PRELIMINARIES
For example, while the government has
Government Power vs. Individual Freedom
1. Among the changes brought about by the Period of
Enlightenment was the shift of power from the crown to
the individual. The long reign of monarchs came to an
end, and the rule of the people became the standard.
The government, while still the repository of power, was
limited to its role as the protector of the people and the
guardian of rights. Liberalism, which took its cue from
individualism, advocated the principle of egalitarianism,
in which men, regardless of their status in life, are
regarded as equals in terms of rights before the law.
Modern democracies are founded on these liberal ideals,
in that the heart of democratic objectives is the
protection of human dignity and respect for human
rights.
2. Nonetheless, the government remains to be a
powerful institution, capable of summoning the military,
evoking its past image as the uncontestable holder of
sovereignty. In fact, republicanism essentially requires
delegation of powers to the government; that although
the people remain to be the sovereign, actual exercise of
it is given to the government. Protection and service of
the people is the primal duty of the government, but be
that as it may, the government is still the single biggest
institution that exercises sovereign powers.
3. More so, it possesses the inherent powers which the
Constitution itself does not confer. Every government for
it to exist exercises police power, power of eminent
domain, and power of taxation. A constitution does not
grant such powers to the government; a constitution can
only define and delimit them and allocate their exercise
among various government agencies.[1] These are
awesome powers, which, if left uncheck, may seriously
restrict and jeopardize the freedom of individuals. Thus,
it is inbuilt in every democratic constitution to
meticulously include provisions guaranteeing the rights
of the individuals and those restricting the powers of the
government. This is to prevent the tragedy that the
government created by the people will in turn be the
instrument to enslave and abuse them.
4. The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an indispensable part
of the Constitution. In fact, it is one of the most important
parts of the fundamental law since it aims at balancing
the power of the government and the various freedoms
of the individual. As will be seen below, the Bill of Rights
provide for two things: first, restrictions directed against
the state, and, second, explicit identification and
limitation of rights of the individuals. On the one hand,
the government exercises its tremendous powers, but its
powers are limited by the Constitution. On the other
hand, the individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but
subject also to limitations in recognition of the powers of
the government. What balances the two (power and
freedom) are the limitations provided by the Constitution,
which limitations are by nature compromises or solutions
to situations resulting from the overlapping or conflict of
the two realms.
the inherent authority to take and convert a property for
public use, and the people on the other have the right to
hold their private property, the Constitution,
contemplating a case of overlap or conflict between the
two, compromises both by prescribing that the
government gives just compensation to the private
owner who in turn must surrender his property.
Meaning of the Bill of Rights
1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand
that the Bill of Rights refers to the declaration and
enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights
of a person with the primary purpose of safeguarding the
person from violations by the government, as well as by
individuals and group of individuals. It includes the
protection of the following rights:
(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to
individuals by virtue of their citizenship, such as
freedom to contract, right to property, and
marriage among others;
(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to
the citizenship of the individual vis--vis the
administration of the government, such as right
of suffrage right to hold office, and right to
petition for redress of wrong;
(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure
the well-being and economic security of an
individual; and
(d) Rights of the accused which refer to
protections given to the person of an accused in
any criminal case.
2. It must be noted that the restriction provided in the Bill
of Rights is directed against the government, so that it
does not govern private relations. As far as the
Constitution is concerned, Article III can be invoked only
against the government. Nonetheless, with the inclusion
of almost all the constitutional rights in Article 32 of the
Civil Code, the same may now be invoked in civil cases
involving relations between private persons. Thus, the
definition above indicates that the bill of rights is a
safeguard not just against the abuses of the government
but also of individuals or group of individuals.
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL
PROTECTION
Life, Liberty, and Property
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III of the
Constitution states No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
The provision speaks of due process and equal
protection.
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all
persons, whether citizens or aliens, natural or juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process
and equal protection cover the right to life, liberty, and
property. It is important therefore to know the meaning of
the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to
life, it refers not just to physical safety but also to
the importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life
means right to be alive, right to ones limbs
against physical harm, and, equally important,
right to a good quality of life.[2] Life means
something more than mere animal existence.[3]
1. Meaning. Due process of law is a constitutional
guarantee against hasty and unsupported deprivation of
some persons life, liberty, or property by the
government. While is it true that the state can deprive its
citizens of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so in
observance of due process of law. This right is the
embodiment of the supporting idea of fair play[6] and its
essence is that it is a law which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.[7]
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of
the government is arbitrary, oppressive, whimsical, or
unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts
of executive and legislative department.

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