element can also justify incidental
limitations on the speech element; and
(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines
what words are uttered and the likely result of
the utterance, that is, whether or not they will
directly incite or produce imminent lawless
action.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
1. Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may
impose two kinds of restrictions on speech
under a system of prior restraint: content-based
restriction and content-neutral restriction. The
restriction is content-based when restriction is
directed to the speech itself, while the
restriction is content-neutral when it is
directed, not to the speech itself, but to the
incidents (such as time, place, or manner) of
the speech. An example of a content-based
restriction is when the government prohibits
speeches against the President, in which case
the restriction is on the speech itself. An
example of a content-neutral restriction is
when the government regulates the manner of
posting campaign advertisements, in which
case the restriction is on the manner the right
is made.
2. Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. If the
governmental restriction is content-based, the
applicable rule or test is the clear and present
danger test. This is to give the government a
heavy burden to show justification for the
imposition of such prior restraint which bears
a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality. If
the restriction is content-neutral, the
applicable rule is only an intermediate
approach, inasmuch as the restraint is only
regulatory and does not attack the speech
directly.
3. Example. In one case, the court held that the
act of granting a permit to rally under the
condition that it will be held elsewhere is a
content-based restriction and not content-
neutral because it is directed to the exercise of
the speech right itself and not merely to the
manner. As such, the applicable test is the
clear and present danger test.[30]
Regulations on Mass Media
Mass media may be broadcast media (e.g.
television and radio) or print media (e.g.
newspaper). The two have a substantial
difference in that broadcast media has a
uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of
Filipinos. Thus, freedom of television and
radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser than
the freedom accorded to the print
media;[31] greater regulation is imposed over
broadcast media because of its greater
tendency to invade the privacy of everyone
than print media.
Doctrine of Fair Comment
1. Meaning. Under the doctrine of fair
comment, a discreditable imputation directed
against a public person in his public capacity,
does not necessarily make one liable.
Although generally every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false and
malicious because every man is presumed
innocent until proven guilty, nevertheless, if
the imputation directed against a person in his
public is based on established facts, even if
the inferred opinion is wrong, the comments
as justified. As long as the opinion might
reasonably inferred from the facts, it is not
actionable. In order to that such discreditable
imputation to a public official may be
actionable, it must either be a false
allegation or a baseless comment.[32] in a campus of a state college or university, or
2. Example. If a case of theft was filed against a
barangay official, and someone commented
that he maliciously stole things from the local
residents, the doctrine of fair comment is
applicable, inasmuch as the opinion was based
on such fact. In here, the comment is justified.
Commercial Speech
1. Meaning. Commercial speech is one that
proposes a commercial transaction done in
behalf of a company or individual for purposes
of profit. It is a protected speech for as long as
it is not false or misleading and does not
propose an illegal transaction.[33]
2. But if the government has a substantial
interest to protect, even a truthful and lawful
commercial speech may be regulated.[34]
3. Private speech is accorded more freedom
and protection than commercial speech.
Freedom of Assembly
1. Meaning. Freedom of assembly refers to the
right to hold a rally to voice out grievances
against the government.
2. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a
rule, freedom of assembly is not subject to
prior restraint or prior issuance of permit by
government authorities. Nevertheless, it must
be exercised in such a way that will not to
prejudice public welfare. Freedom of assembly
is reinforced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 880,
otherwise known as the Public Assembly Acts
of 1985, which basically provides the
requirements and procedure for holding
rallies. It also implements the observance of
maximum tolerance towards participants of
rallies consistent with the clear and present
danger test.
3. Permit Requirement. Under the said law,
permit is required to hold a rally. It must be
emphasized, however, that the permit is not a
requirement for the validity of the assembly or
rally, because the right is not subject to prior
restraint. Rather, the permit is a requirement
for the use of the public place.
4. When Permit not Required. Permit is not
required if the rally is held in a private place,
in a freedom park, in which case only
coordination with the police is required. If the
application for permit is not acted upon by the
mayor within two working days, then the
same is deemed granted.
5. Political rally during election is regulated by
the Omnibus Election Code, not by BP 880.
Right to Form Associations
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 8, Article III
provides that the right of the people,
including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations,
or societies for purposes not contrary to law
shall not be abridged.
2. Who may Exercise the Right. The right of
association may be exercised by the employed
or the unemployed and by those employed in
the government or in the private sector. It
likewise embraces the right to form unions
both in the government and private sector.
The right of civil servants to unionize is
expressly provided in Section 2(5), Article IX-
B: The right to self-organization shall not be
denied to government employees. The right
of labor in general to unionize is likewise
provided in Section 3, Article XIII: [The
State] shall guarantee the rights of all workers
to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law.
3. Right to Strike not Included. The right to form
associations or to self-organization does not
include the right to strike. Thus, public school
teachers do not enjoy the right to strike even if
they are given the constitutional right of
association.[35] The terms and conditions of
employment in the Government, including in
any political subdivision or instrumentality
thereof and government owned and controlled
corporations with original charters, are
governed by law and the employees therein
shall not strike for purposes of securing
changes.[36]
Right to Information
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 7, Article III
provides that the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official 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, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law.
2. Scope and Limitation. The right guarantees
access to official records for any lawful
purpose. However, access may be denied by
the government if the information sought
involves: (a) National security matters,
military and diplomatic secrets; (b) Trade or
industrial secrets; (c) Criminal matters; and
(d) Other confidential information (such as
inter-government exchanges prior to
consultation of treaties and executive
agreement, and privilege speech).
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
1. Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a)
the freedom to believe, and (b) the freedom to act
on ones belief. The first aspect is in the realm
of the mind, and as such it is absolute, since
the State cannot control the mind of the
citizen. Thus, every person has the absolute
right to believe (or not to believe) in anything
whatsoever without any possible external
restriction by the government. The aspect
refers to the externalization of belief as it is
now brought out from the bosom of internal
belief. Since it may affect peace, morals, public
policy, and order, the government may
interfere or regulate such aspect of the right.
2. The second aspect is expressed in Section 5,
Article III, thus The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the exercise
of civil or political rights.
Non-establishment Clause
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III
provides that no law shall be made respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof.
2. Explanation. The non-establishment clause
holds that the State cannot set up a church or
pass laws aiding one religion, all religion, or
preferring one over another, or force a person
to believe or disbelieve in any religion.[37] In
order words, it prohibits the State from
establishing an official religion. It discourages
excessive government involvement with
religion and manifest support to any one
religious denomination. Manifestly, the clause
is rooted in the principle of separation of
church and state.
3. Particular Prohibitions. In particular, the
non-establishment clause prohibits, among
others, prayers of a particular denomination
to start a class in public schools,[38]financial
subsidy of a parochial school,[39] display of
the ten commandments in front of a
courthouse,[40] law prohibiting the teaching
of evolution,[41] mandatory reading of the
bible,[42] and using the word God in the
pledge of allegiance.[43]
4. Exceptions to the Prohibition. The clause,
however, permits the following:
(a) Tax exemption on property actually,
directly and exclusively used for religious
purposes;[44]
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian
schools[45] and expansion of educational
facilities in parochial schools for secular
activities;[46]
(c) Religious instruction in public schools,
elementary and high school, at the option of
parents or guardians expressed in writing,
within regular class hours by designated
instructors, and without additional costs to
the government;[47]
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher,
minister, or dignitary assigned to the armed
forces, penal institution or government
orphanage or leprosarium;[48]
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas
which traditions are used to be purely
religious but have now acquired secular
character;[49] and
(f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as
the venue of a significant religious event, in
that the benefit to religious sect is incidental
to the promotion of the Philippines as a
tourist destination.[50]
Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act
Violates Freedom of Religion
1. Different tests are used to determine if there
are governmental violations of non-
establishment clause and free exercise clause.
On the on hand, Lemon Test is used to
determine whether an act of the government
violates the non-establishment clause. Under
this test, a law or a governmental act does not
violate the clause when it has a secular
purpose, does not promote or favor any set of
religious beliefs, and does not get the
government too entangled with religion.[51]
2. On the other hand, Compelling State Interest
Test and Clear and Present Danger Test are used
to determine whether there is violation of
free-exercise clause. Compelling state interest
test is used to determine if the interests of the
State are compelling enough to justify
intrusion into an individuals freedom of
religion. Under this test, government
infringement is justified if the burden it
creates on freedom of religion is due to a
sufficiently compelling state interest and the
means used to attain its purpose is the least
intrusive. Clear and present danger test is
used to determine whether the circumstance
are of such nature as to create a clear and
present danger that will bring about a
substantive evil which the state has the right
to prevent.
3, Example. In one case,[52] the Court held
that expulsion from school is unjustified if is
based on the conflict between religious beliefs
and school practices (saluting the flag). The
expulsion violates the right of children to
education. Using the clear and present danger
test, the Court held that the danger of
disloyalty which the government is trying to
prevent may be the very same thing that it
advocates if expulsion is validated. Times have
changed. Freedom of religion is now
recognized as a preferred right.
Religious Solicitations
Under Presidential Decree No. 1564, also known
as the Solicitation Law, permit is required
before solicitations for charitable and public
welfare purposes may be carried out. The
purpose of the law is to protect the public
from fraudulent solicitations. Nonetheless,
permit is no longer required if the solicitation
is for religious purposes. Fraud is much less
in religion. If the law is extended to religion,
then it becomes unconstitutional; it
constitutes restriction on freedom of religion
as resources necessary for maintenance are
deprived of churches.
Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is someone who
sincerely claims the right to refuse to perform
military service[53] and salute a flag[54] on the
grounds of freedom of thought, conscience,
and/or religion. He may be granted exemption
from military service or from saluting the flag
if he establishes that his objection is sincere,
based on religious training and belief, and
not arbitrary.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
Freedom of Movement
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III
provides that the liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall
the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
2. Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of
movement has two aspects: (a) Freedom to
choose and change ones domicile, and (b)
Freedom to travel within and outside the
country. A persons place of abode or domicile
is his permanent residence.
Limitations
1. Freedom of movement is not an absolute
right. It has limitations. Liberty of abode may
be impaired or restricted when there is a
lawful court order.
2. The right to travel may also be restricted in
interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, or when a person is on bail, or
under a watch-list and hold departure order.
Right to Return to Ones Country
Although the right to return to ones country is
not among the rights expressly mentioned in
the Bill of Rights, it is nonetheless recognized
and protected in the Philippines. It is a
generally accepted principle of international
law, and as such it is part of the law of the
land, pursuant to the doctrine of
incorporation. It is different from the right to
travel and is guaranteed under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.[55]
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Contract Clause
1. Section 10, Article III provides that no law
impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed. This is the so-called contract clause,
which seeks to restrain substantial
legislative impairment of, or intrusion into,
the obligations of contracts. What the clause
guarantees is the integrity of contracts against
undue interference by the government.
2. For example, if a lawyer enters into a
contract with a client by which the latter will
pay 5% of the value of the monetary claim, a
subsequent law which deprives the lawyer of
the said value is arbitrary and unreasonable
since it is destructive of the inviolability of
contracts, and therefore invalid as lacking of
due process.[56]
Contracts Affected
1. Only valid contracts, either executed or
executory, are covered by the guarantee.
2. The agreement of the parties, as long as it
is valid, is the law between them. Their will
should prevail, and this must be respected by
the legislature and not tampered with by
subsequent laws. Well-established is the
policy that the subject of contractual
agreements is imbued with paramount public
interest.
Kind of Impairment Covered
1. For the clause to be operative, the
impairment caused by law must be substantial.
Substantial impairment happens when the law
changes the terms of a legal contract between
parties, either in the time or mode of
performance, or imposes new conditions, or
dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes
for its satisfaction something different from
that provided in its terms.[57] In other words,
the act of impairment is anything that
diminishes the value of the contract.[58]
2. The cause of the impairment must be legislative
in nature. The obligation of contract must be
impaired by a statute, ordinance, or any
legislative act for it to come within the
meaning of the constitutional
provision.[59] An administrative order or
court decision is not included in the scope of
the constitutional guarantee.
3. In one case,[60] the Court held that a
Rehabilitation Plan approved by the Securities
and Exchange Commission which suspends
contractual claims against an insolvent or
bankrupt corporation does not violate the
contract clause. The impairment must be
legislative in character. SECs approval of the
plan is not a legislative act but an
administrative act. Thus, there is not
impairment of the freedom to contract.
Limitations
1. As between freedom of contract and police
power, police power prevails. Thus, laws
enacted in exercise of police power will prevail
over contracts. After all, private rights and
interest in contracts must yield to the common
good. Every contract affecting public welfare
is presumed to include the provisions of
existing laws and a reservation of police
power.
2. The supremacy of police power is felt most
clearly in labor contracts and agricultural
tenancy contracts. For instance, a law (Blue
Sunday Law) which provides for work or play
on a Sunday is upheld as valid even if it
nullifies existing labor contracts, since it is a
legitimate exercise of police power.[61] In
another case, a law (R.A. No. 34) changed the
crop-sharing system between the landlord and
tenants from 50-50 to 55-45 in favor of the
tenants. The Court held that the law is valid.
Consistent with the policy of social justice, the
law favored the tenants as well as the general
welfare of the people in exchange of
contractual rights.
3. The power of taxation and power of eminent
domain, inasmuch as they are also sovereign
powers of the state, can validly impair obligations
of contracts.
4. Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses
are franchises or privileges given by the State
to qualified entities that may be withdrawn or
relinquished when national interests so
require. However, like contracts, they yield to
police power.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS
TO COURTS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 11, Article III
provides that free access to the courts and
quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
2. Protection for the Poor. Free access is a right
covered by the due process clause, because a
person, regardless of his status in life, must be
given an opportunity to defend himself in the
proper court or tribunal. Nonetheless, the
right is placed in a separate provision to
emphasize the desire for constitutional protection
of the poor.[62]
3. Litigation in Forma Pauperis. In consonance
with this constitutional provision, the Rules of
Court provide for litigation in forma pauperis in
which paupers and indigents, who have only
their labor to support themselves, are given
free legal services and access to courts.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Miranda Rights
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 12, Article
III enumerates the rights of a person under
custodial investigation for the commission of
an offense, to wit:
(a) Right to remain silent, right to have a
competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice, right to free legal services if he
cannot afford one, and the right to informed of
these rights. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of
counsel;
(b) Right against the use of torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate his free will. Prohibition
against secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention;
(c) Exclusion of any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this provision or the
right against self-incrimination as evidence
against him; and
(d) Sanctions against violators and compensation
for rehabilitation of victims.
2. Why called Miranda Rights. The present
provision is usually referred to as the
Miranda Rights because it is an adoption of
the rights provided in the American case
Miranda v. Arizona.[63]
Purpose of the Right
The provision emphasizes on the duty of law
enforcement officers to treat properly and
humanely those under investigation. It recognizes
the fact that the environment in custodial
investigations is psychologically if not
physically coercive in nature,[64] so that law
enforcers should be reminded of the sanctity
of individual rights and the limitations on
their means of solving crimes. In fact, as far as
the present provision is concerned, the
presumption of regularity of official acts and
the behavior of police or prosecution
is not observed if the person under
investigation was not informed.[65]
Custodial Investigation
1. This enumeration of rights above may be
invoked during custodial investigations.
Custodial investigation refers to any
questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into
custody. The rights are available when the
person interrogated is already treaded as
a particular suspect and the investigation is no
longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime. However, during this stage, no
complaint or criminal case has been filed yet.
As such, the person suspected to have
committed a crime is not yet an accused, since
no case was instituted against him.
2. During custodial investigations, suspects
are identified by way of show-ups, mug shots,
and line ups. Show-ups are done by bringing
the lone suspect face-to-face with the witness
for identification. Mug shots are performed by
showing photographs to witnesses to identify
the suspect. And in line ups, the witness
identifies the suspect from a group of persons.
Extrajudicial Confession
1. Meaning. Extrajudicial consfession refers to
a confession or admission of guilt made
outside (extra) the court (judicial). It is a
critical area of study in Constitutional Law.
With respect to the present provision, it refers
to a confession given during a custodial
investigation, which is not judicial in nature.
Under the Miranda Rights, a person may
waive his right to remain silent and admit the
charge against him because anything that he
says may be used against him. However, the
waiver or confession must be valid to be
admissible as evidence against him.
2. Requisites for Validity. For an extrajudicial
confession to be valid and admissible as
evidence in court, it must be: (a) voluntary; (b)
made in the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in
writing.
3. Involuntary Confession. There are two kinds
of involuntary confession: (a) confession
through coercion;[66] and (b) confession
without being informed of the Miranda
rights.[67] Both forms are invalid and cannot
be admitted as evidence against the confidant,
the confession considered as a fruit of a
poisonous tree. Extrajudicial confessions must
be given voluntarily. However, there is a
distinction between the two. On the one hand,
an extrajudicial confession alleged to be taken
through torture or coercion is presumed
voluntarily given and valid since the law
enforcers are presumed to perform their duty
regularly, so that the complainant-suspect
should prove that there is torture to invalidate
his confession. On the other hand, a
confession given without being informed of
the Miranda rights is presumed involuntarily
given, so that the law enforces must prove its
regularity.[68]
4. Assistance of Counsel. An extrajudicial
confession made in the absence of a counsel,
or even in his presence but without adequate
assistance, is also invalid and inadmissible.
The rule requires that the assisting counsel
must be independent and competent. For this
matter, a fiscal or a public prosecutor, who
represents the interest of the State, cannot
assist the suspect or person under
investigation. His interest is adverse to the
latter. Thus, even if competent, he cannot be
an independent counsel for the suspect.
5. A counsel from the Public Attorneys Office is
qualified to assist a person in executing an
extrajudicial confession, his interest not
adverse to the latter.
6. An extrajudicial confession to a mayor, even if
uncounselled, may be admissible.[69]While a
mayor has power of supervision over the
police, an admission to him, not in the
capacity of a law enforcer, is deemed freely
given. The uncounselled admission to him
does not violate the right to legal assistance
and therefore the confession is admissible as
evidence against the confidant. In addition,
extrajudicial confession to a media man who is
acting as a news reporter and not under the
supervision of the police, is admissible.
7. Because of the inherent danger of
using information from broadcast media, extreme
caution must be taken in further admitting
similar evidence or confession. There is
presumption of voluntariness in confessions
which media describes as freely given. They
must be strictly scrutinized.
RIGHT TO BAIL
Meaning of Right
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 13, Article
III provides that all persons, except those
charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall,
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law. The right to bail shall
not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive
bail shall not be required.
2. Meaning of Bail. Bail refers to the security
given for the temporary release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance
before any court as may be required. For
instance, a person arrested and detained for
the offense of homicide may post a bond for
his temporary release on the condition that he
will appear in the court during the trial or
when the court so requires.
3. Purpose of Bail. Probational release through
bail is corollary to the right to be presumed
innocent and a means of immediately
obtaining liberty.[70] During the duration of
release, the accused is given the chance to
prepare his defense,[71] and thus level the
playing field for the parties. Worth
emphasizing is the reason why those charge
with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua and against whom evidence of guilt is
strong, are not allowed to bail. Under such
circumstances, there is improbability of
appearance, and bail merely becomes an
instrument of evading the law.
Standards for Fixing Amount of Bail
1. The law does not prescribe for a fix amount
of bail. What it requires is that the amount
should be reasonable and not
excessive otherwise the right is rendered
useless. Under the Rules of Court, the amount
is reasonable if the judge bases it primarily,
but not exclusively, on the following
guidelines:[72]
(a) Financial ability of the accused;
(b) Nature and circumstances of offense;
(c) Penalty for offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of evidence against him;
(g) Probability of his appearance at trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
(i) The fact that he is a fugitive from justice
when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where he is also
under bail.
When Right May be Invoked
1. General Rule. The right to bail may be
invoked from the moment of detention or
arrest. Even if no formal charges have been
filed yet, for as long as there is already an
arrest, the right may already be availed of.
2. Bail as a Matter of Right. Bail may be invoked
as a matter of right if the charge is not
punishable by reclusion perpetua and there is
no final judgment of conviction yet.
Technically, the instances when bail is a
matter of right are: (a) Before or after
conviction by the MTC; and (b) Before
conviction of the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
3. Bail as a Matter of Discretion. Bail may be
invoked as a matter of discretion on the part
of the court in the following instances:
(a) After conviction by the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment;
(b) Pending appeal subject to the consent of
the bondsman; and
(c) After conviction, pending appeal when the
court imposed a penalty of imprisonment for
more than six years but not more than twenty
years, and it is not shown that the accused
repeated a crime, an escapee, committed an
offense while under the custody of the
probational release, or had the tendency of
flight or to commit another offense.
3. Right not Suspended. The present
constitutional provision clearly provides that
the right to bail is not suspended when the
President suspends the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. While bail and habeas corpus
are remedies intended for the immediate
release of a detainee, there are fundamental
differences between them so that the
suspension of one does not mean the
suspension of the other. Firstly, in bail, there
is an implicit recognition of the validity of
detention or arrest, while in habeas corpus,
there is an assumption that the detention or
arrest is illegal. And secondly, the prayer in
bail is for the temporary release of the
detainee, whereas in habeas corpus, the
prayer is for permanent release.
When the privilege of habeas corpus is
suspended, the remedy of immediate release
cannot be availed of (although filing is still
allowed). Under the current rules, if the
detainee files a bail for his temporary release,
then it moots the purpose of habeas corpus,
because it destroys the assumption of illegality
of the arrest or detention.
4. The law still allows those who jumped bail
to exercise the right before conviction for as
long as bail is still a matter of right. What the
court must do in such cases is to increase the
amount of bail.
5. Bail is now available in extradition[73] cases,
consistent with the developments in
international law which now treats an
individual as a subject or party.[74]
When Right May not be Invoked
1. It could be inferred from the present
provision that the right to bail may not be
invoked if the offense for which the person is
detained is punishable by reclusion
perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.
2. Important also to note is that
the military may not invoke the right to
bail.[75]Among other reasons, allowing
military members to bail would pose a great
danger to national security. They are allowed
to use firearms and they are paid using
government money. Their sheer number and
unique structure, as well as the military
mentality that they carry, may very well result
to the overthrow of the government if
continuous allowance of the right to bail is
given them most especially when there are
coup attempts. Allowing them to bail could
mean resumption of widespread commission
of heinous activities.
Mandatory Hearing
When the offense charged is punishable
by reclusion perpetua, before rendering a
judgment, due process demands that the court
must conduct a mandatory hearing to
determine if evidence of guilt is strong. This is
one of the instances when bail is a matter of
discretion. But if the prosecutor simply
manifested that he leaves it to the sound
discretion of the judge to grant bail and the
judge grants the same without hearing, then
the judge commits an error because he cannot
repose solely on the prosecutor his decision.
Even if there is no objection, there must be a
hearing.[76]
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Criminal Cases
1. Section 14, Article III deals with the rights
of the accused. It contemplates a scenario
where a case has already been filed against a
person, in contrast to custodial investigations
where a case may not have been filed yet. The
case filed is a criminal case, in which the
parties are the People of the Philippines and
the accused. The People of the Philippines is
the complainant, while the accused is the
person formally charged of a crime or offense
punishable by law.
2. A case is said to be criminal when it
involves the prosecution of a crime by the
State and the imposition of liability on erring
individuals. It highlights the relation of the
individual and the state, with the state having
the right to inflict punishment to an offender
once his guilt is proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
3. The real offended party or victim in a
criminal case is the State or the People of the
Philippines, and not the private complainant.
This is because what has generally been
violated is the law of the Philippines which
provides protection to the people and
guarantees peace and order in the land.
Violation of the law poses danger not just to a
private person, but to the people as a whole,
and is a threat to the sovereignty of the State.
4. The accused, who is the person charged in a
criminal case, is pitted against the State. With
all its machineries, manpower, and almost
unlimited sources of money, the State is
placed in an advantaged position. To level
therefore the playing field, the Constitution
provides for numerous rights of the accused
and of persons under investigation. Justice
demands that they should be given a fighting
chance against the most power institution,
which is the State.
Criminal Due Process
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(1), Article
III provides that no person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
2. The provision refers to due process in
criminal cases. As to its procedural aspect,
criminal due process requires that: (a) The
accused is brought into a court of competent
jurisdiction; (b) He is notified of the case; (c)
He is given the opportunity to be heard; and
(d) There is a valid judgment deliberated and
rendered by the court.[77] As to its substantive
aspect, the criminal cases must be based on a
penal law.
3. The right to appeal is not a constitutional right.
It is a statutory right granted by the
legislature. But when it is expressly granted by
law, then it comes within the scope of due
process.
4. Criminal due process
requires impartiality or objectivity on the part of
the court. Although a separate right to
impartial trial is granted in Section 14,
paragraph 2 of the Bill of Rights, it refers only
to the right of the accused during trial.
Impartiality in criminal due process (Section
14, paragraph 1) is broader since it extends
to preliminary investigations conducted before
the filing criminal cases in court. One of the
instances wherein impartiality is
compromised is the so-called trial by publicity.
When preliminary investigations are held for
purposes of determining whether an
information or a case should be filed against
the respondent, the investigating prosecutor
should not be swayed by the circumstances of
pervasive and prejudicial publicity. It was held
that prejudicial publicity may be invoked as
denial of due process if it prevents the
observance of those decencies or
requirements of procedural due process.[78]
5. A military court has its own unique set of
procedures consistent with the nature and
purpose of the military. Because of its distinct
features, a military court cannot try and
exercise jurisdiction, even during martial law,
over civilians for offenses allegedly committed
by them as long as civilian courts are still open
and functioning.[79] Due process therefore
demands that civilians can only be tried for an
offense in civilian courts and not in military
courts, unless no civilian court is available.
Rights of the Accused during Trial
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(2),
Article III enumerates rights of the accused in
all criminal prosecutions, to wit:
(a) Right to be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved;
(b) Right to be heard by himself and counsel;
(c) Right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him;
(d) Right to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial;
(e) Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
and
(f) Right to have compulsory process to secure
the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.
2. Criminal Prosecution. These are rights of the
accused in criminal prosecutions. Under the
Rules, criminal proceedings start from
arraignment up to the rendition of final
judgment by the court. Arraignment refers to
that stage of the criminal proceeding when the
information is read to the accused to which he
pleads guilty or not guilty. The proceeding
continues until a final judgment is entered by
the court. The judgment is final when there is
nothing for the court to do but to execute it.
Thus, during this duration the accused can
invoke the said rights under the proper
circumstances.
Right to be Presumed Innocent
1. Meaning. The right refers to the
constitutional guarantee that the accused
should be treated as if innocent until he is
proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due
Process. Basically, the rights in Section 14(2)
are elaborations of criminal due process. The
right to presumption of innocence, for
instance, is based on the fundamental
procedural rule that the court must hear first
before it condemns. If what the court
presumes is the guilt of the accused, then
procedural due process is violated. In fact, the
accused is already in a disadvantaged position
since he is pitted against the State.
Presumption of guilt renders the rights of the
accused nugatory. To protect therefore
individual rights, in particular ones liberty, it
should be the State that proves the guilt of
accused, and not that the accused proves his
innocence. It is the prosecution (State) who
has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of innocence. It should rely on
its own merits and not on the weakness of the
defense.
2. When Presumption is Overcome. The
presumption of innocence is overcome
by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under the
rules of evidence, proof beyond reasonable
doubt is the highest quantum of evidence.
Such proof requires that the court is morally
certain that the accused is guilty of the crime,
so that if there is reasonable doubt that lurks
in the mind of the judge, the accused must be
acquitted. When the defense creates
reasonable doubt, the presumption of
innocence remains. It must be noted that the
certainty required by law is not absolute
certainty but moral certainty as to every
proposition of proof requisite to constitute the
offense.[80]
3. Why Right is Granted. The philosophy behind
the very high quantum of evidence to establish
the guilt of the accused is expressed by the
court as follows: It is better to acquit a person
upon the ground of reasonable doubt even
though he may in reality be guilty, than to
inflict imprisonment on one who may be
innocent.[81]
4. Presumption of Guilt. The law and rules,
however, allow that presumption of innocence
may be overcome by another presumption
through prima facie evidence. Prima
facie evidence means an evidence deemed
sufficient unless contradicted. The is based on
logic and human experience. When the
prosecution, for instance, establishes that the
stolen object is in the possession of the
accused, it creates a prima facieevidence that
the accused committed the crime of theft. The
presumption of innocence is overturned, and
the evidence creates a prima facie proof of the
guilt of the accused. This does not, however,
mean that the presumption of innocence is
finally overcome. The burden of proof simply
shifts from the prosecution to the defense
(side of the accused) who will in turn present
contradictory evidence to overcome the prima
facie proof.
Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
1. Right to be Heard. The right to be heard is the
heart of criminal due process. Basically, it
refers to all the mechanisms afforded to the
accused during the criminal proceedings. It is
a safeguard against prejudicial and partial
judgments by the courts, as well as a
guarantee that the accused be given an
opportunity to participate during trial in
defense of himself.
2. Related Rights. Participation of the accused
in the right to be heard includes three specific
rights: (a) the right to present evidence and to
be present at the trial; (b) the right to be
assisted by counsel; and (c) the right to
compulsory process to compel the attendance
of witnesses in his behalf.[82]
3. Ratio of Right to Counsel. The right of the
accused to counsel is based on the reason that
only a lawyer has a substantial knowledge of
the rules of evidence, and a non-lawyer, in
spite of his education in life, may not be aware
of the intricacies of law and procedure.
Depriving a person of such right constitutes
violation of due process.
4. Related Right. Included in the right to
counsel is the duty of the court to inform the
accused of his right to counsel before arraignment
and to give a counsel in case the accused cannot
afford the services of one. The counsel
representing the accused must be independent
and competent. A counsel who has a divided
interest between the prosecution (State) and
the defense (accused) is disqualified on the
ground of lack of independence and conflict of
interest.
Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of
Accusation
1. Right to be informed is again an essential
aspect of procedural due process. The
constitutional mandate is complied with by
the arraignment of the accused in which he is
informed by the court of the offense charged
to which the accused either pleads guilty of
not guilty.
2. Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in
the complaint and not the title of the case that
determines the nature of the offense.
Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
1. Right to speedy trial is based on the
maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.
Unreasonable delays may result to a
prolonged suffering of an innocent accused or
an evasion of justice by a truly guilty person. It
offends not just the accused but also the State,
inasmuch as what is at stake is the speedy,
inexpensive, and orderly administration of
justice. Undue postponements not only
depletes the funds of the defense but also of
prosecution. Thus, if the prosecution
unreasonably delays the criminal proceedings
because of too many postponements and
unjustifiable absences, the accused may be
acquitted on the ground of violation of right to
speedy trial. This does not, however, mean
that the court cannot grant reasonable
postponements. What is prohibited is
oppressive and vexatious postponements.
2. Right to impartial trial primarily requires that
the judge who sits in the case must be
objective and renders a decision based on the
cold neutrality of the evidence presented. For
instance, a judge who is hostile to the accused
based on his comments and utterances, or
who is substantially swayed by the prejudicial
publicity of the case, is a partial judge and
must be inhibited from the case.
3. Right to public trial demands that the
proceedings be conducted in such a way that
the public may know what transpires during
the trial. It is not necessary that the entire
public can witness the proceedings; it is
enough that the relatives and friends of the
interested parties are accommodated in the
trial venue. In fact, the court is allowed under
the rules to order the public to leave the
premises of the court room in interest of
morality and order.
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face-to-Face
The right to confrontation enables the accused
to test the credibility of the witnesses. The
right is reinforced under the rules of criminal
procedure by the so-called cross-
examination. Cross-examination is conducted
after the presentation and direct examination
of witnesses by the opposing side. Both parties
are allowed to test the veracity of the
testimonies presented by the other.
Right to Compulsory Process
1. Reason for the Right. The form of criminal
proceeding is adversarial because two
opposing parties battle out against each other
and only one of them could emerge as victor.
It is often the case that the party with the
weightier evidence wins. In criminal
proceedings, the accused needs only to create
reasonable doubt on the mind of the court to
be acquitted. Nevertheless, evidence is
difficult to find because of peoples anxiety in
testifying in court as well as their dislike for
burdensome court processes. In recognition
therefore of this fact, the law and the rules
give the accused the right to avail of
compulsory means for attendance of witnesses
and production of needed document or things.
2. Kinds of Compulsory Processes. When the
person sought to testify is uncooperative or
just afraid of court-related actions, the remedy
of subpoena ad testificandum may be availed to
compel the person to testify. When relevant
documents are needed but the holder thereof
refuses to produce them, the remedy
of subpoena duces tecum may be availed of to
compel the production of the same.[83] These
remedies are also available to the prosecution.
Right to be Present
1. Meaning and Purpose of the Right. As a rule,
the accused has the right to be present at all
stages of trial, from arraignment to rendition
of judgment, in order that he may be informed
of what transpires in every stage of the
proceedings, to guard himself from technical
blunders, and ultimately, to fully defend
himself from the accusation against him.
Thus, it is again an incident of criminal due
process.
2. Waiver of Right. Right to be present,
inasmuch as it is a right, may be waived by the
accused. For as long as it does not prejudice
others, rights may be waived by its possessor.
An example of a valid waiver of the right to be
present is the so-called trial in absentia. Even
in the absence of the accused, trial may still
proceed (trial in absentia) if after his
arraignment and notification of the date of the
hearing, he still unjustifiably failed to appear.
The effect of the waiver is that the accused will
no longer have the right to present evidence
and confront the witnesses.
3. When Right not Waivable. It must be noted
that the presence of the accused becomes
a duty, and therefore not waivable, in the
following: (a) During arraignment and
plea;[84] (b) When he is to be
identified;[85] (c) During the promulgation of
judgment, except when it is for a light
offense.[86] In all these instances, the accused
must appear because his non-appearance may
either prejudice his rights or that of the State.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 15, Article
III states that the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not be suspended except
in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the
public safety requires it. This is a reiteration
of Section 18, Article VII. What is
constitutionally guaranteed is the right of a
person detained by another to test or
challenge, through habeas corpus, the validity
of his detention when the authority of the
detaining person or agency is at issue.
2. The writ of habeas corpus is a written order
issued by the court directed to a person
detaining another commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place, with the day and
cause of his capture and detention, to do, to
submit to, and to receive whatever court or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in his
behalf. When a person is illegally confined or
detained, or when his liberty is illegally
restrained, he has the constitutional right to
file a petition of habeas corpus. Should the
court find out that the person is illegally
confined or detained, he shall be immediately
released from detention.
3. When Privilege Suspended. The privilege of
habeas corpus is suspended in cases of
rebellion or invasion. This is in order to meet
the exigencies in such cases.
4. Writ of Amparo. Aside from the writ of
habeas corpus, the writ of amparo is another
available remedy to any person whose right to
life, liberty, and security has been violated or
threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of
a private individual or entity. This remedy is
especially available in cases of enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF
CASES
Section 16, Article III states that all persons
shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. Unlike the right to
speedy trial which applies only in criminal
proceedings, the right to speedy disposition of
cases may be invoked in all cases, whether
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative.
Thus, right to speedy disposition of cases is
broader than right to speedy trial.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Meaning of Right against Self-Incrimination
Section 17, Article III provides that no person
shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. This constitutional guarantee is
better known as right against self-
incrimination. The right allows a person not to
answer an incriminating question. An
incriminating question is one that if answered
renders a person liable for an offense.
However, it is only when the incriminating
question is put to a witness stand that the
right may be invoked.
When Right Available
1. The right is available in all government
proceedings, whether criminal or civil, and
whether judicial or quasi-judicial or
administrative. It is even available in
legislative investigations and impeachment
proceedings. In addition, the right may be
invoked by all persons subject to judicial
examination and legislative investigation.
Thus it may be invoked not just by the accused
in criminal cases, but also defendants in civil
cases, and witnesses in all kinds of
proceedings.
2. The right, nonetheless, is not self-executing.
It is not automatically operational once an
incriminating question is asked. It must be
properly invoked by objecting to an
incriminating question. For example, when a
witness is subjected to direct examination by
the opposing party, and the opposing counsel
asked was there an instance that you cheated
on your wife?, the right may be invoked by a
timely objection to the incriminating question.
If no objection is raised, then the answer may
be used as evidence against the witness for the
proper criminal charge.
3. Although all persons subject to judicial,
quasi-judicial, administrative, and legislative
investigations can invoke the right under
proper circumstances, special utilization of the
right is given to the accused. A witness can
invoke the right only when the question tends
to be self-incriminating, but an accused can
invoke the same in two ways. First is by
refusing to testify altogether during trial. And
the second is, when he chooses to testify, by
refusing to answer questions that tend to
incriminate him for another offense.
4. In criminal proceedings what is prohibited
is physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused. Subjecting
the body of the accused when material to solve
the case is allowed and not violative of the
right. In one case, the Court held that writing
is not a pure mechanical act but requires the
use of the intellect. Thus, an accused cannot
be compelled to write or sign and use the same
as evidence against him.
5. State witnesses cannot avail of the
right because the very purpose of their being
state witnesses is to give them immunity or
protection to testify. Their testimonies are so
crucial to the resolution of a criminal case so
that in attainment thereof immunity is given
to them by the State. This means that they will
no longer be prosecuted for the crime for
which they are testifying. Since they have to
unravel everything, even their guilt, in
exchange of immunity, the right against self-
incrimination could no longer be invoked.
Basis of the Right
1. The philosophy behind the constitutional certain extent resembles slavery. When a
guarantee is similar to the other rights of the person, because of poverty or lack of money,
accused. From the very start, the accused is works for another in payment of his debt, the
already in an adverse position pitted against same is prohibited by the present guarantee
the entire machinery of the State. If evidence even if the service is rendered voluntarily. This
will still be taken from the lips of the accused, voluntary service in payment of debt is
it would even tilt the scales heavily in favor of called peonage. While it appears voluntary,
the State. peonage is prohibited because the person is
forced to work by the circumstances of his
2. The right is founded on public
indebtedness, although not by his creditor.
policy and humanity.[87] Public policy demands
2. Exceptions. Involuntary servitude may be
that a person be spared from answering
allowed under the following instances: (a) as
incriminating questions because requiring
punishment for crime; (b) in the case of
him would likely lead to the crime of perjury,
personal, military or civil service in defense of
which is basically lying to the court after
the State; and (c) in compliance to a return to
having promised to tell the truth and nothing
work order issued by the Department of Labor
but the whole truth. Humanity prevents
and Employment.
extorting confession by duress.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND
RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY
CRUEL PUNISHMENTS
SERVITUDE
Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(1), Article
III provides that no person should be detained
III states that excessive fines shall not be
solely by reason of his political beliefs and
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
aspirations, nor should involuntary servitude
punishment inflicted
in any form exist, except as a punishment for a
2. A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable
crime. The first part of the provision deals
and beyond the limits prescribed by law. The
with the right not to be detained by reason
amount of the fine is said to be unreasonable
solely of political beliefs and aspirations. This
if the court does not take into consideration
is essentially embodied in the freedom of
certain standards, such as the nature of the
expression but with emphasis on the
offense, and the circumstances of the person
prohibition against incarceration of political
punished by fine. The imposed fine may never
prisoners. The second part deals with the
go beyond the statutory prescription,
right against involuntary servitude.
otherwise it is unlawfully excessive.
Involuntary servitude refers to the compulsory
3. A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to
service of another or simply modern day
the conscience of mankind and it involves
slavery. The right is based on the egalitarian
prolonged suffering and agony to the person
principle of democracy which prescribes
punished. For a penalty to violate the
equality of everyone in law, and on humanity
constitutional guarantee, it must be so
which prevents degradation of human dignity
flagrant and oppressive so as to be degrading
through enforced labor.
to human dignity, and it must be
2. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating
unreasonably disproportionate to the nature
man as a commodity under the complete
of the offense as to shock the senses of the
power of the master. This has never been
community.[88] The mere severity of a penalty
practiced in the Philippines, but has its
does not make the punishment cruel or
remnants in modern forms of enforced labor
inhumane, for as long as it is within the limits
and peonage. Enforced labor happens when a
provided by law. As one maxim states, even if
person is unlawfully compelled to work
the law is harsh, it is still the law (dura lex sed
against his will; it is involuntary and to a
lex). A penalty that is germane to purpose of
the penal law is not cruel and inhumane.
4. Lastly, a penalty must be acceptable to the
contemporary society. Ancient forms of
punishment, such as pillory, disembowelment,
and crucifixion, which are already considered
barbarous practices, are cruel and inhumane.
If a person, for instance, is paraded around
town naked with a tag on his neck saying I
am a thief; do not imitate me, the form of
punishment is cruel and inhuman; it is
barbarous and so ancient that it is no longer
acceptable to the present-day society.
Death Penalty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2) also
states that neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua. The present provision abolishes
death penalty, although with a reservation
that the Congress can subsequently pass a law
imposing it for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes.
2. Death Penalty not Cruel. The constitutional
provision on death penalty or capital
punishment does not explicitly mention that it
is cruel and inhumane. In fact, the
Constitution allows the Congress to impose
death penalty for the right reasons. It could
even be argued that extinguishment of human
life is not cruel and inhumane for the
following reasons:
(a) It is proportionate to the nature of the offense.
Death penalty may only be imposed by
Congress in the commission of heinous crimes
and for compelling reasons. Heinous crimes
are crimes which are so flagrant and evil so as
to be shocking to the conscience of civilized
persons, such as genocide, rape with
homicide, murder, rebellion, and treason,
especially when committed against the
innocent and helpless. With compelling
reasons, Congress may impose death penalty
since it is proportionate to the atrocities
committed;
(b) This form of penalty still has currency in the
contemporary time. Death by lethal injection is
prevalently practiced by many countries for
the punishment of heinous offenses; and
(c) Death by lethal injection is not cruel and
inhumane because it does not prolong suffering
or inflict excruciating agony to the person
punished. In truth, it only induces the person to
sleep through a lethal substance injected in
the bloodstream which thereafter painlessly
put the person to death.
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or
Imprisoned
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2),
Article III provides that the employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.
2. Purpose of the Right. This constitutional
guarantee recognizes the inalienability of
human dignity. Even when a person is
imprisoned or detained, and even if he
commits heinous crimes, he is still a person
entitled to proper treatment and protection.
Paraphrasing it, the Constitution provides that
even if a person is imprisoned or detained, he
must be protected against physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment, and
is entitled to the use of standard or adequate
penal facilities under humane conditions.
RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR
DEBT
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 20, Article
III provides that no person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll
tax.
2. A debt, as covered by the constitutional
guarantee, refers to a contractual obligation
by a debtor to pay money to the creditor. If by
reason of poverty or lack of money a person
cannot pay his debt, he cannot be imprisoned
by reason thereof. The creditor only has
himself to blame if he voluntarily agreed to
lend money to someone who apparently
cannot pay or whom he thought could pay but
did not. Nevertheless, although the debtor
cannot be imprisoned, his property may be
taken or attached by the court, and then sold
at public auction in payment of his debt to the
creditor.
3. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional
guarantee. What is punished in estafa is not
the non-payment of debt but the deceit
accompanying the act of non-payment.
4. Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of
imprisonment. A poll tax is a tax of a fixed
amount imposed on individuals residing
within a specified territory, whether citizens
or not, without regard to their property or the
occupation in which they may be
engaged.[89] Community tax or residence tax
is an example of poll tax. As far as poll tax is
concerned, non-payment is not punished by
the government in consideration of the plight
of the poor who cannot even afford to pay it.
Poverty could never be a reason for a persons
imprisonment. It must be emphasized,
however, that as regards other forms of taxes,
non-payment may be a cause of
imprisonment. Failure to pay income taxes is
considered a crime (tax evasion), and
punishable under the law by imprisonment.
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Meaning of Double Jeopardy
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 21, Article
III states that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act. This is more famously
known as the right against double jeopardy.
2. Double jeopardy means that a person is twice
put at the risk of conviction for the same act or
offense. The right against double jeopardy
therefore means that a person can only be
indicted or charge once by a competent court
for an offense. When a person, for instance,
has been charged of homicide and the court
acquitted him of the case, he can no longer be
prosecuted for the same offense or act. He can
now invoke his right against double jeopardy.
3. There are two types of double jeopardy. The
first happens when a person is put twice in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense,
and the second happens when an act is
punishable by a law and an ordinance at the
same time, in which case the conviction or
acquittal in either one of them constitute as
bar to another prosecution for the same act.
3. The requisites of double jeopardy are:[90]
(a) A valid complaint or information;
(b) Filed before a competent court;
(c) To which the defendant has pleaded; and
(d) The defendant was previously acquitted or
convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed
1. Before double jeopardy could be claimed,
there must be a first jeopardy. The first
jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon good
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has
been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed
or otherwise terminated without the consent
of the accused. A case is said to be terminated
without the consent of the accused when there
is acquittal or a final decision convicting him.
2. To substantiate therefore the claim for
double jeopardy, the following must be
proven:
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior
to the first jeopardy;
(b) The first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and
(c) The second jeopardy must be for the same
offense, or the second offense includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in
the first information, or is an attempt to
commit the same or is a frustration thereof.
RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW
AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 22, Article
III provides that no ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
2. An ex post facto law is one which:
(a) Makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law which was innocent when
done, and punishes such an act;
(b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
than it was, when committed;
(c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed;
(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or different
testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense;
(e) Assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
(f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of
some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.[91]
3. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. The
constitutional prohibition applies only in
criminal cases.[92] One of the characteristics
of criminal law is prospectivity in which only
crimes committed after the enactment of a
penal are punishable. It cannot retroact and
punish acts which were not yet criminalized
before its passage. The basic rule is that before
an act may be considered an offense or crime,
it must first be defined as a crime and a
penalty must be imposed for it under a law
passed by the legislative body. An act therefore
is not a crime if there is no law punishing it. In
the same vein, a person does not commit a
crime, no matter how apparently illegal it is, if
there is no law defining and punishing it. It is
for this reason that an ex post facto law is not
allowed because it criminalizes what was not
yet a crime during its commission.
Meaning of Bill of Attainder
1. Definition. A bill of attainder is a legislative
act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative for a
judicial determination of guilt.[93]
2. Two Kinds of Bill of Attainder: (a) the bill of
attainder proper which involves the legislative
imposition of death penalty, and (b) bill of
pains and penalties which involves imposition
of a lesser penalty.
3. Reason for Prohibition. The prohibition
against bill of attainder is an implementation of
the principle of separation of powers. The
legislature cannot bypass the judiciary by
enacting a law that punishes an act without
need of judicial proceedings. The legislative
department should be confined to its law-
making function; it cannot encroach the
authority of the courts by prescribing a law
that directly adjudges guilt without judicial
determination.
4. Example. In one case, the Court held that the
Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. 1700) is not a bill
of attainder.[94] The law declared the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) a
clear and present danger to Philippine
security, and thus prohibited membership in
such organization. It is not a bill of attainder
because it does not define a crime, but only
lays a basis for the legislative determination
that membership in CPP and any other
organization having the same purposes is a
crime. It does not automatically secure
judgment by mere membership. In operation,
the law does not render unnecessary judicial
proceedings. The guilt of the individual
members of subversive groups must still be
judicially established.
[1] Bernas, p. 101.
[2] See Bernas, p. 110.
[3] De Leon, p. 130.
[4] See Smith, Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil
136.
[5] See Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, January 31,
1968.
[6] Felix Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the
Supreme Court. Emphasis provided
[7] Lopez v. Director of Lands, 47 Phil 23 (1924)
[8] Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil.
921 (1918)
[9] Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69
Phil. 635 (1940)
[10] Bernas, p. 116.
[11] Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil.
83 (1951)
[12] People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12 (1939)
[13] Quinto v. COMELEC
[14] Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383; People v.
Damaso, 212 SCRA 457.
[15] Salazar v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 81510, March
14, 1990
[16] See Soliven v. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393
(1998)
[17] See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383
[18] Sec. 5, Rule 113
[19] See Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567
(October 3, 1991).
[20] Morano v. Vico, 20 SCRA 526
[21] The constitutional provisions dealing with
the right to privacy are Secs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and
17 of Article III.
[22] Bernas, p. 217
[23] Abraham v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
[24] See Near v. Minesota, 238 U.S. 697
[25] Article 353, Revised Penal Code
[26] See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
[27] New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254
[28] Miriam College Foundation v. C.A., G.R. No.
127930, December 15, 2000
[29] Dennis v. U.S., 341 U.S. 494
[30] See Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366
(November 9, 1993).
[31] Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys
of the Philippines v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
132922 (April 21, 1998).
[32] See Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1.
[33] Friedman v. Rogers, 440 US 1; Pittsburgh
Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission, 413
US 376.
[34] Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v.
Public Service Commission of NY, 447 US 557.
[35] Manila Public School Teachers Association v.
Secretary of Education, G.R. No. 95445, August
6, 1991
[36] SSS Employees Association v. CA, 175 SCRA
686
[37] Everson v. Board of Education, 30 US 1
[38] Abington School District v. Schemp, 374 US
203
[39] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
[40] Glassroth v. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.
2003)
[41] Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97
[42] Abington School District v. Schemp, 374 US
203
[43] Newdow v. US, No. 00-16423 (9th Cir.
2003)
[44] Sec. 28(3), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution
[45] Ibid., Sec. 4(2), Article XIV
[46] Tilton v. Richardson, 403 US 672
[47] Sec. 3(3), Art. XIV, Constitution
[48] Ibid., Sec. 29(2), Art. VI
[49] Graces v. Estenzo, 104 SCRA 510
[50] Alipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201
[51] Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602
[52] See Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256.
[53] Cassius Clay v. US, 403 US 698; See also
Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights
[54] Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256
[55] See Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
Sept. 15, 1989 & Oct. 27, 1989
[56] People v. Zeta, 98 Phil. 143
[57] Clemons v. Nolting, 42 Phil. 702
[58] Manila Trading Company. v. Reyes, 1935
[59] See Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives
Association v. DILG Secretary, G.R. No. 143076,
June 10, 2003
[60] See China Banking Corporation v. ADB
Holdings, G.R. No. 172192, December 23, 2008
[61] Asia Bed Factory v. National Bed and Kapok
Industries Workers Union, 100 Phil. 837
[62] See Bernas, p. 464
[63] 384 US 436 (1966)
[64] Bernas, p. 448.
[65] See People v. Tolentino, 145 SCRA 597
[66] Sec. 12(2), Art. III
[67] Sec. 12 (1), Art. III
[68] See People v. Obrero, G.R. No. 122142
(May 17, 2000).
[69] People v. Andang, GR 116437 (March 3,
1997).
[70] Bernas, p. 486.
[71] Ibid.
[72] Sec. 6, Rule 114
[73] Procedure of returning an extraditee to
the requesting state.
[74] See Government of Hong Kong v. Judge
Olalia, G.R. No. 153675 (April 19, 2007).
[75] See Comendador v. De Villa, 200 SCRA 80,
96.
[76] See Narciso v. Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No.
134504 (March 17, 2000).
[77] US v. Grant, 18 Phil 154.
[78] Martelino v. Alejandro, 32 SCRA 115.
[79] Olaguer v. Military Commission No. 34, 150
SCRA 165.
[80] Mupas v. People, G.R. No. 172834,
February 6, 2008.
[81] People v. Manoji, 68 Phil. 471.
[82] Bernas, p. 514
[83] Aside from these remedies, the Rules of
Court also provide for other modes of
discovery.
[84] Sec. 1, Rule 116, Rules of Court.
[85] Aquino v. Military Commission No. 2, 63
SCRA 546.
[86] Sec. 6, Rule 120, Rule of Court.
[87] U.S. v. Navarro, 3 Phil 63.
[88] Green Notes, Political Law, Handout No.
002, p. 42.
[89] De Leon, p. 196.
[90] Rule 117, Sec. 7; People v. Obsania, 23
SCRA 249.
[91] Mekin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74.
[92] In re Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA 428.
[93] People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382.
[94] Ibid.