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 o
f 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, whic
h took its cue from individualism, advocated the principle of egalitarianism, in which men, re
gardless of their status in life, are regarded as equals in terms of rights before the law. Mode
rn democracies are founded on these liberal ideals, in that the heart of democratic objective
s is the protection of human dignity and respect for human rights.

2. Nonetheless, the government remains to be a powerful institution, capable of summonin

g the military, evoking its past image as the uncontestable holder of sovereignty. In fact, rep
ublicanism essentially requires delegation of powers to the government; that although the p
eople remain to be the sovereign, actual exercise of it is given to the government. Protectio
n and service of the people is the primal duty of the government, but be that as it may, the g
overnment 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,” and
“power of taxation.” A constitution does not grant such powers to the government; a constit
ution can only define and delimit them and allocate their exercise among various governme
nt agencies. [1] These are awesome powers, which, if left uncheck, may seriously restrict an
d 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 restricti
ng the powers of the government. This is to prevent the tragedy that the government create
d 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 o
f the most important parts of the fundamental law since it aims at balancing the power of th
e government and the various freedoms of the individual. As will be seen below, the Bill of R
ights provide for two things: first, restrictions directed against the state, and, second, explici
t 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 oth
er hand, the individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but subject also to limitations in reco
gnition of the powers of the government. What balances the two (power and freedom) are t
he 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 exam
ple, while the government has the inherent authority to take and convert a property for pub
lic use, and the people on the other have the right to hold their private property, the Constit
ution, contemplating a case of overlap or conflict between the two, compromises both by pr
escribing that the government gives just compensation to the private owner who in turn mu
st 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 decl
aration and enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights of a person with the pri
mary purpose of safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as well as by i
ndividuals 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 fr
eedom to contract, right to property, and marriage among others;

(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of the individual vis-à-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 g
overnment, so that it does not govern private relations. As far as the Constitution is concern
ed, Article III can be invoked only against the government. Nonetheless, with the inclusion o
f almost all the constitutional rights in Article 32 of the Civil Code, the same may now be inv
oked in civil cases involving relations between private persons. Thus, the definition above in
dicates that the bill of rights is a safeguard not just against the abuses of the government bu
t 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 b
e deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be de
nied the equal protection of the laws.” The provision speaks of “due process” and “equal pr
otection.”

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 t
o 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 too physical safety but
also to the importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right to on
e’s 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
one’s 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 embra
ce the right of man to enjoy his God-given faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work wher
e he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any vocation, and enter into c
ontracts.[4]

(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing, property is a
nything capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a right, it refers to righ
t to own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The constitution uses property in the s
ense of right, and as such it includes, among others, right to work, one’s employment, profe
ssion, trade, and other vested rights. It is important to note however that privileges like lice
nses 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 sec
urity of tenure cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a limited sense analogo
us to property.[5]

5. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if one’s property right over employm
ent is taken away, the same will adversely affect one’s right to life since quality of living is je
opardized. 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 th
eir order of importance, right to life comes first, followed by right to liberty, and then right o
f property.

Due Process

1. Meaning. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee against hasty and unsupported
deprivation of some person’s life, liberty, or property by the government. While is it true tha
t the state can deprive its citizens of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so in observan
ce 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 in
quiry and renders judgment only after trial.”[7]

2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of the government is arbitrary, oppressi
ve, whimsical, or unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts of executive and le
gislative department.

3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has two aspects: procedural and substant
ive. Basically, the procedural aspect involves the method or manner by which the law is enfo
rced, 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 c
itizen is given the chance to defend himself or explain his side through the protection of gen
eral rules of procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgmen
t 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 sub
ject 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 requirement
s 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 re
asonable 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 recor
d 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 a
nd 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 nat
ure and character of the case filed against him, and more importantly, to give him a fair opp
ortunity 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” hea
ring but a real “opportunity” to be heard.[10] If, for instance, a person fails to actually appea
r in a hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a decision rendered by the cou
rt 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 subse
quent 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 gen
eral public, as distinguished from those of a particular class. The manner of pursuing the obj
ective 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 dif
fer as to its application. Such kind of statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails t
o 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 i
n various ways, it is void because of vagueness. Corollary to this is the doctrine of overbread
th which states that a statute that is “overly broad” is void. This is because it prevents a pers
on from exercising his constitutional rights, as it fails to give an adequate warning or bounda
ry between what is constitutionally permissive and not. If a law, for instance, prohibits a bys
tander from doing any “annoying act” to passersby, the law is void because “annoying act” c
ould mean 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 sh
all be deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or othe
r classes in the same place and in like circumstances.”[11] It means that “all persons or thing
s similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities i
mposed.” The guarantee does not provide absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate oper
ation on persons. Persons or things that are differently situated may thus be treated differe
ntly. Equality only applies among equals. What is prohibited by the guarantee is the discrimi
natory 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 classification does
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 class.

4. Example. In one case,[13] Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code was challenged for bei
ng unconstitutional, as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The provision distinguish
es between an elective official and an appointive official in the filing of theire certificate of c
andidacy. While elective officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing their certificates,
appointive officials are. The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional and not violati
ve of equal protection since the classification is valid. The Court argues that elective office is
different from appointive office, in that the mandate of the former is from the people, while
that of the latter is from the appointing authority. The term of the elective officials are likew
ise longer than that of the appointive officials. Thus, the classification is adjudged reasonabl
e and valid.

5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the protection extends to both citizens and aliens,
discrimination against aliens may be held valid under certain circumstances. For example, cit
izens by virtue of their membership to the political community possess complete civil and p
olitical rights, while aliens do not have complete political rights. The former can vote during
elections, run for public office, own real property, while aliens cannot.

6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it said to be subject to “judicial re
view.” There are three standards followed by the court in judicial review, these are:

(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or consistent to the guarantee of
equal protection when they are rational and the classifications therein bear a relation to a le
gitimate governmental interests or purpose. In here the courts do not seriously inquire into
the substantiality of the interest and possibility of alternative means to achieve the objectiv
es;

(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the governmental interest is closely sc
rutinized as well as the availability of less restrictive means or alternatives. This standard is u
sed if the classification involves important but not fundamental interests; and

(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the presence of a compelling
government interest, rather than a mere substantial interest, and the absence of a less restr
ictive means for achieving the interest. Upon showing of these requirements, the limitation
of a fundamental constitutional right is justified. This standard is used if the law classifies pe
rsons and limits others of their exercise of fundamental rights.
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 2, Article III states that people have the inviolable right t
o be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose, and a search warrant or warrant of arrest
can only be issued upon showing of a probable cause determined personally by the judge af
ter examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may pro
duce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be se
ized.

2. Scope. The protection extends to all persons, aliens or citizens, natural or juridical. It is a p
ersonal right which may be invoked or waived by the person directly affected[14] against un
reasonable arrests or searches by the government and its agencies. It cannot, however, be i
nvoked against private individuals.

Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant

1. Generally, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that before a per
son is arrested or a personal property seized, it must be supported by a valid warrant of arre
st or a search warrant. The exceptions are in cases of valid warrantless arrests and searches.

2. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court, issued in the name of the Philippines, a
uthorizing a peace officer to arrest a person, and put him under the custody of the court.

3. A search warrant is a written order of the court, authorizing or directing a peace officer to
search a specific location, house, or other premises for a personal property allegedly used in
a crime or may be utilized as a tool to prove a crime.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant

1. Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is reasonable when it is covered by a valid warr
ant, it is thus important to know the requisites a valid warrant. The Court enumerates the re
quisites as follows:

(a) It must be based upon a probable cause. Probable cause refers to such facts and circums
tances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense h
as been committed and that the objects sought in connect with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched;

(b) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. That the judge “person
ally” determines the probable cause means that “he personally evaluates the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the public prosecutor regarding the existence of the pr
obable cause,” or, if the same is insufficient, “require additional evidence to aid him in arrivi
ng at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.”[15] Thus, personal determination
does not mean that he must personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.[16] He
may rely on reports and evidence submitted to him, on the basis of which he determines th
e existence of probable cause and orders the issuance of warrant. What is prohibited is to re
ly solely on the recommendation of the prosecutors without doing any determination on his
own;

(c) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the co
mplainant and the witness he may produce; and

(d) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seiz
ed. The property subject to search includes those used in the commission of the offense, sto
len or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or used or intended to be used
in the commission of the offense.

2. General warrants are those that do not particularly describe the place to be searched or t
he persons or things to be seized. They are unconstitutional because the sanctity of the dom
icile and privacy of communication and correspondence of individuals are placed at the mer
cy, caprice, and passion of peace officers.[17]
Warrantless Arrest

1. When Warrantless Arrest Valid. Arrest without warrant is strictly construed as an exceptio
n to the general rule requiring warrant. Under the Rules of Court,[18] a peace officer or a pri
vate person may arrest a person even without a warrant under the following instances:

(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committ
ed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact just been committed, and he has personal kno
wledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escap
ed from a penal establishment of place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily co
nfined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confineme
nt to another.

2. Citizen Arrest. It must be noted that a lawful warrantless arrest may be performed not jus
t by a peace officer but also by a civilian. This is permitted under the rules under limited circ
umstances, and it is called citizen arrest.

3. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an offense is committed “in the presence” of the ar
resting officer or civilian. For example, if a person pushes illegal drugs in the presence of a p
olice officer, the latter can arrest the pusher even without a warrant of arrest because an off
ense is actually being committed in his presence. The same principle underlies the “buy-bust
” or “entrapment” operations 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 arres
ted anytime even without a warrant because he is deemed to commit the offense in the pre
sence of the arresting officer or person.

4. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the arresting officer or civilian if the warrant
less 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 conte
mporaneous 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-announce
d, 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 suspic
ious 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 buil
ding regulations; and

(h) Search in airports and other populous places.

Administrative Searches and Arrests

1. In cases of deportation, where the State expels an undesirable alien from its territory, cou
rt intervention and proceedings are not required. Nonetheless, the alien’s constitutional rig
hts 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 iss
ues the administrative warrant, after determination by the Board of Commissioners of the e
xistence 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 r
ight, inasmuch as it is based on the sacred right to be secure in the privacy of one’s person,
house, paper, and effects. Due process of law, in Section 1, also provides the same privacy s
ecurity by protecting an individual’s life, liberty, and property against undue interference by
the government. Section 6 speaks of the right to establish and change one’s home which like
wise deals with the privacy and comfort of one’s home. The right to form unions or associati
ons under Section 8, and the right against self-incrimination under Section 17 are also privac
y 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 sta
tes 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 b
y law.” Privacy of communication and correspondence is also an expression of the right to pr
ivacy.

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 incl
ude: (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 tel
ephone calls, text messages, letters, and the like. These forms of communication and corres
pondence may be intruded into by means of wiretapping or other means of electronic eaves
dropping. 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 cor
respondence. The exceptions are: (a) when the court allows the intrusion, and (b) when publ
ic 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, i

s a law which prohibits a person not authorized by all the parties to any private communicati
on, to wire tap or use any devise to secretly overhear, intercept, record, or communicate th
e content of the said communication to any person.

2. Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or criminal proceedings involvi
ng specified offenses principally affecting national security, and only with previous authoriza
tion by the court which must comply with the requirements of a warrant. The authority is ef
fective 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, lib
erty, 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, colle
cting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and corresponde
nce of the aggrieved party.
Exclusionary Rule

1. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence unlawfully obtained is inadmissible as evid
ence before the courts. This is based on Section 3(2), Article III which provides that any evid
ence obtained in violation of right to privacy of communication or right to due process of la
w shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The same rule is applied to any e
vidence taken in violate of R.A. 4200.

2. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The name of the doctrine met
aphorically 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 integri
ty 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 conversatio
n without court authorization, the recorded conversation shall be excluded as an evidence i
n 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 abridgi
ng the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceabl
y 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 speec
h; (b) freedom of expression; (c) freedom of the press; and (d) freedom of assembly. Noneth
eless, the scope of the protection extends to right to form associations or societies not contr
ary to law, right to access to information on matters of public concern, and freedom of religi
on. These are all crucial to the advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of a
n “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, reli
gious, political, academic, artistic, and commercial speeches are protected by the constitutio
nal guarantee.

4. Limitation. The right is not absolute. It must be exercised within the bounds of law, moral
s, public policy and public order, and with due regard for others’ rights. Thus, obscene, libelo
us, and slanderous speeches are not protected by the guarantee. So are seditious and fighti
ng 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, an
d (b) freedom from subsequent punishment.

2. On the one hand, freedom from prior restraint means freedom from censorship or govern
mental screening of what is politically, morally, socially, and artistically correct. In here, pers
ons and the media are freed from total suppression or restriction by the government of wha
t could be disseminated, and prevents the government from being a subjective arbiter of wh
at 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 cit
izens can speak and air out their opinions without fear of vengeance by the government. Su
bsequent chastisement has the effect of unduly curtailing expression, and thus freedom the
refrom is essential to the freedom of speech and the press. The State, however, can validly i
mpose 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, stat
us tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or black
en the memory of one who is dead;[25]

(b) Obscenity which includes works (taken as a whole) appealing to prurient interest or depi
cting sexual conduct as defined by law or lacking of serious literary, artistic, political or scien
tific 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 inv
asion 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 subst
antive 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. Thi
s rule is consistent with the principle of “maximum tolerance” and is often applied by the Co
urt in freedom of expression cases;

(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when there is conflict between a regulatio
n and freedom of speech, the court has the duty to determine which of the two demands gr
eater protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant to supplant the clear and present d
anger test, determines whether the gravity of the evil, less its improbability to happen, can j
ustify the suppression of the right in order to avoid the danger;[29]

(e) O’Brien Test which provides that when “speech” and “non-speech” elements are combin
ed in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important government interest that warrant
s the regulation of the “non-speech” element can also justify incidental limitations on the sp
eech element; and

(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words are uttered and the likely result of t
he utterance, that is, whether or not they will directly incite or produce imminent lawless ac
tion.

Restrictions on Freedom of Speech

1. Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may impose two kinds of restrictions on speech unde
r a system of prior restraint: content-based restriction and content-neutral restriction. The r
estriction is content-based when restriction is directed to the speech itself, while the restrict
ion 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 regul
ates 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, t

he 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 co
ndition 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. newspap
er). 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 some
what lesser than the freedom accorded to the print media;[31] greater regulation is impose
d over broadcast media because of its greater tendency to invade the privacy of everyone th
an 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 genera
lly every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false and malicious because ever
y man is presumed innocent until proven guilty, nevertheless, if the imputation directed agai
nst a person in his public is based on “established facts,” even if the inferred opinion is wron
g, 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 b
e actionable, it must either be a “false allegation” or a “baseless comment.”[32]

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 appl
icable, 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 beha
lf of a company or individual for purposes of profit. It is a protected speech for as long as it i
s 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 com
mercial 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 a
gainst the government.

2. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a rule, freedom of assembly is not subject to pr
ior 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 rein
forced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, otherwise known as the Public Assembly Acts of 1985, w
hich basically provides the requirements and procedure for holding rallies. It also implement
s 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 emp
hasized, however, that the permit is not a requirement for the validity of the assembly or ral
ly, 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
campus of a state college or university, or in a freedom park, in which case only coordinatio
n with the police is required. If the application for permit is not acted upon by the mayor wit
hin 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, includi
ng those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societi
es 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 o
r the unemployed and by those employed in the government or in the private sector. It like
wise embraces the right to form unions both in the government and private sector. The righ
t of civil servants to unionize is expressly provided in Section 2(5), Article IX-B: “The right to s
elf-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 righ
ts of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful co
ncerted 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 no
t 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 emp
loyment 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 info
rmation on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to d
ocuments and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to gove
rnment research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, su
bject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”

2. Scope and Limitation. The right guarantees access to official records for any lawful purpos
e. 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 exchang
es 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 a
ct on one’s belief. The first aspect is in the realm of the mind, and as such it is absolute, sinc
e 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 restrictio
n by the government. The aspect refers to the externalization of belief as it is now brought o
ut from the bosom of internal belief. Since it may affect peace, morals, public policy, and or
der, 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 enjo
yment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forev
er 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 respecti
ng 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 t
o believe or disbelieve in any religion.[37] In order words, it prohibits the State from establis
hing 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 other

s, 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] la
w prohibiting the teaching of evolution,[41] mandatory reading of the bible,[42] and using t
he 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 purpose
s;[44]

(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools[45] and expansion of educational facilities in pa

rochial schools for secular activities;[46]
(c) Religious instruction in public schools, elementary and high school, at the option of paren
ts or guardians expressed in writing, within regular class hours by designated instructors, an
d without additional costs to the government;[47]

(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary assigned to the armed f
orces, 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 t
he benefit to religious sect is incidental to the promotion of the Philippines as a tourist desti
nation.[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-establis
hment clause and free exercise clause. On the on hand, Lemon Test is used to determine wh
ether 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 pr
omote 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 intere
st test is used to determine if the interests of the State are compelling enough to justify intr
usion into an individual’s freedom of religion. Under this test, government infringement is ju
stified 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 da
nger test is used to determine whether the circumstance are of such nature as to create a cl
ear 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 bas
ed on the conflict between religious beliefs and school practices (saluting the flag). The expu
lsion 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 t
he 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 b
efore solicitations for “charitable and public welfare purposes” may be carried out. The purp
ose of the law is to protect the public from fraudulent solicitations. Nonetheless, permit is n
o 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 mili
tary 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 h
e 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 ch
anging the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawfu
l order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of nati
onal 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 a
nd change one’s domicile, and (b) Freedom to travel within and outside the country. A perso
n’s 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 One’s Country

Although the right to return to one’s 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 general
ly accepted principle of international law, and as such it is part of the law of the land, pursua
nt to the doctrine of incorporation. It is different from the right to travel and is guaranteed u
nder 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 p
assed.” This is the so-called contract clause, which seeks to restrain substantial legislative i
mpairment of, or intrusion into, the obligations of contracts. What the clause guarantees is t
he 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, an
d 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 sho
uld prevail, and this must be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequ
ent laws. Well-established is the policy that the subject of contractual agreements is “imbue
d with paramount public interest.”

Kind of Impairment Covered

1. For the clause to be operative, the impairment caused by law must be substantial. Substa
ntial impairment happens when the law changes the terms of a legal contract between parti
es, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses wit
h those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided i
n its terms.[57] In other words, the act of impairment is anything that diminishes the value o
f the contract.[58]

2. The cause of the impairment must be legislative in nature. The obligation of contract mus
t be impaired by a statute, ordinance, or any legislative act for it to come within the meanin
g of the constitutional provision.[59] An administrative order or court decision is not include
d in the scope of the constitutional guarantee.

3. In one case,[60] the Court held that a Rehabilitation Plan approved by the Securities and E
xchange Commission which suspends contractual claims against an insolvent or bankrupt co
rporation does not violate the contract clause. The impairment must be legislative in charact
er. SEC’s 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 enac
ted in exercise of police power will prevail over contracts. After all, private rights and interes
t in contracts must yield to the common good. Every contract affecting public welfare is pres
umed 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 tena
ncy contracts. For instance, a law (Blue Sunday Law) which provides for work or play on a Su
nday is upheld as valid even if it nullifies existing labor contracts, since it is a legitimate exerc
ise of police power.[61] In another case, a law (R.A. No. 34) changed the crop-sharing syste
m 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 ten
ants 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 sovereig
n powers of the state, can validly impair obligations of contracts.

4. Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses are franchises or privileges given by the Sta
te to qualified entities that may be withdrawn or relinquished when national interests so re
quire. 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 reas
on 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 t
he proper court or tribunal. Nonetheless, the right is placed in a separate provision to emph
asize 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 cu
stodial 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 couns
el;

(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, incommunica
do, or other similar forms of detention;

(c) Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision or the rig
ht 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 Ri
ghts” because it is an adoption of the rights provided in the American case “Miranda v. Arizo
na.”[63]

Purpose of the Right

The provision emphasizes on the duty of law enforcement officers to treat properly and hu
manely those under investigation. It recognizes the fact that the environment in custodial in
vestigations is psychologically if not physically coercive in nature,[64] so that law enforcers s
hould be reminded of the sanctity of individual rights and the limitations on their means of s
olving crimes. In fact, as far as the present provision is concerned, the “presumption of regul
arity” 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. Custodi
al investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a perso
n has been taken into custody. The rights are available when the person interrogated is alre
ady treaded as a particular suspect and the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into a
n unsolved crime. However, during this stage, no complaint or criminal case has been filed y
et. 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, an
d 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 th
e suspect. And in line ups, the witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons.

Extrajudicial Confession

1. Meaning. Extrajudicial confession refers to a confession or admission of guilt made outsid

e (extra) the court (judicial). It is a critical area of study in Constitutional Law. With respect t
o the present provision, it refers to a confession given during a custodial investigation, whic
h 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 h
im.

2. Requisites for Validity. For an extrajudicial confession to be valid and admissible as eviden
ce in court, it must be: (a) voluntary; (b) made in the assistance of a competent and indepen
dent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing.

3. Involuntary Confession. There are two kinds of involuntary confession: (a) confession thro
ugh 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 confessi
on alleged to be taken through torture or coercion is presumed voluntarily given and valid si
nce 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 giv
en, 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 ev

en 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 fi
scal or a public prosecutor, who represents the interest of the State, cannot assist the suspe
ct or person under investigation. His interest is adverse to the latter. Thus, even if competen
t, he cannot be an independent counsel for the suspect.

5. A counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office is qualified to assist a person in executing an e
xtrajudicial confession, his interest not adverse to the latter.

6. An extrajudicial confession to a mayor, even if uncounselled, may be admissible.[69] Whil

e 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 violat
e 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 r
eporter and not under the supervision of the police, is admissible.

7. Because of the inherent danger of using information from broadcast media, extreme cauti
on 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 s
crutinized.

RIGHT TO BAIL

Meaning of Right

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 13, Article III provides that “all persons, except those cha
rged 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 wri
t 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 c
ustody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance befor
e 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 i
n 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 i
nnocent and a means of immediately obtaining liberty.[70] During the duration of release, t
he accused is given the chance to prepare his defense,[71] and thus level the playing field fo
r the parties. Worth emphasizing is the reason why those charge with offenses punishable b
y reclusion perpetua and against whom evidence of guilt is strong, are not allowed to bail. U
nder such circumstances, there is improbability of appearance, and bail merely becomes an i
nstrument 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 sh
ould be reasonable and not excessive otherwise the right is rendered useless. Under the Rul
es of Court, the amount is reasonable if the judge bases it primarily, but not exclusively, on t
he 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. E
ven if no formal charges have been filed yet, for as long as there is already an arrest, the righ
t 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 punis
hable 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 l
ife 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 re
peated a crime, an escapee, committed an offense while under the custody of the probation
al 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 t
o bail is not suspended when the President suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corp
us. While bail and habeas corpus are remedies intended for the immediate release of a detai
nee, there are fundamental differences between them so that the suspension of one does n
ot mean the suspension of the other. Firstly, in bail, there is an implicit recognition of the val
idity of detention or arrest, while in habeas corpus, there is an assumption that the detentio
n or arrest is illegal. And secondly, the prayer in bail is for the temporary release of the detai
nee, 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 b
ail for his temporary release, then it moots the purpose of habeas corpus, because it destroy
s 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 lo
ng as bail is still a matter of right. What the court must do in such cases is to increase the am
ount of bail.

5. Bail is now available in extradition[73] cases, consistent with the developments in interna
tional 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 evi
dence of guilt is strong.

2. Important also to note is that the military may not invoke the right to bail.[75] Among oth
er 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 n
umber 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 give
n them most especially when there are coup attempts. Allowing them to bail could mean res
umption of widespread commission of heinous activities.
Mandatory Hearing

When the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, before rendering a judgmen
t, due process demands that the court must conduct a mandatory hearing to determine if ev
idence 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 gr
ant bail and the judge grants the same without hearing, then the judge commits an error be
cause he cannot repose solely on the prosecutor his decision. Even if there is no objection, t
here 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 wher
e a case has already been filed against a person, in contrast to custodial investigations wher
e a case may not have been filed yet. The case filed is a criminal case, in which the parties ar
e the “People of the Philippines” and the “accused.” The People of the Philippines is the com
plainant, 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 t
he 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 Philip
pines, and not the private complainant. This is because what has generally been violated is t
he 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 p
eople 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. Wit
h 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 th
ey 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 v
alid judgment deliberated and rendered by the court.[77] As to its substantive aspect, the cr
iminal 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 legisla
ture. 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 (Secti
on 14, paragraph 1) is broader since it extends to preliminary investigations conducted befo
re the filing criminal cases in court. One of the instances wherein impartiality is compromise
d 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 in
vestigating prosecutor should not be swayed by the circumstances of pervasive and prejudic
ial publicity. It was held that prejudicial publicity may be invoked as denial of due process if i
t 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 purp
ose of the military. Because of its distinct features, a military court cannot try and exercise j
urisdiction, 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 t
hat civilians can only be tried for an offense in civilian courts and not in military courts, unles
s 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 cr
iminal 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 producti
on of evidence in his behalf.

2. Criminal Prosecution. These are rights of the accused “in criminal prosecutions.” Under th
e Rules, criminal proceedings start from arraignment up to the rendition of final judgment b
y the court. Arraignment refers to that stage of the criminal proceeding when the informatio
n is read to the accused to which he pleads guilty or not guilty. The proceeding continues un
til a final judgment is entered by the court. The judgment is final when there is nothing for t
he court to do but to execute it. Thus, during this duration the accused can invoke the said ri
ghts under the proper circumstances.

Right to be Presumed Innocent

1. Meaning. The right refers to the constitutional guarantee that the accused should be treat
ed 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 instanc
e, is based on the fundamental procedural rule that the court must hear first before it conde
mns. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the accused, then procedural due process is v
iolated. In fact, the accused is already in a disadvantaged position since he is pitted against t
he State. Presumption of guilt renders the rights of the accused nugatory. To protect therefo
re individual rights, in particular one’s liberty, it should be the State that proves the guilt of a
ccused, 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 an
d not on the weakness of the defense.

2. When Presumption is Overcome. The presumption of innocence is overcome by proof bey

ond reasonable doubt. Under the rules of evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the hi
ghest quantum of evidence. Such proof requires that the court is morally certain that the ac
cused 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 pres
umption of innocence remains. It must be noted that the certainty required by law is not ab
solute certainty but moral certainty as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute t
he offense.[80]

3. Why Right is Granted. The philosophy behind the very high quantum of evidence to establ
ish the guilt of the accused is expressed by the court as follows: “It is better to acquit a pers
on upon the ground of reasonable doubt even though he may in reality be guilty, than to infl
ict imprisonment on one who may be innocent.”[81]

4. Presumption of Guilt. The law and rules, however, allow that presumption of innocence m
ay be overcome by another presumption through prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidenc
e means an evidence deemed sufficient unless contradicted. The is based on logic and huma
n experience. When the prosecution, for instance, establishes that the stolen object is in the
possession of the accused, it creates a prima facie evidence that the accused committed the
crime of theft. The presumption of innocence is overturned, and the evidence creates a pri
ma facie proof of the guilt of the accused. This does not, however, mean that the presumpti
on 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 overc
ome 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 r
efers to all the mechanisms afforded to the accused during the criminal proceedings. It is a s
afeguard 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 assi
sted by counsel; and (c) the right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnes
ses 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 spit
e of his education in life, may not be aware of the intricacies of law and procedure. Deprivin
g 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 accus
ed of his right to counsel before arraignment and to give a counsel in case the accused cann
ot afford the services of one. The counsel representing the accused must be independent an
d 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 inter
est.

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 constituti
onal 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 t
hat 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 evasi
on of justice by a truly guilty person. It offends not just the accused but also the State, inasm
uch as what is at stake is the speedy, inexpensive, and orderly administration of justice. Und
ue 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 postp
onements and unjustifiable absences, the accused may be acquitted on the ground of violati
on of right to speedy trial. This does not, however, mean that the court cannot grant reason
able 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 objec
tive and renders a decision based on the cold neutrality of the evidence presented. For insta
nce, 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 in
hibited from the case.

3. Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be conducted in such a way that the pu
blic 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 t
he 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 ri
ght is reinforced under the rules of criminal procedure by the so-called cross-examination. C
ross-examination is conducted after the presentation and direct examination of witnesses b
y the opposing side. Both parties are allowed to test the veracity of the testimonies present
ed by the other.

Right to Compulsory Process

1. Reason for the Right. The form of criminal proceeding is adversarial because two opposin
g parties battle out against each other and only one of them could emerge as victor. It is oft
en the case that the party with the weightier evidence wins. In criminal proceedings, the acc
used needs only to create reasonable doubt on the mind of the court to be acquitted. Never
theless, evidence is difficult to find because of people’s anxiety in testifying in court as well a
s 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 witn
esses and production of needed document or things.

2. Kinds of Compulsory Processes. When the person sought to testify is uncooperative or jus
t afraid of court-related actions, the remedy of subpoena ad testificandum may be availed t
o compel the person to testify. When relevant documents are needed but the holder thereo
f refuses to produce them, the remedy of subpoena duces tecum may be availed of to comp
el 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 blunde
rs, and ultimately, to fully defend himself from the accusation against him. Thus, it is again a
n incident of criminal due process.

2. Waiver of Right. Right to be present, inasmuch as it is a right, may be waived by the accus
ed. For as long as it does not prejudice others, rights may be waived by its possessor. An exa
mple 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 d
uty, and therefore not waivable, in the following: (a) During arraignment and plea;[84] (b) W
hen 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-appeara
nce 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 habe
as corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public sa
fety requires it.” This is a reiteration of Section 18, Article VII. What is constitutionally guara
nteed is the right of a person detained by another to test or challenge, through habeas corp
us, the validity of his detention when the authority of the detaining person or agency is at is
sue.

2. The writ of habeas corpus is a written order issued by the court directed to a person detai
ning 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 recei
ve whatever court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf. When a person is il
legally confined or detained, or when his liberty is illegally restrained, he has the constitutio
nal right to file a petition of habeas corpus. Should the court find out that the person is illeg
ally confined or detained, he shall be immediately released from detention.

3. When Privilege Suspended. The privilege of habeas corpus is suspended in cases of rebelli
on 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 avail
able remedy to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated or thre
atened 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 disappea
rances 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 th
eir cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” Unlike the right to spee
dy trial which applies only in criminal proceedings, the right to speedy disposition of cases m
ay be invoked in all cases, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative. Thus, right to sp
eedy 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 hi
mself.” 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 o
ne that if answered renders a person liable for an offense. However, it is only when the incri
minating 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 whethe
r judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative. It is even available in legislative investigations an
d impeachment proceedings. In addition, the right may be invoked by all persons subject to j
udicial examination and legislative investigation. Thus it may be invoked not just by the accu
sed in criminal cases, but also defendants in civil cases, and witnesses in all kinds of proceedi
ngs.

2. The right, nonetheless, is not self-executing. It is not automatically operational once an in

criminating question is asked. It must be properly invoked by objecting to an incriminating q
uestion. For example, when a witness is subjected to direct examination by the opposing par
ty, 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 crimin
al charge.

3. Although all persons subject to judicial, quasi-judicial, administrative, and legislative inves
tigations can invoke the right under proper circumstances, special utilization of the right is gi
ven to the accused. A witness can invoke the right only when the question tends to be self-i
ncriminating, 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 comm

unication from the accused. Subjecting the body of the accused when material to solve the c
ase 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 compe
lled 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 wit
nesses is to give them immunity or protection to testify. Their testimonies are so crucial to t
he resolution of a criminal case so that in attainment thereof immunity is given to them by t
he 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, t
he right against self-incrimination could no longer be invoked.

Basis of the Right

1. The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is similar to the other rights of the ac
cused. From the very start, the accused is already in an adverse position pitted against the e
ntire machinery of the State. If evidence will still be taken from the lips of the accused, it wo
uld even tilt the scales heavily in favor of the State.

2. The right is founded on public policy and humanity.[87] Public policy demands that a pers
on be spared from answering incriminating questions because requiring him would likely lea
d to the crime of perjury, which is basically lying to the court after having promised to tell th
e truth and nothing but the whole truth. Humanity prevents extorting confession by duress.

RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article III provides that no person should be detained
solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations, nor should involuntary servitude in a
ny form exist, except as a punishment for a crime. The first part of the provision deals with t
he right not to be detained by reason solely of political beliefs and aspirations. This is essenti
ally embodied in the freedom of expression but with emphasis on the prohibition against inc
arceration of “political prisoners.” The second part deals with the right against involuntary s
ervitude. Involuntary servitude refers to the compulsory service of another or simply moder
n day slavery. The right is based on the egalitarian principle of democracy which prescribes e
quality of everyone in law, and on humanity which prevents degradation of human dignity t
hrough enforced labor.

2. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a commodity under the complete power
of the master. This has never been practiced in the Philippines, but has its remnants in mod
ern forms of enforced labor and peonage. Enforced labor happens when a person is unlawfu
lly compelled to work against his will; it is involuntary and to a certain extent resembles slav
ery. When a person, because of poverty or lack of money, works for another in payment of
his debt, the same is prohibited by the present guarantee even if the service is rendered vol
untarily. This voluntary service in payment of debt is called peonage. While it appears volunt
ary, peonage is prohibited because the person is forced to work by the circumstances of his i
ndebtedness, although not by his creditor.

2. Exceptions. Involuntary servitude may be allowed under the following instances: (a) as pu
nishment for crime; (b) in the case of personal, military or civil service in defense of the Stat
e; and (c) in compliance to a return to work order issued by the Department of Labor and E
mployment.

RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL PUNISHMENTS

Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(1), Article III states that “excessive fines shall not be i
mposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted…”

2. A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and beyond the limits prescribed by law. The a
mount of the fine is said to be unreasonable if the court does not take into consideration cer
tain standards, such as the nature of the offense, and the circumstances of the person punis
hed by fine. The imposed fine may never go beyond the statutory prescription, otherwise it i
s unlawfully excessive.

3. A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the conscience of mankind and it involves pro
longed suffering and agony to the person punished. For a penalty to violate the constitution
al guarantee, it must be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be degrading to human dignity, a
nd it must be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the se
nses of the community.[88] The mere severity of a penalty does not make the punishment c
ruel or inhumane, for as long as it is within the limits provided by law. As one maxim states,
“even if the law is harsh, it is still the law (dura lex sed lex).” A penalty that is germane to pu
rpose of the penal law is not cruel and inhumane.

4. Lastly, a penalty must be acceptable to the contemporary society. Ancient forms of punis
hment, such as pillory, disembowelment, and crucifixion, which are already considered barb
arous practices, are cruel and inhumane. If a person, for instance, is paraded around town n
aked 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 pre
sent-day society.
Death Penalty

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2) also states that “… neither shall death penalty be i
mposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter pr
ovides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.” Th
e present provision abolishes death penalty, although with a reservation that the Congress c
an 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 punishm
ent 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 exti
nguishment 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 C
ongress in the commission of heinous crimes and for compelling reasons. Heinous crimes ar
e crimes which are so flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the conscience of civilized per
sons, such as genocide, rape with homicide, murder, rebellion, and treason, especially when
committed against the innocent and helpless. With compelling reasons, Congress may impo
se 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 injectio
n 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 sl
eep through a lethal substance injected in the bloodstream which thereafter painlessly put t
he person to death.

Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or Imprisoned

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2), Article III provides that “the employment of physic
al, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of su
bstandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by la
w.”
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 crim
es, he is still a person entitled to proper treatment and protection. Paraphrasing it, the Cons
titution provides that even if a person is imprisoned or detained, he must be protected agai
nst 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 imprisone
d 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 cann
ot 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 wh
om he thought could pay but did not. Nevertheless, although the debtor cannot be imprison
ed, his property may be taken or attached by the court, and then sold at public auction in pa
yment of his debt to the creditor.

3. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee. What is punished in estafa is not th
e 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 a
mount 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] Com
munity tax or residence tax is an example of poll tax. As far as poll tax is concerned, non-pay
ment is not punished by the government in consideration of the plight of the poor who cann
ot even afford to pay it. Poverty could never be a reason for a person’s imprisonment. It mu
st be emphasized, however, that as regards other forms of taxes, non-payment may be a ca
use of imprisonment. Failure to pay income taxes is considered a crime (tax evasion), and pu
nishable 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 j
eopardy 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 sa
me 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 ac
t or offense. The right against double jeopardy therefore means that a person can only be in
dicted 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 pros
ecuted 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 j
eopardy of punishment for the same offense, and the second happens when an act is punish
able 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 jeopard
y attaches only: (a) upon good indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignme
nt; (d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise ter
minated without the consent of the accused. A case is said to be terminated without the con
sent 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 n
ecessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commi
t 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 don
e, 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 c
rime when committed;

(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testim
ony 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 deprivat
ion 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 am
nesty.[91]

3. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. The constitutional prohibition applies only in criminal ca
ses.[92] One of the characteristics of criminal law is prospectivity in which only crimes com
mitted after the enactment of a penal are punishable. It cannot retroact and punish acts whi
ch were not yet criminalized before its passage. The basic rule is that before an act may be c
onsidered an offense or crime, it must first be defined as a crime and a penalty must be imp
osed 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 a
pparently illegal it is, if there is no law defining and punishing it. It is for this reason that an e
x post facto law is not allowed because it criminalizes what was not yet a crime during its co
mmission.

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 th
e 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 sh
ould be confined to its law-making function; it cannot encroach the authority of the courts b
y 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 legi
slative determination that membership in CPP and any other organization having the same p
urposes is a crime. It does not automatically secure judgment by mere membership. In oper
ation, the law does not render unnecessary judicial proceedings. The guilt of the individual
members of subversive groups must still be judicially established.