The court found the supposed evidence against him extremely tenuous; the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses was contradictory and incredible, if not at times exculpatory; a photograph in
which he and another accused appeared was rejected as evidence of subversion, as so too was the claim
that his house had been used as a “contract point” of conspirators; and certain remarks made by the
petitioner which were critical of the Marcos administration were considered protected by freedom of
expression.

In order to satisfy the due process clause, it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is
conducted in the sense of making sure that the transgressor shall not escape with impunity. A
preliminary investigation serves not only the purposes of the State. More important, it is part of the
guarantee of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. It is therefore
imperative upon the fiscal or judge, as the case may be, to relieve the accused from the pain of going
through a trial once it is ascertained that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a prima facie case or that
no probable cause exists to form a sufficient belief as to the guilt of the accused.

(Tanada V. Tuvera)

The laws, presidential decrees, and other executive issuances intended to have the force of law should
first be published in the Official Gazette (and not elsewhere) before they may become effective 15 days
after publication, unless a different period is prescribed.

Self-Incrimination

Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

- The right against self-incrimination has its roots in the common law and is based on
humanitarian and practical considerations. Humanitarian because it is intended to prevent the
State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict
him. Practical because a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his
own protection.
- The right is available not only in criminal proceedings but also in all other government
proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or legislative investigations.
- It may be claimed not only by the person accused of an offense but any witness to whom an
incriminating questions is addressed.
- Witnesses or resource persons in legislative inquiries neither stand as accused in a criminal case
nor will they be subjected to any penalty by reason of their testimonies. Hence, they cannot
altogether decline appearing before respondent, although they may invoke the privilege when a
question calling for an incriminating answer is propounded.

Scope

- As long as the question will tend to incriminate, the witness is entitled to the privilege. He may
not refuse to answer provided that the question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the
answer may tend to embarrass him or subject to him to civil liability.
- The right may be invoked where the question asked refers to a past criminality for which the
witness cannot be prosecuted, as where the crime has already prescribed or he has already
been acquitted or convicted thereof.
- He may also not refuse to answer where he has been previously granted immunity under a
validly enacted statute.
- The kernel of the right is against not all compulsion but testimonial compulsion only.

(U.S. V. Tan)