Constitutional Law 2: I. Fundamental Powers of The State

116
CONSTITUTIONAL
 By reason of its function,
police power extends to all
the great public needs and is
LAW 2 described as the most
pervasive, the least limitable
and the most demanding of
I. Fundamental Powers of the the three powers
State b. Particular aspects
i. public health
A. Police Power ii. public morals
1. Nature and basis iii. public safety
 Power of promoting the public iv. public welfare
welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and 4. Limitations
property (Freund) a. General
 Inherent and plenary power of  The legislative determination
the state which enables it to of what is a proper exercise
prohibit all that is hurtful to the of its police power is not final
comfort, safety and welfare of or conclusive, but is subject
society to the supervision of the
 Basis courts
- Salus populi suprema est lex  No conflict with due process
(the welfare of the people is and equal protection of the
the supreme law) laws
- Sic utere tuo ut alienum non  Balancing is the essence or
laedeas (so use your own the indispensable means for
property as not to injure the attainment of legitimate
another’s property) aspirations of any
democratic society
2. Distinguished from other powers
b. Due process
Police Eminent
Taxation
Power Domain c. Equal Protection
Just
Compen
None compensation NA Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived
sation
required of life, liberty or property without due
Use taxing process of law, nor shall any person be
power as an denied the equal protection of the laws.
implement
for the Art. XIII, Sec. 1. The Congress shall give
Not Appropriated attainment highest priority to the enactment of
Use of
appropria for public of a measure that protect and enhance the
Propert
ted for use legitimate right of all the people to human dignity,
y
public use police reduce social, economic, and political
objective— inequalities and remove cultural
to regulate inequities by equitably diffusing wealth
a business and political power for the common good.
or trade To this end, the State shall
To regulate the acquisition, ownership, use,
destroy Property and disposition of property and its
noxious taken is not increments.
property necessarily Earn
or to noxious but revenue for 5. Tests for validity of exercise of
Object
restrain actually the police power
the should be government a. Interest of the public generally
noxious sound for as distinguished from a particular
use of public use class required exercise
property b. Means employed reasonably
necessary for accomplishment of
3. Scope purpose and not unduly
a. Generally oppressive
[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Jam_Jacob.design] Bobbie_StaMaria.printing] [Miles_Malaya.lectures]
[Japee_DeLeon.poli_law] [Ascheia_Yumul.rem_law] [Paul_Sorino/Judy_Ripol.civ_law] [Hya_Rafael/Mac_Macapagal.crim_law]
[Vivian_Tan/Justin_Mendoza.labor_law] [Miguel_DeJesus.legal_ethics] [Lianne_Gervasio.comm_law]
[Ces_Sicangco/Rowena_Romero.tax_law]
117
6. Who may exercise  Once authority is given to be
a. Legislature exercised, the matter ceases to
 Police power is lodged be wholly legislative
primarily in the national
legislature 3. Conditions for exercise
b. Executive  The taking by the State of
 By virtue of a valid private property in an
delegation of legislative expropriation proceeding must
power, it may also be be:
exercised by the president (1) for public use,
and administrative boards (2) with just compensation, and
(3) upon observance of due
B. Eminent Domain process.
Article III, Sec. 9. Private property shall 4. Taking

not be take for public use without just  Imports a physical dispossession
compensation. of the owner, as when he is
ousted from his land or relieved
Article XII, Sec. 18. The State may, in the of his watch or car and thus
interest of national welfare or defense, deprives of benefits of use.
establish and operate vital industries  May include trespass without
and, upon payment of just compensation, actual eviction of owner, material
transfer to public ownership utilities and impairment of value of property
other private enterprises to be operated or preventions of ordinary uses
by the government. for which the property was
intended.
Art XIV, Sec. 13. The National assembly  Not all taking may be
may authorize, upon payment of just compensable because might be
compensation, the expropriation of justified by police power
private lands to be subdivided into small  Requisites for taking (Rep. Vs.
lots and conveyed at cost to deserving Castelvi)
citizens. a. The expropriator must enter
a private property
1. Concept b. Entry must be for more than
 Ultimate right of the sovereign a momentary period
power to appropriate not only c. Entry must be under warrant
public but private property of or color of legal authority
citizens within the territorial d. Property must be devoted to
sovereignty to public purpose public use or otherwise
 Being inherent, it need not be informally appropriated or
lodged or specifically conferred injuriously affected
on government by the e. Utilization of the property for
Constitution public uses must be in such
a way as to oust the owner
2. Who may exercise and deprive him of beneficial
 Lodged primarily in the national enjoyment of the property
legislature but may be validly
delegated to other governmental 5. Public Use
and private entities  Means public usefulness, utility
1. Congress or advantage or what is
2. President productive of general benefit so
3. Various local legislative that any appropriation of private
bodies property by the state under its
4. Certain public corporation right of Eminent Domain, for
like MWSS purposes of great advantage to
5. Quasi-public corporations the company, is a taking for
like National Railways, PLDT, public use (Gould Realty v.
Meralco Hartford)
 Power is dormant until the  Public use is equivalent to public
legislature sets it in motion purpose. It is not confined
(Executive Department needs to merely to use by the public at
act on statute large (e.g. roads). It is enough

118
that it serves a public purpose, virtue of its sovereignty, for the
even if it benefit a large group of support of the government and
people short of the public in for all public needs
general (e.g. expropriating  Purpose:
property for the relocation of a. To raise revenue
squatters). b. Tool for regulation
 The concept of public use is not c. Protection/power to keep
limited to traditional purposes for alive
the construction of roads,  Extent: as broad as the purpose
bridges, and the like. The idea for which it is given
that "public use" means "use by  Primarily vested in the national
the public" has been discarded. legislature
As long as the purpose of the
taking is public, then the power 2. Distinguished from special
of eminent domain comes into assessments; license fees
play. It is accurate to state then
that at present whatever may be Special
Taxes License Fees
beneficially employed for the Assessments
general welfare satisfies the  Levied  Imposed for  Specific
requirement of public use. (Heirs against regulatory benefits for
of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes 123 revenues purposes specific
SCRA 220)  Basis of only persons
amount is  Justification  Basis is cost
6. Just Compensation higher is police of
 Fair and full power construction
 Efficient  Amount is
 Just and complete equivalent of limited to
the loss which the owner of the cost of
thing expropriated has to suffer regulation
by reason of the expropriation
 Fair Market value: 3. Limitations
- Price fixed by the buyer and  Power to tax exists for the
seller in the open market in general welfare
the usual and ordinary cause  Should be exercised only for a
of legal trade and public purpose
competition  Court’s power to invalidate a tax
- Must include consequential measure must be exercised with
damages damages to other the utmost extreme caution,
interest of the owner otherwise a State’s power to
attribute to the expropriation legislate for the public welfare
- Must deduct consequential might be seriously curtailed
benefits increase of value  might be justified as for public
of other interests attribute to purpose even if the immediate
new use of the former beneficiaries are private
property individuals
- General Rule: the value of  Specific Limitations
the property as of the date a. Uniformity of taxation 
of the filing of the complaint simply geographical
which normally coincides uniformity, meaning it
with the taking operates with the same force
- Exception: when the owner and effect in every place
would be given undue where the subject of it is
incremental advantage found
arising from the use to which  But does not prohibit
the government devotes the classification for
property expropriated purposes of taxation
 Requisites:
C. Taxation i. standards used are
1. Nature and Extent substantial and not
 Enforced proportional arbitrary
contributions from persons and
property, levied by the state by

119
ii. categorization is  Constitutional exemptions (1987
germane to achieve CONST., art. VI, sec. 28(3))
the legislative - Educational institutions (both
purpose profit and non-profit)
iii. the law applies, all  Benefits redound to
things being equal students
to both present and  Only applied to property
future conditions taxes not excise taxes
iv. applies equally to - Charitable institutions
members of the - Religious property
same class
b. Equal protection clause
c. Progressive system of
taxation II. Bill of Rights
 The rate increases as the
tax base increases A. In General
 Basis is social justice
 Taxation as an  A bill of rights is a declaration and
instrument for a more enumeration of a person's rights and
equitable distribution of privileges which the Constitution is designed
wealth to protect against violations by the
d. delegated tax legislation government, or by individuals, or groups of
 Congress may delegate individuals. It is a charter of liberties for the
law-making authority individual and a limitation upon the power of
the states.
when the constitution
 Article III contains the chief protection for
itself specifically human rights but the body of the Constitution
authorizes it. guarantees other rights as well.
 Basis
4. Double Taxation 1. Importance accorded to the dignity and
 No provision in the Constitution worth of the individual.
specifically prohibiting double 2. Protection against arbitrary actions of
taxation government and other members of
 When additional taxes are laid on society
the same subject by the same
taxing jurisdiction during the Philippine Blooming Mills Employees
same taxing period for the same Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills
purpose Co., Inc 51 SCRA 189 (1973)
 Will not be allowed if it violates
equal protection Although the Bill of Rights also protects property
rights, the primacy of human rights over property
5. Impairment of obligations of rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil
contracts liberties, the rights of free expression and of
 Power of taxation may not be assembly occupy a preferred position. The
used to violate the constitutional superiority of these freedoms over property rights
right of every person to be is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable
secured against any statute that or rational relation between the means employed
impairs the obligation of by the law and its object or purpose-that the law
contracts is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor
 But if the statute exempts a oppressive—would suffice to validate a law which
party from any one class of restricts or impairs property rights. But a
taxes, the imposition of a constitutional or valid infringement of human
different tax is not an rights require a more stringent criterion, namely
impairment of the obligation of existence of a grave and immediate danger of a
contracts substantive evil which the State has the right to
prevent.
6. Tax exemptions
 A corollary power but must be
for a public purpose, uniform and
equitable and in conformity with
the equal protection clause
 May either be constitutional or
statutory

120
B. Due Process
Reyes v. CA 80 SCRA 144 (1977)
1. Meaning and scope
The allowance or denial of motions for extension
 "Due process of law" is an exertion of the
rests principally on the sound discretion of the
powers of the government as the settled court to which it is addressed, but such discretion
maxims of the law permit and sanction, and must be exercised wisely and prudently, with a
under such safeguards for the protection of view to substantial justice. The main cause of the
individual rights. delay was petitioner's inability to obtain the
 Scope: The due process guarantee applies amount necessary for printing. Poverty is
only if a governmental action will constitute recognized as a sufficient ground for extending
a deprivation of some person's life, liberty, existing period for filing. The right to appeal is
or property. It is a constitutional limitation part of due process of law.
binding not only the government but also
each and every one of its branches, b. Administrative
agencies, or instrumentalities. It is,  Cardinal Primary Requirements of Due
however, directed particularly against the
Process in Administrative Proceedings
executive and legislative departments of the
government although its violation may also (Ang Tibay v. CIR)
be committed by private persons. (1) The right to a hearing which includes the
 Requirements: (U.S. v. Ling Su Fan, 1908) right to present ones case and submit
(a) That there shall be a law prescribed in evidence in support of thereof;
harmony with the general powers of the (2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
legislative department, presented;
(3) The decision must have something to
(b) That this law shall be reasonable in its
support itself;
operation,
(4) The evidence must be substantial, and
(c) That it shall be enforced according to the "substantial evidence" means such
regular methods of procedure prescribed, evidence as a reasonable mind might
(d) That it shall be applicable alike to all the accept as adequate to support a
citizens of the state or all of a class. conclusion;
(5) The decision must be based on the
2. Substantive due process evidence presented at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and
 requires that the law itself, not merely the
disclosed to the parties affected;
procedures by which the law would be (6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges
enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just. must act on its or his own independent
conside4ration of the law and facts of the
3. Procedural due process controversy, and not simply accept the
 refers to the method or manner by which views of a subordinate;
the law is enforced. Its basic elements are (7) The board or body should, in all
notice, opportunity to be heard, and controversial question, render its decision
jurisdiction. Its essence is simply the in such manner that the parties to the
opportunity to be heard or, as applied to proceedings can know the various issues
administrative proceedings, an opportunity involved, and the reason for the decision
to explain one's side or to seek are rendered.
consideration of the action or ruling
complained of. (1) Strict observance not
indispensable
a. Judicial  While a day in court is a matter
 Procedural due process has its application in of right in judicial proceedings it
judicial proceedings, civil or criminal. It is otherwise in administrative
requires (Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca) proceedings, since the latter
(1) an impartial and disinterested court rests upon different principles.
clothed bylaw with authority to hear and  In certain proceedings of an
determine the matter before it; administrative character, due
(2) jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the process, in the strict legal sense,
person of the defendant or the property is not indispensable. The rigid
which is the subject matter of the requirements of procedural laws
proceeding; are not strictly enforceable.
(3) notice and opportunity to be heard given
the defendant;
(4) judgment to be rendered after lawful
hearing.

121
(2) Necessity of notice and hearing
 As applied to administrative  Due process cannot be satisfied in the
proceedings, the requirements of absence of that degree of objectivity on the
due process are satisfied when a part of the judge sufficient to assure litigants
party is afforded an opportunity of his being fair and just. Before him, parties
to explain his side or to seek a
must stand on equal footing. It. requires a
reconsideration of the ruling or
the action taken. hearing before an impartial and disinterested
In administrative tribunal and every litigant is entitled to
proceedings, notice and hearing nothing less than the cold neutrality of an
may be dispensed with, where, impartial judge. (Mateo, Jr. v. Villaluz, 1973)
because of public need or for  In order that the review of a decision of a
practical reasons, the same is subordinate officer might not turn out to be a
not feasible. farce, the reviewing officer must be other
 It is sufficient if opportunity is than the officer whose decision is under
later given to the individual review; otherwise, there can be no different
adversely affected to test the
view. (Zambales Chromite Mining Co. v. CA ,
validity or propriety of the
administrative actin on appeal to 1979)
superior administrative  The right of the accused to a fair trial is not
authorities or to the court, or incompatible to a free press. Responsible
both. reporting in fact enhances the accused rights
 Decisions of administrative to a fair trial. (People v. Sanchez, 1999)
bodies are not rendered invalid  Mere imputation of partiality or bias is not a
merely because they are subject ground for inhibition. A ground for
to a court. disqualification as set by Sec 1, Rule 137 of
 As a general rule, notice and the Rules of Court must exist. (People v.
hearing, as the fundamental
Sebreño)
requirements of proc3edural due
process are essential only when
an administrative body exercises 6. Certainty
its quasi-judicial function, but in
the performance of its executive  A statute is rendered uncertain and void
or legislative functions, such as merely because general terms are used
issuing rules and regulations, an therein, or because of the employment of
administrative body need not terms without defining them; much less do
comply with said requirements. we have to define every word we use. There
is no positive constitutional or statutory
(3) Requirement for discipline of civil command requiring the legislature to define
each and every word in an enactment.
service officers and employees
 The charge against the  It is a well-settled principle of legal
respondent in an administrative hermeneutics that words of a statute will be
case need not be drafted with interpreted in their natural, plain, and
the precision of an information in ordinary acceptation and signification, unless
a criminal prosecution. It is it is evident that the legislature intended a
sufficient that it is apprised of technical or special legal meaning to those
the substance of the charge words.
against him; what is controlling
is the allegation of the facts a. Void for vagueness
complained of, not the
 An act is vague when it lacks
designation of the offense.
comprehensible standards that
4. Notice men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its common
meaning and differ as to its
 Notice is an essential element of due process
application
otherwise the court will not acquire
 In such instance, the statute is
jurisdiction and its judgment will not bind the repugnant to the constitution in 2
defendant. But the Judgment in a respects. It violates due process
representative or class suit to which some for failure to accord persons,
members of the class are parties, will bind all especially thepart6ies targeted by
the other members. Notice to be meaningful it, fair notice of what conduct to
must be both as to time and place. But notice avoid, and, it leaves law enforcers
is of little value unless the person r4eceiving an unbridled discretion in carrying
it has a reasonable opportunity to be heard out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of the government
muscle.
5. Impartiality

122
b. Overbreadth
 A governmental purpose may not 3. Conditions for valid
be achieved by means which classification
sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of  It is an established principle of constitutional
protected freedoms. law that the guaranty of the equal protection
of the laws is not violated by a legislation
7. Excessive Penalties based on reasonable classification. And
the classification to be reasonable:
 Rule of Proportionality: Life sentence for (1) must rest on substantial distinctions
indecent exposure is a cruel or unusual (2) must be germane to the purpose of the
punishment because it is grossly law
disproportionate to the offense. (Rule (3) must not be limited to existing conditions
of Proportionality) The constitutional limit is only
generally described as so disproportionate to (4) must apply equally to all members of the
the offense "as to shock the moral sense of same class.
all reasonable men as to what is right and  The classification between non-Christian and
proper" or "as to be completely arbitrary and Christian tribes is not based upon accident of
shocking to the sense of justice." (In re birth or parentage but upon degree of
Lynch, 1972) civilization and culture. The distinction is
reasonable for the Act was intended to meet
8. Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of the peculiar conditions existing in non-
Attainder Christian tribes. It is also germane to the
purposes of the law, which is to insure peace
and order in and among the non-Christian
 To be discussed under rights in the criminal tribes. The law is also not limited in
administration of justice application and applies equally to all within
the same class (People v. Cayat 1939)
C. Equal Protection
4. Discrimination against aliens
1. Concept
 Equal protection of the laws signifies that "all  Although the guaranty of equal protection
persons subject to legislation should be applies to all persona, both citizens and aliens,
treated alike, under like circumstances and statutes may validly limit to citizens
conditions both in the privileges conferred exclusively the enjoyment of rights or
and liabilities imposed." privileges connected with the public domain,
 It does not demand absolute equality; it the public works, or the natural resources of
merely requires that all persons shall be the state. The rights and interests of the state
treated alike, under like circumstances in these things are not simply political but also
and conditions both to privileges proprietary in nature; and so the citizens may
conferred and liabilities imposed. lawfully be given preference over 'aliens in
 What the guarantee prohibits is class or their use or enjoyment.
discriminatory legislation, which  But statutes discriminating against aliens
discriminates against some and favors in ordinary private occupations are
others when both are similarly situated or generally held void.
circumstanced.  The Constitution, as a general rule,
 Equality of operation of statues does not places the civil rights of aliens on an
mean indiscriminate operation on persons equal footing with those of citizens.
merely as such, but on persons according Their political rights, however, do not
to the circumstances surrounding them. enjoy the same protection.
It guarantees equality, not identity of
rights. It does not forbid discrimination 5. Classification of citizens
as to persons and things that are
different. What it forbids are  The general rule is that a legislative act may
distinctions based on impermissible not validly classify the citizens of the state on
criteria unrelated to a proper legislative the basis of their origin, race or parentage.
purpose.  But in times of great and imminent danger,
such as a threatened invasion or war, such a
2. Purpose classification is permitted by the Constitution
when the facts so warrant (e.g. discriminatory
 It prohibits undue favor to anyone, special legislation against Japanese citizens during
privilege for any individual or class, or hostile WW2).
discrimination against any party. It
guarantees legal equality or the equality of all
persons before the law. It is a guarantee 6. Three Standards of Judicial
against discriminatory legislation. Review:

123
detained solely by reason of his political
1. Rational Relationship Test beliefs and aspirations.
 Classification bears a reasonable relation xxx
to government's purpose. Important
when there is no plausible difference 1. General Considerations
between the disadvantaged class and a. Components
those not disadvantaged. Also important
when the government attaches a morally b. Functions and value
irrelevant and negative significance to a
difference between the advantaged and  Freedom of expression is essential as a
the disadvantaged. Generally not useful means of assuring individual self-fulfillment.
since nothing suggests that legislators  Freedom of expression is an essential process
make irrational judgments. for advancing knowledge and discovering
truth.
2. Strict Scrutiny Test  Freedom of expression is essential to provide
 Requires the government to show an for participation in decision-making by all
overriding or compelling government members of society.
interest so great that it justifies the  Freedom of expression is a method of
limitation of fundamental constitutional achieving a more adaptable and hence a
rights (the courts make the decision of more stable community of maintaining the
WON the purpose of the law makes the precarious balance between healthy cleavage
classification necessary). It is applied and necessary consensus.
when the law classifies people of their
ability to exercise a fundamental right. c. Scope of Freedom
Applied also when the classification has a
"suspect" basis "Strict in theory, fatal in  embraces the specific guarantees of free
fact" when this standard is applied almost speech and free press, the rights of assembly
invariably the statutory classification is and petition, the right to form associations or
struck down for being violative of the EP societies not contrary to law, the freedom of
clause. religion, and the right to access to
information on matters of public concern
3. Intensified Means Test which are all indispensable to the free and
 New EP goes beyond two-tiered (first effective flow of ideas. The guarantee implies
two other tests) level of review; said to the right to reach willing audience but not the
apply the middle-level test, the balancing right to compel others to listen, see or read.
test or the equality test.  The term "law" in Section 4 should not be
 The court accepts the articulated limited to statutes and local ordinances;
purpose of the legislation but it should executive and judicial actions are to be
closely scrutinize the relationship deemed subject also to the constitutional
between the classification and the restriction
purpose.. based on a spectrum of
standards, by gauging the extent to
which constitutionally guaranteed rights d. Limitations
depend upon the affected individual
interest.  This liberty is, like all other rights, not
 Applicable for certain sensitive but not absolute. It should be exercised within the
suspect classes; certain important but bounds of laws enacted for the promotion of
not fundamental interest. social interests and the protection of other
 Suspect Classes - saddled with such equally important individual rights.
disabilities, or subject to such a history of  Some limitations:
purposeful unequal treatment or  Laws against obscenity
relegated to such a position of political  Laws against libel and slander
powerlessness, as to command  Right to privacy of an individual
extraordinary protection from the  Right of state/government to be
majoritarian political process. protected from seditious attacks
 Legislative immunities
D. Freedom of Expression
2. Freedom of speech and press
Art. III, Sec. 4. No law shall be passed a. Meaning and scope
abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right  Free speech and free press are the most
of the people peaceably to assemble and potent instruments of public opinion and are,
petition the Government for redress of therefore, indispensable to the preservation
grievance. of liberty and democracy. The experimental
character of most human beliefs, opinions
Art. III, Sec. 18. (1) No person shall be and institutions, requires tolerance on the
part of all peoples; and tolerance is best

124
encouraged by the grant of the right of free prohibit. [Gitlow v. New York, 268 US
speech and free press. 652 (1925).]
 These rights are susceptible of restriction  The rule is that the danger created must
only to prevent grave and immediate danger not only be clear and present but also
to interests which the state may lawfully traceable to the ideas expressed. The evil
protect." The demands of public interest and consequences of the comment or
social security should be extraordinarily utterance must be "extremely serious
pressing and obvious as against the and the degree of imminence
individual liberties specifically guaranteed, extremely high" before the utterance can
by the constitution in order that legislation be punished. The danger to be guarded
curtailing the latter may be validly upheld. against is the substantive evil sought to
be prevented.
b. Forms of abridgment  Example: Art. 142. Inciting to sedition.
When the legislature has decided that
one who advocates a certain conduct is
1. Prior restraint
guilty of a crime, the court cannot
 Censorship conditions the exercise of
intrude. As it evolved, this test was
freedom of expression upon the prior
supposed to apply when there is a
approval of the government. Only those
statute, in contrast to the clear and
ideas acceptable to it are allowed to be
present danger rule which applies when
disseminated; all others are restricted or
the speech is not prohibited by statute
suppressed. The censor thus assumes the
unlikely role of political, moral, social and
artistic arbiter for the people, usually 2. Clear and present danger
applying only his own subjective  The question in every case is whether the
standards in determining what is good words used are used in such
and what is not good for them. circumstances and are of such a nature
 Censorship need not partake of total as to create a clear and present danger
suppression; even restriction of that they will bring about the substantive
circulation is unconstitutional evils that Congress has a right to
prevent. It is a question of proximity and
2. Subsequent punishment degree. [Schenck v. United States, 249
 Freedom of speech includes freedom US 47 (1919) as cited in Eastern
after speech. Without this assurance, the Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) v. Dans, Jr.,
citizen would hesitate to speak for fear he 137 SCRA 712 (1992)]
might be provoking the vengeance of the  The emphasis of the test is the nature of
officials he has criticized. Even as the circumstances under which it is
criticism is not conditioned on the uttered. The speech itself may not be
consent of the government, so too is it dangerous.
not subject to its subsequent  Permits the application of restrictions
chastisement; otherwise, a sword of once a rational connection between the
Damocles would hang over the head of speech restrained and the danger
apprehended - the "tendency" of one to
the citizen and cow him into silence. In a
create the other (although it may be far
free society, the individual is not or remote) - was shown. Under this rule,
supposed to speak in timorous whispers a person could be punished for his ideas
or with bated breath but with the clear even if they only tended to create the evil
voice of the unafraid. sought to be prevented. It was not
necessary to actually create the evil, a
c. Tests mere tendency towards the evil was
enough.
1. Dangerous tendency
 When the legislative body has 3. Grave-but-improbable danger:
determined generally, in the exercise of  Whether the gravity of the evil,
its discretion, that utterances of a certain discounted by its improbability, justifies
kind involve such danger of a substantive such an invasion of free speech as is
evil that they may be punished, the necessary to avoid the danger. [Dennis v.
question whether any specific utterance United States, 341 US 494 (1951),
coming within the prohibited class is
quoting Judge Learned Hand.]
likely, in and itself, to bring the
substantive evils, is not open to  This test was meant to supplant the clear
consideration. In such cases, the general and present danger. They both
provision of the statute may be emphasize the circumstances of the
constitutionally applied to the specific speech, but this latter test consider the
utterance if its natural and probable weighing of values
effect was to bring about the substantive
evil which the legislative body might 4. Direct Incitement Test

125
 The constitutional guarantees of free  Any system of prior restraints of expression
speech and press do not permit a State comes to the Court bearing a heavy
to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use presumption against its constitutionality,
of force or of law violation, except where giving the government a heavy burden to
such advocacy or speech is directed to show justification for the imposition of such
inciting or producing imminent lawless restraint. (New York v. United States (1971);
action, and is likely to incite or produce also in New York Times v. Pentagon and
such action. [Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 Bantam Books v. Publication of Pentagon
U.S. 444 (1969), cited in Salonga v. Cruz Papers).
Pano, 134 SCRA 438 (1985).]  It has never been held that liberty of speech
 The test emphasizes the very words is absolute. Nor has it been suggested that all
uttered: (a) What words did he utter? previous restraints on speech are invalid. The
(b) What is the likely result of such protection even as to previous restraint is not
utterance? It criticizes the clear and absolutely unlimited. But the limitation has
present danger test for being top been recognized only in exceptional cases.
dependent on the circumstances. These included utterances creating a
Speaker may, when tested show no hindrance to the Government's war effort,
incitement but you know the speaker is and actual obstruction to its recruiting service
inciting to sedition. or the publication of the sailing dates of
transports or the number and location of
5. Balancing of interest troops… The phrase 'prior restraint' is not a
 The court must undertake the delicate self-wielding sword. [Times Film Corp. v.
and difficult task of weighing the Chicago, 365 US 43 (1961)]
circumstances and appraising the
substantiality of the reasons advanced in e. Subsequent punishment
support of the regulation of the free
enjoyment of rights. [American  And even subsequent punishment is
Communication Ass'n v. Douds, 339 US tempered by the greater interest of
383 cited in Gonzales v. COMELEC, 27 promoting free public opinion. The most
SCRA 835 (1969A)] significant expression is the law on libel.
 When particular conduct is regulated in
the interest of public order, and the f. Freedom of expression and
regulation results in an indirect, libel
conditional and partial abridgement of
speech, the duty of the courts is to Revised Penal Code
determine which of the two Art. 353. Definition of libel.-- A libel is a
conflicting interests demands the greater public and malicious imputation of a
protection under the particular crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
circumstances presented. imaginary, or any act, omission,
 The test applied when two legitimate condition, status, or circumstance tending
values not involving national security to cause the dishnonor, discredit, or
crimes compete. Involves an appoint of contempt of a natural or juridical person,
the competing interest. (Gonzales v. or to blacken the memory of one who is
Comelec) dead.
6. Balancing of Factors Art. 354. Requirement of publicity.-- Every

 The truth is theat the clear-and-present defamatory imputation is presumed to be
danger test is over- simplified judgement malicious, even if it be true, if no good
unless it takes into account also a intention and justifiable motive for
number of other factors: (1) the relative making it is shown, except in the
seriousness of the danger in comparison following cases:
with the value of the occasion for speech 1. A private communication made by
or political activity, (2) the availability of any person to another in the
more moderate controls than those the performance of any legal, moral or
State has imposed, and perhaps (3) the social duty; and
specific intent with which the speech is 2. A fair and true report, made in good
launched. (Freund, quoted in Dennis v. faith, without any comments or
United States in the concurring opinion of remarks, of any judicial, legislative or
Justice Frankfurter). other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any
d. Prior restraint statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other

126
act performed by public officers in policy, welfare of society, and the orderly
the exercise of their functions. administration of government have
demanded protection for public opinion. The
Art. 361. Proof of the truth.-- In every inevitable and incontestable result has been
criminal prosecution for libel, the truth the development and adoption of the doctrine
may be given in evidence to the court of privilege. [United States v. Bustos, 731
and if appears that the matter charged as (1918).]
libelous is true, and, moreover, that it  Criticism is permitted to penetrate even to
was published with good motives and for the foundations of government. Criticism, no
justifiable ends, the defendants may be matter how severe, on the Executive, the
acquitted. Legislature and the Judiciary is within the
Proof of the truth of an imputation of range of freedom of speech, unless the
an act or omission not constituting a intention and effect be seditious. When the
crime shall not be admitted, unless the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the
imputation shall have been made against constitutional guaranties of freedom of
Government employees with respect to speech and press and of assembly and
facts related to the discharge of their petition must yield to punitive measures
official duties. designed to maintain the prestige of the
In such cases if the defendant proves constituted authority, the supremacy of the
the truth of the imputation made by him, Constitution and the existence of the State.
he shall be acquitted. [People v. Perez, 45 Phil. 599 (1923)]
 The freedom of speech secured by the
Art. 362. Libelous remarks.-- Libelous Constitution does not confer an absolute right
remarks or comments connected with the to speak or publish without responsibility
matter privileged under the provisions of whatever one may choose. It is not unbridled
article 354, if made with malice, shall not license that gives immunity for every possible
exempt the author thereof nor the editor use of language and prevents the punishment
or managing editor of a newspaper from of those who abuse this freedom [Espuelas v.
criminal liability. People, 90 Phil. 524 (1951)]
 While, under the Revised Penal Code, any
 Libel is the most common form of subsequent defamatory statement is presumed to be
punishment. Although one cannot be malicious (malice-in-law), when the defense
prevented from saying something before he proves that the communication is privileged,
actually says it, one can be held liable for such a presumption of malice does not arise
what one has said if it causes damage to the because of the greater public interest
rights of others. involved.
 Libel can only be committed against  If the communication is absolutely privileged
individual reputation. In cases where libel is (as in parliamentary freedom of speech), the
claimed to have been directed at a group, prosecution cannot even prove malice-in-fact.
there is actionable defamation only if the libel  To enjoy immunity, a publication containing
can be said to reach beyond the mere derogatory information, must not only be
collectivity to do damage to a specific,
true, but also fair and must have been made
individual group member's reputation.
[Newsweek, Inc. v. IAC, 142 SCRA 171 in good faith with any comments or remarks.
(1986)] [Policarpio v. Manila Times Pub. Co., Inc., 5
 We consider this case against the background SCRA 148 (1962)]
of a profound national commitment to debate  If the communication is only qualifiedly
on public issues being uninhibited, robust and privileged (Art. 354 enumerates the 2
wide-open, and that it may well include instances: fair and true reporting of an
vehement, caustic, and sometimes official proceeding; legal moral or social
unpleasantly sharp attacks on government duty), the burden is shifted on the
and public officials. The falsity of some of the prosecution to prove malice-in-fact, which the
factual statements and alleged defamations defense can overcome by proving the truth of
do not qualify the role. And just as factual the defamatory statement (which in the case
error afforded no warrant for repressing of public officials may or may not constitute a
speech that would otherwise be free, the crime, so long as related to the conduct of his
same is true of injury to official reputation. office) and good motive.
(New York Times v. Sullivan, 380 U.S. 51  Qualified privilege may be lost by proof of
(1964) malice. A communication made bonafide upon
 The interest of society and good government any subject matter in which the party
demands a full discussion of public affairs. communicating has an interest, or in
Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is reference to which he has a duty, is
a fit subject for proper comment. Public privileged, if made to a person having a

127
corresponding interest, though containing So long as critics confine their criticisms
incriminatory matter. [Mercado v. CFI of to facts and base them on the decisions of
Rizal, 116 SCRA 93 (1982)] the court, they commit no contempt no
matter how severe the criticism may be; but
g. Freedom of expression when they pass beyond that line and charge
that judicial conduct was influenced by
and right to privacy
improper, corrupt or selfish motives, or such
that conduct was affected by political
 Petitioner's averment is not well taken. Being prejudice or interest, the tendency is to
a public figure does not automatically destroy create distrust and destroy the confidence of
in toto a person's right to privacy. The right the people in their courts. [People v. Godoy,
to invade a person's privacy to disseminate 243 SCRA 64 (1995)]
public information does not extend to fictional  The power to punish for contempt is inherent
or novelized representation of a person, no in all courts of superior jurisdiction
matter how a public figure he or she may be. independently of any special expression of a
Freedom of expression, indeed, occupies a statute. Mere criticism or comment on the
preferred position in the hierarchy of civil correctness or unsoundness of a decision of
liberties. It is not, however, w/o limitations. the court in a pending case made in good
In the particular circumstances presented and faith may be tolerated, bee. if well founded, it
considering the obligations assumed by may enlighten the court and contribute to the
petitioner under the agreement, the validity correction of an error. But if it is not well-
of such agreement will have to be upheld taken, then, it should in no way influence the
particular bec. the limits of freedom of court in reversing or modifying its decision.
expression are reached when expression [In Re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 (1949)]
touches upon matters of private concern.
[Lagunzad v. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (1979)] i. Freedom of expression
 Freedom of speech and expression includes and obscenity
freedom to produce motion pictures and to
exhibit them. What is involved is a prior  While prior restraint is the general rule,
restraint by the Judge upon the exercise of censorship in the movies is tolerated because
speech and of expression by petitioners. by the nature of the medium, it has a greater
Because of the preferred character of speech impact on the audience and produces instant
and of expression, a weighty presumption of reaction for the ideas it presents, unlike
invalidity vitiates measures of prior restraint. newspapers which are read by people
The Judge should have stayed his hand separated by walls.
considering that the movie was yet  The power of the Board is limited to the
uncompleted and therefore there was no classification of films. For freedom of
"clear and present danger." [Ayer Productions expression is the rule and restrictions the
Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong April 29, 1988] exception. The power to impose prior
restraint is not to be presumed, rather the
presumption is against its validity. Censorship
h. Freedom of expression is allowable only under the clearest proof of a
and administration of clear and present danger of a substantive evil
justice (contempt of to public safety, public morals, public health
court) or any other legitimate public interest.
[Gonzales v. Katigbak, 137 SCRA 356 (1985)]
 A person can be held liable for making  Tests of obscenity: [Miller v. California, 413
comments on a pending case (sub judice) US 15 (1972)]
which have the tendency to impair or (1) Whether the average person, applying
obstruct the orderly administration of contemporary community standards,
justistice. But if the case is not pending, would find that the work, taken as a
such comment is a valid exercise of the whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
freedom of expression.[People v. Alarcon, 60 (2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in
Phil 265 (1939)] a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
 The Philippine rule is that in case of a post- specifically defined by the applicable law.
litigation newspaper publication, fair criticism (3) Whether the work, taken as a whole,
of the court, its proceedings and its members lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
are allowed. However, there may be scientific value.
contempt of court, even though the case has
been terminated, if the publication 1) tends
to bring the court into disrespect, or j. Freedom of expression
scandalize the court or 2) where there is clear and radio broadcasts
and present danger that the administration of
justice would be impeded

128
 But radio deserves greater regulation than But if he thinks that the rally creates
newspers because it could invade the privacy a "clear and present danger" to public
of everyone for no fee, and it is such that one peace, order, health, etc., and he has
is likely to listen to what is being said. proof of this, he should not deny the
 The following guidelines must be observed: application right away. He should hold a
[Eastern Broadcasting Corp. (DYRE) V. Dans, hearing during which the applicant can be
137 SCRA 647 (1985)] heard. If after hearing he is still not
1) The cardinal primary requirements in satisfied that no danger exists, then he
administrative proceedings as laid down can deny the application.
in Ang Tibay v. CIR should be followed - The applicant can then go to any court
before a broadcast station may be other than the Supreme Court for the
closed; review of the decision of denial of the
2) All forms of communication are entitled mayor. The courts have 24 hours to act
to the broad protection of the freedom of on the petition. If the judgment is a
expression clause. Necessarily, the reversal of the denial, or in any case if
freedom of television and radio the applicant is satisfied with the
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope decision, the judgment becomes final
than the freedom accorded to and executory immediately, and no
newspapers and print media. This appeal can be taken by the local
limitation derives from the fact the authorities anymore.
broadcast media have a uniquely - But if the decision is not satisfactory to
pervasive presence in the lives of all the applicant, then he has 48 hours from
Filipinos; receipt to appeal to the SC.
3) The government has a right to be - During the rally, the police must be
protected against broadcasts which incite limited to maintaining peace and order
listeners to violently overthrow it; and and so must stay away by 100 meters
4) Broadcast stations deserve the special from the rallyists. They must be in full
protection given to all forms of media by uniform, with their names visibly written.
the due process and freedom of They can carry no firearm except a
expression clauses of the Constitution. nighstick, but they are allowed protective
devices.
3. Freedom of assembly and If they anticipate trouble, the police
petition must call the attention of the leader of
the rallyists. When trouble actually
 Public Assembly Act of 1985 (Batas Blg. 5) erupts, the police must not disperse the
- A permit to hold a rally must be filed with crowd right away but first give a warning.
the Office of the Mayor at least, five If violence persists, they must give a
working days before the day of the rally. second warning. If still violence
- But no permit from the mayor is required continues, only then can they fight back.
in case the rally is going to be held in (i) - If a rally does not have a permit, the
freedom parks, (ii) inside a private police can disperse the crowd, but they
property (provide with consent of the cannot use violence. Penalty is imposed
owner), and (iii) campuses of state only on the leaders and organizers.
universities (which are left to university - Among the duties of the rallyists are: (a)
authorities) to inform the members of their duty
- The application must be in writing and under the law, (b) to police their own
must include: (1) names of the rank, and (c) to cooperate with local
organizers and leaders, (2) date and authorities in maintaining peace and
time, place and street, (3) size order.
(4)manner of the use of the street, (5)
sound system to be used (6)purpose. It  Although under a "permit system", before
must also have a statement of the duties one can use a public place, one must first
of the rallyists. obtain prior permit from the proper
- The written application is filed with the authorities, the principle has always been
Office of the Mayor. Acknowledgemet is that one has the right to a permit, subject
given of its receipt. If the Mayor refuses only to reasonable regulation. The validity of
to accept the application, then it is the permit system has been upheld by the
enough for filing purposes if a copy is Court, provided, (a) it is concered only with
posted in the premises. the time, place and manner of assembly ad
- The Mayor has 2 working days to act on (b) it does not vest on the licensing authority
the application. If he does not act, it is unfettered discretion in choosing the groups
deemed granted.

129
which could use the public place and
discriminate others Art. 13, Sec. 18(1). No person shall be
The respondent mayor possesses denied solely by reason of his political
reasonable discretion to determine or specify beliefs and aspirations.
the streets or public places to be used for the
assembly in order to secure convenient use D. Freedom of Association
thereof by others and provide adequate and
proper policing to minimize the risks of Art. III, Sec. 8. The right of the people,
disorder and maintain public safety and including those employed in the public
order. [Navarro v. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730 and private sectors, to form unions,
(1970)] associations, or societies for purposes not
 Guidelines for the issuance of permits (now in contrary to law shall not be abridged.
BP 880) [J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125
SCRA 553 (1983)] Art. IX, B, Sec. 2. xxx
(i) any group which applies must do so (5) The right to self-organization shall
within a sufficient time so the authority not be denied to government employees.
can have time to act:
(ii) if a disagreement arises over a denial of Art. XIII, Sec. 3. xxx
a permit, the applicant can question the It shall guarantee the right of all workers
denial in the lower court, which can try to self-organization, collective bargaining
questions of fact and law, and and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
(iii) appeal can be made to the SC on an activities, including the right to strike in
expedited procedure. accordance with law. They shall be
 Note that while the permit system is not entitled to security of tenure, humane
allowed in the case of publication, it is conditions of work, and a living wage.
allowed in the case of assembly. In They shall also participate in policy and
publication, censorship is presumptively decision-making processes affecting their
unconstitutional. There is very little rights and benefits as may be provided
possibility or justification for the regulation of by law.
news. The remedy in this case is prosecution xxx
or subsequent punishment.
But in assembly regulation is allowed  The inclusion of the right to unionize in this
because it is needed by the very nature of article is ill-advised because while the right to
the expression, when people use streets, they unionize is an economic and labor right, the
may deprive other groups which want to use right to association in general is a civil-
the streets too. So as long as only the political right.
incidents of speech are regulated, the  Employees in the Civil Service may not resort
measure is constitutionally acceptable. to strikes, walkouts and other temporary
work stoppages, like workers in the private
4. Right to information, access to sector, in order to pressure the Govt. to
public records accede to their demands. As now provided
under Sec. 4, Rule III of the Rules and
Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the
information on matters of public concern Right of Govt. EEs to Self-Organization which
shall be recognized. Access to official took effect after the initial dispute arose, the
records, and to documents and papers terms and conditions of employment in the
pertaining to, official acts, transactions, Govt, including any political subdivision or
or decisions, as well as to government instrumentality thereof and govt. owned and
research data used as basis for policy controlled corporations with original charters,
development, shall be afforded the are governed by law and employees therein
citizen, subject to such limitations as shall not strike for the purpose of securing
may be provided by law. changes thereof. [SSS Employees Assn vs
CA, 175 SCRA 686 (1989)]
 Access of official records (the docket book)
for any lawful purpose (to look into the
criminal cases for a report on the peace and
order situation of the municipality) is E. Freedom of Religion
guaranteed. But it is subject to reasonable
conditions by the custodian of the records. Art. III, Sec. 5. No law shall be made
[ Baldoza v. Dimaano, 71 SCRA 14 (1976)] respecting an establishment of religion;
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
5. Freedom of political belief The free exercise and enjoyment of

130
religious profession and worship, without  In Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1967), the
discrimination or preference, shall forever SC disallowed the conducting of an
be allowed. No religious test shall be interdenominational prayer before the start of
required for the exercise of civil or classes in public schools as, violative of the
political rights. Non- Establishment clause.
 In Abington School District v. Schemp, 374
1. Non-establishment of religion U.S. 203 (1963), it likewise disallowed the
reading of a passage from the bible without
 The clause prohibits excessive government comment in public schools as contrary to the
entanglement with, endorsement or Non- Establishment clause.
disapproval of religion [Vicoriano v. Elizalde
Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974); d. Tax exemption
Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668 (1984)
(O'Connor, J., concurring); Allegheny County Art. VI, Sec. 28. xxx
v. Greater Pittsburg ACLU, 492 US 574 (3) Charitable institutions, churches,
(1989).] parsonages or convents appurtenant
 The Non-Establishment clause is violated thereto, mosques, non-profit
when the State gives any manifest support to cemeteries, and all lands, buildings
any one religion, even if nothing is done and improvements, actually, directly,
against the individual. and exclusively used for religious,
charitable or educational purposes
a. Operation of sectarian schools shall be exempt from taxation.
 While the ownership, creation and
management of educational institutions must  The ruling in Bishop of Nueva Segovia v.
be in the hands of Filipinos or 60% Filipino- Provincial Board, 51 Phil. 352 (1927) is
owned corporations, sectarian schools and modified to the extent now that the property
those run by religious groups and missions must be "actually, directly and exclusively"
board are exempted from these used for religious purposes to be exempt.
requirements, provided the administration is
in the hands of Filipinos, who could be e. Public aid to religion
sectarian. [Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2).]  The payment or use of public money or
property for any religious institution or clergy
b Religious instruction in public is not allowed; except in those cases provided
schools in the Constitution: priests assigned in the
AFP, penal institution, government
Civil Code orphanage, or leprosarium. [Art. VI, Sec. 29
Art. 359. The government promotes the full (2)]
growth of the faculties of every child. For  But in Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phil. 201 (1937),
this purpose, the government will the SC held that the stamp printed by the
establish, whenever possible: government showing the map of the
(1) Schools in every barrio, municipality Philippines with a rosary to commemorate the
and city where optional religious 33rd International Eucharistic Congress to be
instruction shall be taught as part of the held in Manila did not violate the Non-
curriculum at the option of the parent or Establishment clause because its main
guardian. purpose, was to call the world's attention to
xxx Manila as the site of an international
congress, and whatever benefit it gave the
 Provided it is upon the written petition of the Catholic Church was only incidental.
parents and it is at no cost to the State
(although this is not entirely possible,
because the use of classrooms and electricity
are costs in the State), religious instruction
in public elementary and secondary schools
during class hours, by one approved by the
authorities of the religion of the child or ward
is allowed. [Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3).] Religion
can even be integrated in the school
curriculum. [Civ. Code, 359 (1).] 2. Free exercise of religion
c. Prayer and Bible-reading in a. Flag Statute

public schools

131
 Conscientious Objectors cannot be compelled  The purpose of the impairment clause is
to salute the flag. The idea that one may be to safeguard the integrity of valid contractual
compelled to salute the flag, sing the national agreements against unwarranted
anthem, and recite the patriotice pledge, interference by the State.
during a flag ceremony on pain of being  As a rule, contracts should be respected
dismissed from one's job or of being expelled by the legislature and not tampered with by
from school, is alien to the conscience of the subsequent laws that will change the
present generation of Filipinos who cut their intention of the parties or modify their rights
teeth on the Bill of Rights w/c guarantees and obligations. The will of the parties to the
their rights to free speech and the free contract must prevail.
exercise of religious profession and worship.
[Ebranilag v. Division Superindentent of 2. Contracts affected
Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256 (1993)]  To be entitled to a protection against
impairment, a contract must be valid.
b. Freedom to propagate
religious doctrines 3. Limitations
 Despite the impairment clause, a contract
 The power to tax the exercise of the privilege valid at the time of its execution may be
is the power to control or suppress its legally modified or even completely
enjoyment. Those who can tax the exercise of invalidated by a subsequent law.
religious practice can make its exercise so  Another limitation arises from the rule of
costly as to deprive it of the resources strict construction. Charters, franchises and
necessary for its maintenance. [American licenses granted by the Government are
Bible Society v. City of Manila, 101 P 386 strictly construed against the grantees.
(1957)]  Police power is another limitation to the non-
impairment clause. If a law is a proper
c. Exemtion from union shop exercise of the police power, it will prevail
The statute does not violate the rights of over the contract. Into each contract are read
association. It does not impair the obligation of the provisions of existing law and, always, a
contracts for not only are existing laws read into reservation of the police power as long as the
contracts in order to fix the obligation of the agreement deals with a matter affecting the
parties but the reservation of essential attributes public welfare.
of sovereign power is also read into such  Like the police power, the other inherent
contracts. Neither does the law constitute an powers of eminent domain and taxation may
establishment of religion. It has been held that in validly limit the impairment clause.
order to withstand objections based on this
ground, the statute musr have a secular purpose 4. Effect of emergency legislation
and that purpose must not directly advance or on contracts
diminish the interest of any religion. Congress  In a national emergency, such as a
acted merely to relieve persons of the burden protracted economic depression, the police
imposed by union security agreements. power may be exercised to the extent of
[Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 impairing some of the rights of parties arising
SCRA 54 (1974)] from contracts. However, such emergency
laws are to remain in effect only during the
d. Disqualification from local continuance of the emergency.
government office
 The voting of the SC was inconclusive. Seven 5. Currency legislation and
justices held that section 2175 is no longer contracts
operative. Justice Fernando held that section  The legislative department has complete
2175 imposed a religious test on the exercise authority to determine the currency of the
of the right to run for public office contrary to state and to prescribe what articles shall be
Art. III of the 1935 Constitution. Justice used and accepted as legal tender in the
Teehankee held that section 2175 had been payment of lawful obligations.
repealed by the Election Code. Five justices  Private parties are bound to observe this
held that section 2175 is constitutional. governmental authority over the nation's
[Pamil v. Teleron 86 SCRA 413 (1978)] currency in the execution of their contracts.
F. Non-impairment of obligations of
contracts 6. Impairment
 In order to come within the meaning of the
1. Nature of protection constitutional provision, the obligation of
contract must be impaired by some legislative

132
act (statute, ordinance, etc.). The act need Rights states categorically that the liberty
not be by a legislative office; but it should be of abode and of changing the same within
legislative in nature. limits prescribed by law may be impaired
 > A mere administrative order, not legislative only upon lawful order of the court. Not
by an executive officer. Not even by the
in nature, may not be considered a cause of
President. Sec. 6 further provides that
impairment within the scope of the the right to travel, and this obviously
constitutional guarantee. The guarantee is includes the right to travel out of or back
also not violated by court decisions. into the Philippines, cannot be impaired
 The act of impairment is anything which except in the interest of national security,
diminishes the value of the contract. The public safety, or public health, as may be
legislature may, however, change the remedy provided by law.
or may prescribe new modes of procedure.
The change does not impair the obligation of  Aliens and right to entry
contracts so long as another remedy, just as - While the right to travel of citizens covers
efficacious, is provided for the adequate both exit from and entry into the country,
aliens cannot claim the same right.
enforcement of the rights under the contract.
H. Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus
G. Freedom of movement (Liberty of
Abode and rights to Travel)
Art. III, Sec. 15. The privilege of the writ
Art. III, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of
of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
changing the same within the limits
except in cases of invasion or rebellion,
prescribed by law shall not be impaired
when the public safety requires it.
except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be
 A "writ of heabeas corpus" is a writ directed
impaired except in the interest of
to the person detaining another, commanding
national security, public safety, or public
him to produce the body of the detainee at a
health, as may be provided by law.
designated time and place, and to show
 Freedom of Movement: liberty of Abode cause why he should continue to be detained.
and of travel
- The liberty guaranteed by this provision  The "privilege of the writ" is the right to have
includes (1) freedom to choose and the immediate determination of the legality of
change one's place of abode and (2) the deprivation of physical liberty.
freedom to travel both within the country
and outside. Art. VII, Sec. 18. The President shall be the
- The right to return to one's country is not
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces
among the rights specifically guaranteed
in the Bill of Rights, which treats only of of the Philippines, and whenever it
the liberty of abode and the right to becomes necessary, he may call out such
travel, but it is the Court's well armed forces to prevent or suppress
considered view that the right to return lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In
may be considered as a generally case of invasion or rebellion, when the
accepted principle of international law, public safety requires it, he may, for a
and under our Constitution, is part of the period not exceeding sixty days, suspend
law of the land. However, it is distinct the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and separate from the right to travel and or place the Philippines or any part
enjoys a different protection under the
thereof under martial law. Within forty-
Intl. Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights, i.e. against being arbitrarily eight hours from the proclamation of
deprived thereof. [Marcos v. Manglapus, martial law or the suspension of the
177 SCRA 668 & 178 SCRA 760 (1989)] privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President shall submit a report in person
- Freedom of movement is not absolute. or in writing to the Congress. The
The liberty of abode may be impaired Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
only upon lawful order of the court and least a majority of all its Members in
"within the limits prescribed by law." The regular or special session, may revoke
right to travel, however, may be such proclamation or suspension, which
curtailed ever by administrative revocation shall not be set aside by the
authorities, such as passport-officers, "in President. Upon the initiative of the
the interest of national security, public President, the Congress may, in the
safety, or public health" and again, "as
same manner, extend such proclamation
may be provided by law."
- Dissenting opinion of Justice Gutierrez in or suspension for a period to be
the Marcos case: Sec. 6 of the Bill of determined by the Congress, if the

133
invasion or rebellion shall persist and  The suspension of the privilege of the writ
public safety requires it. applied only to crimes related to invasion or
The Congress, if not in session, shall rebellion. An extensive discussion was made
within twenty-four hours following such under the Commander-in- Chief clause of the
proclamation or suspension, convene in President, supra. This rest of the section will
accordance with its rules without need of be confined to habeas corpus as a remedy in
a call. all other offenses.
The Supreme Court may review, in  In general as already noted above, the
an appropriate proceeding filed by any privilege of the writ is an extraordinary
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis remedy to question the illegality of the arrest
of the proclamation of martial law or the or detention, or any other restraint to liberty.
suspension of the privilege of the writ or When all else is lost, it is the last recourse to
the extension thereof, and must get someone out of his illegal detention.
promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not
suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning
of the civil courts or legislative
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment
of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts
are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege shall
apply only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the
privilege of the writ, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he
shall be released.
 In case of invasion or rebellion, when the

public safety requires it, the President may,
for a period not exceeding 60 days, suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus...
 The suspension of the privilege of the writ
shall apply only to persons judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion.
 During the suspension of the privilege of the
writ, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within 3 days,
otherwise he shall be released. (Art. VII,
Sec. 18.)
 What is suspended is the privilege of the writ,
and not the writ itself. The writ will always
issue as a matter of course. But when the
privilege of the writ is suspended, all the
detaining office needs to do when he receives
the writ of habeas corpus is to show to the
court that the detainee is being detained for
an offense covered by the suspension, and
the court cannot inquire any further to find
out if the detention is legal. Under the
Constitution, this is so only for 3 days. After
3 days, the Court can now require the
detaining officer to produce the body of the
detainees and show cause why he should not
be released.

134
Rights in the Criminal Administration of delivered to the nearest police station or
Justice jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
A. Rights before trial accordance with Rule 112, Section. 7.
1. Arrests, searches and seizures (Rules of Court.)
Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to  Rule 113, sec. 5 talks of "citizen arrests",
be secure in their persons, houses, cases where an arrest can be made either by
papers and effects against unreasonable the peace officer or a private person without
searches and seizures of whatever nature need of a warrant.
and for any purpose, shall be inviolable,  Sec. 5, R 113, ROC, requires 2 conditions for
and no search warrant or warrant of a valid arrest w/o warrant: (1) the person to
arrest shall issue except upon probable be arrested has just committed an offense
cause to be determined personally by the and (2) the person arresting has personal
judge after examination under oath or knowledge of facts indicating that the person
affirmation of the complainant and the to be arrested is the one who committed the
witnesses he may produce, and offense.
particularly describing the place to be  The key element in the first case is that the
searched and the person or things to be offense was committed "in his presence".
seized. The key element in the second case is that he
has "personal knowledge".
Sec. 3. The privacy of communication and  Strict enforcement of rule: In People v.
correspondence shall be inviolable, Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986), the arrest made
except upon lawful order of the court, or by the constabulary without a warrant of a
when public safety or order requires farmer on the basis of information that he
otherwise as prescribed by law. Any was a subversive was held unconstitutional,
evidence obtained in violation of this or since there was no personal knowledge of the
the preceding section, shall be offense itself.
inadmissible for any purpose in any  Exception to the strict enforcement rule:
proceeding. (1) “Continuous” crimes of subversion
- Subversion being a continuing
a. pre-arrest rights offense, the arrest of Dural w/o
i. Warrantless arrests (Rule warrant is justified as it can be said
113, Sec. 5, 2000 Rules of that he was committing an offense
Criminal Procedure) when arrested. [Umil v. Ramos, 187
strictly construed as SCRA 311 (1990)
exception to general rule (2) Illegal possession of guns and drugs
requiring judicial warrant [People v. Linsangan, 195 SCRA 784]
Rule 113, Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; ii. Arrest under warrant
when lawful.-- A peace officer or a  The issuance of warrant of arrest involves a
private person may, without a warrant, judicial power which necessarily imposes
arrest a person: upon the judge the legal duty of first
(a) When, in his presence, the person to satisfying himself that there is probable
be arrested has committed, is actually cause, independently of and notwithstanding
committing, or is attempting to the preliminary investigation made by a
commit an offense; provincial fiscal and to that end he may
(b) When an offense, has in fact just require the fiscal to submit such evidence as
been committed, and he has personal may be sufficient to show at least a prima
knowledge of facts indicating that the facie case Amargas v. Abbas, 98 Phil 739
person to be arrested has committed (1956)]
it;
(c) When the person to be arrested is a iii. Determination of
prisoner who has escaped from a probable cause
penal establishment of place where he  Probable cause is such facts and circum-
is serving final judgment or stances as would reasonably make a prudent
temporarily confined while his case is man believe that a crime have been
pending, or has escaped while being committed and that the documents or things
transferred from one confinement to sought to be searched and seized are in the
another. possession of the person against whom the
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) warrant is sought.
and (b) hereof, the person arrested  The illegality of detention is not cured by the
without a warrant shall be forthwith filing of information against them, since no

135
warrant of arrests or orders of commitment vii. RTC judge need not
has been issued by the municipal court up to personally examine
the hearing of the case before the Court [Lino complainant
v. Fugoso, 77 Phil 933 (1947)]  What the Constitution underscores is the
 Malicious prosecution refers to unfounded exclusive and personal responsibility of the
criminal actions and has been expounded to issuing judge to satisfy himself the existence
include civil suits just to vex and humiliate of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the
the defendant despite the absence of a cause existence of probable cause, the judge is not
of action or probable cause. For malicious required to personally examine the complaint
prosecution to prosper, the plaintiff must and his witnesses [Soliven v. Makasiar, 167
prove: (1) fact of prosecution and termination SCRA 393 (1998)]
by acquaintance; (2) prosecution cited
without probable cause; (3) prosecutor was 2. Administrative Warrants
actuated or impelled with legal malice that is
by improper or sinister motive. (Ponce v.  The requirement of probable cause to be
Legaspi) determined by the judge does not extend to
deportation proceedings. There need no
iv. Power of municipal trial “truncated” resource to both judicial and
judge to issue warrant on administrative warrants in a single
fiscal’s determination of deportation proceeding. What is essential is
probable cause that there should be a specific charge against
 The fiscal is a “responsible officer authorized the alien intended to be arrested and
by law” within the meaning of Section 3 of deported, that a fair hearing be conducted
the Bill of rights. He is authorized to with the assistance of counsel, if desired, and
determine probable cause not only by the Bill that the charge be substantiated by
of right but also by law or rule empowering competent evidence. [Harvey v. Defensor
him to conduct preliminary investigations. Santiago]
And his determination of probable cause is a
sufficient justification for the issuance of a 3. Conditions for issuance of search
warrant. As a rule, a trial judge should not warrant
hold another preliminary examination. [Placer
v. Villanueva]  Freedom from unreasonable searches and
 In the issuance of warrants of ARREST, as seizures is declared a popular right and for a
distinguished from SEARCH warrants, the SW to be valid . [Pasion vda. de Garcia v.
judge may rely simply on fiscal's certification Locsin, 65 Phil. 689, (1938)]
as to probable cause (1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the probable cause must be determined
v. What constitutes by the judge himself and not by the
searching questions applicant or another;
 The term “searching questions and answers” (3) in the determination of probable cause,
means only, taking into consideration the the judge must examine, under oath or
purpose of the preliminary examination which affirmation, the complainant and such
is to determine “whether there is a witnesses as the latter may produce; and
reasonable ground to believe that an offense (4) the warrant issued must particularly
has been committed and the accused is describe the place to be searched and
probably guilty thereof so that a warrant of persons or things to be seized
arrest may be issued and the accused held a. Procedure to determine
for trial” (Luna v. Plaze) probable cause to search
vi. Issuance of arrest  To be valid, a search warrant must be

 To determine whether a warrant of arrest supported by probable cause to be
should issue against the accused, the determined by the judge or some other
investigating judge must examine the authorized office after examining the
complainant and his witnesses “in writing and complaint and the witnesses he may produce.
under oath… in the form of searching No less important, there must be a specific
questions and answers.” When he is satisfied description of the place to be searched and
that a probable cause exists, and that there is the things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary
a necessity of placing the respondent under and indiscriminate use of the warrant. [Roan
immediate custody in order not to frustrate v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1986)]
the ends of justice, he may issue the warrant.  Compare Rule 112, Sec. 6 (on warrants of
[Samulde v. Salvani, Jr.] arrest) with Rule 126, Sec. 4 (on search
warrants.)

136
(3) Used or intended to be used as a means
Rule 112, Sec. 6. When warrant of of committing an offense
arrest may issue.-- (a) By the
Regional Trial Court.-- Upon the 4. Warrantless search
filing of an information, the Regional
Trial Court may issue a warrant for (a) When search is made of
the arrest of the accused. moving vehicles
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court.-- If  "The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable
the municipal trial judge conducting searches and seizures is construed as
the preliminary investigation is recognizing a necessary difference before a
satisfied after an examination in search of a dwelling house or other structure
writing and under oath of the in respect of w/c a SW may readily be
complainant and his witnesses in the obtained and a search of a ship, motorboat,
form of searching questions and wagon or automobile for contraband goods,
answers, that a probable cause exists where it is not practicable to secure the
and that there is a necessity of warrant bec. the vehicle can be quickly
placing the respondent under moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in w/c
immediate custody in order not to the warrant must be sought." [Papa v. Mago,
frustrate the ends of justice, he shall 22 SCRA 857 (1968)]
issue a warrant of arrest. (Rules of
Court.) (b) When search is an incident
to a valid arrest.
Rule 126, Sec. 4. Examination of
complainant; record.-- The judge Rules of Court
must, before issuing the warrant, Rule 126, Sec. 12. Search incident to
personally examine in the form of lawful arrest.- A person lawfully
searching questions and answers, in arrested may be searched for dangerous
writing and under oath the complainant weapons or anything which may be used
and any witnesses he may produce on as proof of the commission of an offense,
facts personally known to them and without a search warrant.
attach to the records their sworn
statements together with any affidavits  A person arrested may be searched for
submitted. dangerous weapons or anything that proves
the commission of the offense. It follows that
The requirement in the case of warrants the search can only be made within the area
of arrest is relaxed in that the judge can rely of control of the arrested person, and within
on the certification of the fiscal that the latter the time of the arrest.
has conducted the preliminary investigation  In Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 139 SCRA 152
and has found probable cause on the part of (1985), to be valid, the search must be
the accused. The judge can issue the "incidental" to the arrest, that is, not
warrant on the basis of the information filed separated by time or place from the arrest.
by the fiscal and the certification of probable If the basis for allowing incidental searches is
cause. looked into, one can see that this situation is
not one involving a valid incidental search.
b. Particular description of
things to be seized (c) When things seized are
within plain view of a
 Search warrant is void because it is a general searching party
warrant since it does not sufficiently describe
with particularity the things subject of the (d) Stop and Frisk
search and seizure, and that probable cause
has not been properly established for lack of  However, there are many instances where a
searching questions propounded by the warrant & seizure can be effected w/o
issuing judge to the applicant’s witness’ necessarily being preceded by an arrest,
[Nolasco v. Pano] foremost of w/c is the 'stop & search' w/o a
 Personal property which may be seized under SW at military or police checkpoints, the
Sec 2, rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal constitutionality of w/c has been upheld by
Procedure: this Court in Valmonte v. de Villa."The
(1) Property subject of an offense assailed S & S may still be justified as akin to
(2) Stolen or embezzled property and other a 'stop and frisk' situation whose object is
proceeds or fruits of an offense; either to determine the identity of suspicious
individuals or to maintain the status quo

137
momentarily while the police officers seeks to  Between the inherent right of the state to
obtain more information [Posadas v. CA, 188 protect its existence and promote public
SCRA 288 (1990)] welfare and an individual’s right against a
warrantless search which is however
(e) When there is a valid reasonably conducted, the former should
express waiver made prevail. [Valmonte v. de Villa]
voluntarily and intelligently.
8. Search and Seizure by Private
 Waiver cannot be implied from the fact that Persons
the person consented or did not object to the  The constitutional proscription against
search, for it many happen that he did so unlawful S & S therefore applies as a restraint
only out of respect for the authorities. The directed only against the govt and its
waiver must be expressly made. agencies tasked w/ the enforcement of the
law. Thus, it could only be invoked against
5. What may be seized the State to whom the restraint against
arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power
Rules of Court is imposed. It the search is made at the
Rule 126, sec. 2. Personal property to behest or inititiation of the proprietor of a
be seized.-- A search warrant may be private establishment for its own and private
issued for the search and seizure of the purposes, as in the case at bar, and w/o the
following personal property: intervention of police authorities, the right
(a) Subject matter of the offense; against unreasonable S & S cannot be
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other invoked for only the act of private individuals,
proceeds or fruits of the offense; and not law enforcers, is involved. In sum, the
(c) Used or intended to be used as a protection against unreasonable S & S cannot
means of committing an offense. be extended to acts committed by private
individuals so as to bring it w/in the ambit of
Art III, Sec 3(2). Any evidence obtain ed in alleged unlawful intrusion by the govt [People
violation of this or the preceding section v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)]
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. b. Post-arrest rights of accused
i. Right of persons under
 General Warrants should be eliminated. To custodial investigation:
uphold the validity of such would be to pwipe Right to silence, to
out completely one of the most fundamental counsel, and to warnings
rights guaranteed in our Constitution, for it
would place the sanctity of the domicile and Art. III, Sec. 12(1). Any person under
the privacy of communication and custodial investigation for the
correspondence at the mercy of the victims, commission of an offense, shall have the
caprice or passion of peace officers. [Stonehill right to be informed of his right to remain
v. Diokno] silent and to have competent and
 Art 3, Sec 3(2) enuciates the Exclusionary independent counsel preferably of his
rule. own choice. If the person cannot afford
the services of counsel, he must be
6. Civil action for damages provided with one. These rights cannot
be waived except in writing and in the
 A civil case for damages can also be filed presence of counsel.
pursuant to Article 32 of the Civil Code. (1) No torture, force, violence, threat,
 In Aberca v. Ver, the SC held that even if the intimidation, or any other means
privilege of the writ is suspended, the court which vitiate the free will shall be
can nevertheless entertain an action not only used against him. Secret detention
against the task force but even against the places, solitary, incommunicado, or
top ranking officials who ordered the seizure, other similar forms of detention are
to recover damages for the illegal searches prohibited.
and seizures made in a despotic manner. By (2) Any confession or admission
so doing, one can indirectly inquire into the obtained in violation of this or sec.
validity of the suspension of the privilege. 17 hereof, shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
7. Right to privacy of (3) The law shall provide for penal and
communication civil sanctions for violations of this
section, as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims of

138
torture or similar practices, and their (d) Any extrajudicial confession made
families. by a person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation shall be
Rep. Act No. 7438 in writing and signed by such persons in
the presence of his counsel or in the
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF latter's absence, upon a valid waiver,
PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER and in the presence of any of the
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS parents, elder brothers and sisters,
THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the
DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS municipal judge, district school
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR supervisor, or priest or minister of
VIOLATIONS THEREOF. the gospel as chosen by him;
otherwise, such extrajudicial
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of confession shall be inadmissible in
Representatives of the Philippines in Congress evidence in any proceeding.
assembled: (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or
detained under the provisions of Art.
Section 1. Statement of Policy. --- It 125 of the RPC, or under custodial
is the policy of the State to value the investigation, shall be in writing and
dignity of every human being and signed by such person in the
guarantee full respect for human rights. presence of his counsel; otherwise
such waiver shall be null and void
Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, and of no effect.
Detained, or under Custodial (f) Any person arrested or detained or
Investigation; Duties of Public under custodial investigation shall be
Officers. --- allowed visits by or conferences with
(a) Any person arrested, detained or any member of his immediate family,
under custodial investigation shall or any medical doctor or priest or
at all times be assisted by counsel. religious minister chosen by him or
(b) Any public officer or employee, or by any member of his immediate
anyone acting under his order or in family or by his counsel, or by any
his place, who arrests, detains or national NGO duly accredited by the
investigates any person for the CHR or by any international NGO duly
commission of an offense shall inform accredited by the Office of the
the latter, in a language known to President. The person's "immediate
and understood by him, of his rights family" shall include his or her
to remain silent and to have spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or
competent and independent counsel, child, brother or sister, grandparent
preferably of his own choice, who or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew
shall at all times be allowed to confer or niece, and guardian or ward.
privately with the person arrested, As used in this Act, "custodial
detained or under custodial investigation" shall include the practice
investigation. If such person cannot of issuing an "invitation" to a person
afford the services of his own who is under investigation in
counsel, he must be provided with a connection with an offense he is
competent and independent counsel supected to have committed, without
by the investigating officer. prejudice to the liability of the "inviting"
(c) The custodial investigation report officer for any violation of law.
shall be reduced to writing by the
investigating officer, provided that Sec. 3. Assisting Counsel. --- Assisting
before such report is signed, or counsel is any lawyer, except those
thumbmarked if the person arrested directly affected by the case, those
or detained does not know how to charged with conducting preliminary
read and write, it shall be read and investigation or those charged with the
adequately explained to him by his prosecution of crimes.
counsel or by the assisting counsel The assisting counsel other than the
provided by the investigating officer government lawyers shall be entitled to
in the language or dialect known to the following fees:
such arrested or detained person, (a) The amount of P150.00 if the
otherwise, such investigation report suspected person is chargeable with
shall be null and void and of no effect light felonies;
whatsoever. (b) The amount of P250.00 if the

139
suspected person is chargeable with urgent cases, of the night shall suffer
less grave or grave felonies; the penalty of imprisonment of not
(c) The amount of P350.00 if the suspect less than 4 years nor more than 6
is chargeable with a capital offense. years, and a fine of P4,000.00.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall The provisions of the above
be paid by the city or municipality where Section notwithstanding, any security
the custodial investigation is conducted, officer with custodial responsibility
provided that if the municipality or city over any detainee or prisoner may
cannot pay such fee, the province undertake such reasonable measures
comprising such municipality or city shall as may be necessary to secure his
pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal safety and prevent his escape.
or City Treasurer must certify that no
funds are available to pay the fees of Sec. 5. Repealing Clause. --- RA 857, as
assisting counsel before the province amended, is hereby repealed. Other
pays said fees. In the absence of any laws, PDs, EOs or rules and regulations,
lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be or parts thereof inconsistent with the
conducted and the suspected person can provisions of this Act are repealed or
only be detained by the investigating modified accordingly.
officer in accordance with the provision of
Art. 125 of the RPC. Sec. 6. Effectivity. --- This Act shall take
effect 15 days following its publication in
Sec. 4. Penalty Clause. --- the OG or in any daily newspaper of
(a) Any arresting public officer or general circulation in the Philippines.
employee, or any investigating officer
who fails to inform any person Approved, April 27, 1992.
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation of his right to remain  When do the rights begin to be available?
silent and to have competent and (1) only when the person is already in
independent counsel preferably of his custody
own choice, shall suffer a fine of (2) custodial investigation involves any
P6,000.00 or a penalty of questioning initiated by law enforcement
imprisonment of not less than 8 officers after a person has been taken
years but not more than 10 years, or into custody or otherwise deprived of his
both. The penalty of perpetual freedom of action in any significant way
absolute disqualification shall also be  Rights end at the time of the filing of criminal
imposed upon the investigating cases in court
officer who has been previously  What rights are available?
convicted of a similar offense. (1) right to remain silent
The same penalties shall be (2) right to counsel
imposed upon a public officer or (3) right to be informed of his rights
employee, or anyone acting upon  Miranda Rights [Miranda v. Arizona, 384
orders of such investigating officer or U.S. 436 (1966)]
in his place, who fails to provide a Any person under custodial or police
competent and independent counsel investigation has the right to be informed of
to a person arrested, detained or the following rights:
under custodial inevstigation for the 1. Right to remain silent
commission of an offense if the latter 2. Right to be reminded that if he waives his
cannot afford the services of his own right to remain silent, anything he says
counsel. can and will be used against him.
(b) Any person who obstructs, 3. Right to counsel before and during
prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any interrogation
member of the immdediate family of 4. Right to be reminded that if he cannot
a person arrested, detained or under afford counsel, then one will be provided
custodial investigation, or any for him by the state.
medical doctor or priest or religious 5. Even if the person consent to answer
minister or by his counsel, from questions without the assistance of
visiting and conferring privately counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer
chosen by him or by any member of at any point in the investigation, the
his immediate family with him, or interrogation must cease until an
from examining and treating him, or attorney is present.
from minitering to his sppiritual 6. if the foregoing protections and warnings
needs, at any hour of the day or, in are not demonstrated during the trial to

140
have been observed by the prosecution, means of insuring that the suspect is
no evidence obtained as a result of the apprised of his rights so that any subsequent
interrogation can be used against him. waiver of his rights can be "voluntary,
knowing and intelligent," it is obvious that
 The reading of these rights is required during there can be no valid waiver of the warnings.
"custodial investigation". The reading of these A waiver of rights will not be presumed.
rights is no less indispensable even if the
person arrested is a prominent Constitutional  Exclusionary rule
lawyer. Although he may already know these
rights, the purpose is not so much to inform Art. III, Sec. 12(3). Any confession or
him, as to assure him that his interrogators admission obtained in violation of this or
are willing to respect his rights amidst the section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
pressure of custodial investigation. evidence against him.
 The “Miranda rights” are available to avoid
involuntary extrajudicial confession  The adoption in 1967 of the exclusionary rule
 For an extrajudicial confession to be in search and seizure cases (Stonehill v.
admissible, it must satisfy the following Diokno) worked a parallel in the law of
requirements: confession. W/o expressly overruling its
(1) it must be voluntary decision in de los Santos and Villanueva, the
(2) it must be made with the assistance of Court, in Peo. v. Urro, went back to the
competent and independent counsel former rule that involuntary or coerced
(3) it must be express confessions, regardless of their truth, are null
(4) it must be in writing and void. xxx Involuntary or coerced
confessions obtained by law, w/c proscribes
Prosecution has the use of such cruel and inhuman methods
burden to prove to secure confessions. Xxx
warnings  Indeed, in the US, it is said that an
 The prosecution may not use statements "unconstitutional coercion will render
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, inadmissible even the most unquestionably
stemming from custodial interrogation of the true inculpatory statements." xxx This is not
defendant unless it demonstrates the use of bec. such confessions are unlikely to be true
procedural safeguards effective to secure the but bec. the methods used to extract them
privilege against self-incrimination [People v. offend an underlying principle in the
Nicandro] enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is
an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial
Custodial phase of
 system -- a system in w/c the State must
investigation police establish guilt by evidence independently and
line-up freely secured and not by coercion prove its
 No custodial investigation shall be conducted charge against an accused out of his own
unless it be in the presence of counsel, mouth xxx." (Rogers v. Richmond, J.
engaged by the person arrested, or by any Frankfurter.)
person in his behalf, or appointed by the  Exceptions to the Exclusionary rule:
court upon petition either of the detainee 1. In Harris v. US, it was held that although
himself or by anyone in his behalf. While the a confession obtained w/o complying w/
right may be waived, the waiver shall not be the Miranda rule was inadmissible for the
valid unless made in writing and in the purpose of establishing in chief the
presence of counsel. [Gamboa v. Cruz] confessor's guilt, it may nevertheless be
presented in evidence to impeach his
ii. Test of waiver of Miranda credit. The sheild provided by Miranda
rights cannot be perverted into a license to use
perjury by way of a defense, free from
What may be waived:
 the risk of confrontation w/ prior
the right to remain inconsistent utterance
silent and to counsel 2. In New York v. Quarles, the SC created a
but not the right to be "public safety" exception to the Miranda
given “Miranda rule. xxx. "There is public safety
warnings” exception to the requirement that
 It is important to distinguish bet. the waiver Miranda warnings be given before a
of rights and the waiver of warnings. The suspect's answers may be admitted in
first can be made provided that the waiver is evidence. The social cost is higher when
"voluntary, knowing and intelligent" but the the giving of warnings might deter
second cannot. As the warnings are the suspects from answering questions than

141
are necessary to avert an immediate In fine, a person suspected of having
threat to public safety. In such exigent committed a crime and subsequently charged
circumstances, police officers must not be with its commission in court, has the
made to choose bet. giving the warnings following rights in the matter of his testifying
at the risk that public safety will be or producing evidence, to wit:
endangered and withholding the warnings 1. BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT
at the risk that probative evidence will be (or with the public prosecutor, for
excluded. preliminary investigation), but after
3. Miranda rule not applicable to confessions having been taken into custody or
executed before January 17, 1973. otherwise deprived of his liberty in some
[Magtoto v. Manguera, 63 SCRA 4 significant way, and on being
(1975)] In this and other cases (People interrogated by the police: the continuing
v. Page, 77 SCRA 342 (1977), People v. right to remain silent and to counsel, and
Garcia, 96 SCRA 497 (1980), and People to be informed thereof, not to be
v. Ribadajo, 142 SCRA 637 (1986)), the subjected to force, violence, threat,
SC ruled that the Miranda rule applies intimidation or any other means which
only to confessions obtained after vitiates the free will; and to have
January 17, 1973, the date of effectivity evidence obtained in violation of these
of the 1973 Constitution. Confessions rights rejected; and
obtained prior to January 17, 1973 2. AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT
without the reading of the Miranda rights, a) to refuse to be a witness;
so long as otherwise voluntary, are b) not to have any prejudice
admissible in evidence, even if they are whatsoever result to him by such
actually used after January 17, 1973. refusal;
4. Not applicable to res gestae statements c) to testify in his own behalf, subject to
[People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111 (1988)] cross-examination by the
5. Not applicable to statements given in prosecution;
administrative investigations [People v. d) WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to
Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)] answer a specific question which
tends to incriminate him for some
iii. Privilege against self- crime other than that for which he is
incrimination then prosecuted.
 The first right, against self-incrimination,  Signing receipts not

mentioned in Section 20, Article IV of the self-incriminatory
1973 Constitution, is accorded to every  The receipts for seized items are mandatory
person who gives evidence, whether on the part of apprehending and seizing
voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, police officers. They are merely intended to
in any civil, criminal, or administrative show that the items were taken from the
proceeding. The right is NOT to "be accused. [People v. Boholst 152 SCRA 263
compelled to be a witness against himself." (1987)]
It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer
incriminating questions and not a prohibition iv. Rights against double
of inquiry." It simply secures to a witness, jeopardy
whether he be a party or not, the right to  No person can be prosecuted twice for the
refuse to answer any particular incriminatory same offense. However, this preclude
question, i.e., one the answer to which has a prosecution for two different offenses arising
tendency to incriminate him for some crime. from the same act
However, the right can be claimed only when  This right prohibits the prosecution again of
the specific question, incriminatory in any person for a crime of which he has been
character, is actually put to the witness. It previously been acquitted.
cannot be claimed at any other time. It does  When is 2nd prosecution allowed?
not give a witness the right to disregard a (1) supervening
subpoena, to decline to appear before the death
court at the time appointed. (2) unjustified
 The right against self-incrimination is not self- dismissal
executing or automatically operational. It (3) dismissal on
must be claimed. It follows that the right motion to quash
may be waived, expressly, or impliedly, as by (4) absence of
a failure to claim it at the appropriate time. jurisdiction
 Rights of Defendant in Criminal Case As  When is 2nd prosecution prohibited:
Regards Giving of Testimony (1) dismissal on demurrer

142
(2) prosecution for the same act not be impaired even when the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
1. Prosecution for required.
supervening death
even after earlier  Application for bail
conviction for moots habeas corpus
physical injuries
 When after the 1st prosecution a new fact  Bail v. Habeas Corpus
supervenes for which the defendant is
responsible, which changes the character of Bail Habeas corpus
the offense, and, together with the facts In the case of bail, In habeas corpus, the
existing at the time, constitute a new and there is an implicit assumption is precisely
distinct offense, the accused could not be said recognition that the that the arrest and
to be in 2nd jeopardy in indicted for the new arrest and detention, detention are illegal, so
offense [Melo v. People, 85 Phil 766 (1950)] are valid, or that even that
if they were initially
2. Retrial after illegal, such illegality
unjustified dismissal was cured by the
allowed subsequent filing of a
 If dismissal was void for having been issued case in court.
without legal basis, the acquittal bought The prayer in bail is the prayer is to be
about by the dismissal is also void. Hence, no that one be released released permanently
jeopardy can attach from such acquittal temporarily from such from such illegal
[People v. Jardin] valid detention, and detention.
this can be made
3. Double jeopardy for anytime after arrest.
same act The Constitution now When the privilege of
 The constitutional protection against double provides, overruling the writ is suspended,
jeopardy is available although the prior Morales v. Enrile, that the arrest and
offense charged under an ordinance be the suspension of the detention remain
different from the offense charged privilege of the writ illegal, but the remedy
subsequently under a national statute, does not carry with it afforded by law to the
provided that both offenses spring from the the suspension of the victim is not available.
same set of acts. [People v. Relova] right to bail. Under the 1987
Constitution, though
4. Dismissal on motion the effect of the
to quash prevents suspension has been
jeopardy considerably lessened
 The dismissal on motion to quash does not to the need to file a
amount to an acquittal on the merits, from a case within 72 hours
legal standpoint, the defendant is deemed as from the illegal arrest,
not having been charged with the commission otherwise the detainee
of any offense whatsoever under the is to be released.
defective information.
 The conduct of petitioner in applying for bail
5. Double jeopardy after indicated that he had waived his objection
dismissal on demurrer whatever defect, if any, in the preliminary
examination conducted by respondent judge
6. Absence of [Luna v. Plaza]
jurisdiction prevents
jeopardy
 Meaning of capital
v. Right to bail offense
 An offense which, under the law existing at
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those the time of its commission, and at the time of
charged with offenses punishable by the application to be admitted to bail, may be
reclusion perpetua when the evidence of punished by death (Sec. 5 Rule 114 of the
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, ROC)
be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be  The capital nature of an offense is determined
released on recognizance as may be by the penalty prescribed by law.
provided by law. the right to bail shall

143
 Generally, bail is a matter of right before exercised in the light of
conviction, unless the accused is charged with a summary of the
a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is evidence presented by
strong. [Bravo, Jr. v. Bravo] the prosecution. Thus,
the order granting or
 Restriction of refusing bail must
provisional liberty as contain a summary of
bail the evidence for the
prosecution followed by
Art. III, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of the conclusion on
changing the same within the limits whether or not the
prescribed by law shall not be impaired evidence of guilt is
except upon lawful order of the court. strong.
Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of  When right may not
national security, public safety, or public be invoked
health, as may be provided by law.  The only time bail may be denied is when (a)
the offense is punishable by reclusion
 In Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, 142 SCRA perpetua, and (b) the evidence of guilt is
149 (1986), the SC disallowed a person strong.
released on bail to travel abroad for a  With the abolition of the death penalty (III,
business trip. The Court gave 2 reasons why 20), and the automatic commutation of a
bail operates only within the country. death sentence to reclusion perpetua, it is
One, the accused may be placed beyond contended that when the 1987 Constitution
the jurisdiction of the court if he were allowed denies the right to bail in offenses punishable
to leave the Philippines without sufficient by reclusion perpetua, it is meant to apply
reason, thus affecting one of the conditions in only to those crimes which were once
the grant of bail, namely to have the accused punishable by death. For if it includeds even
available whenever the court requires his those crimes which before and now are really
presence. punishable by reclusion perpetua, it would go
Two, implicit in the bail is the agreement against the very spirit of the Constitution.
between the State and the surety that the
State will do nothing to make it difficult for  Standards for fixing
the surety to arrest the defendant upon order bail
of the court. If the court thus allows his to
leave, then the State loses its right to order Rule 114, Sec. 6. Amount of bail;
the forfeiture of the bond because it itself has guidelines.-- The judge who issed the
breached its obligation to the surety. warrant or granted the application shall fix
a reasonable amount of bail considering
 When Right may be primarily, but not limited to the following
invoked guidelines:
 The right to bail is available from the very (a) Financial ability of the accused to
moment of arrest (which may be before or give bail;
after the filing of formal charges in court) up (b) Nature and circumstances of the
to the time of conviction by final judgement offense;
(which means after appeal). (c) Penalty of the offense charged;
 No charge need be filed formally before one (d) Character and reputation of the
can file for bail, so long as one is under accused;
arrest. [Heras Teehankee v. Rovica. 75 (e) Age and health of the accused;
Phil.634 (1945)] (f) The weight of the evidence
against the accused;
 When bail is a matter of right, when it is a (g) Probability of the accused
matter of discretion appearing in trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds;
Matter of right Matter of discretion (i) The fact that accused was a
Bail is a matter of right in case the evidence of fugitive from justice when arrested;
in all cases not guilt is strong. In such and
punishable by reclusion a case, according to (j) The pendency of other cases in
perpetua. People v. San Diego, 26 which the accused is under bond.
SCRA 522 (1966), the Excessive bail shall not be required.
court's discretion to
grant bail must be

144
 Where the right to bail exists, it should not be process, not be executive or military process.
rendered nugatory be requiring a sum that is [Olaguer v. military Commission no. 34]
excessive, otherwise, it becomes "a promise
to the ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing
illusion like a munificent bequest in a 2. Presumption of innocence
pauper's will" (Jackson). [De la Camara v.  In People v. Dramavo, 42 SCRA 69 (1971),
Enage, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)] the SC noted that the requirement of proof
 Guidelines in fixing the amount of bail: beyond reasonable doubt is a necessary
[Villasenor v. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 (1967), corollary of the constitutional right to be
later contained in sec. 6 of Rule 114] presumed innocent.
1. Ability of the accused to give the bail.  In Igot v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980), a
2. Nature of the offense. law disqualifying candidates charged with
3. Penalty for the offense charged. national security offences was struck down as
4. Character and reputation of the accused unconstitutional, for violating the
5. Health of the accused. presumption against innocence.
6. Character and strength of the evidence.  In Alejandro v. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 (1980),
7. Probability of the accused appearing in a judge who allowed the accused to present
trial. his evidence ahead of the prosecution, over
8. Forfeiture of other bonds. the objection of the prosecution, after the
9. Whether the accused was a fugitive from acused admitted the killing but invoked self-
justice when arrested. defense, was reversed by the SC on the
10. If the accused is under bond for ground that this change in the order of trial
appearance at trial in other cases. violated the constitutional presumption of
 Even when the accused has previously innocence which places the burden proof on
jumped bail, still he cannot be denied bail. the prosecution.
the remedy in this case is to increase the  This ruling was modified by Rule 119, sec. 3
amount of the bail (Siquiam v. Amparo). (e) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure
which now reverses the order of trial when
B. Rights during trial the defendant admits the act but invokes a
justifying or exempting circumstance.
Art. III, Sec. 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for 3. Right to be heard personally or
a criminal offense without due by counsel
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the  Adequate legal assistance shall not be denied
accused shall be presumed innocent to any person by reason of poverty (Art. III,
until the contrary is proved, and shall Sec. 11.) No matter how educated one may
enjoy the right to be heard by be, he may not know how to establish his
himself and counsel, to be informed innocence for the simple reason that he does
of the nature and cause of the not know the rules of evidence. [People v.
accusation against him, to have a Holgado, 85 Phil 752 (1952)]
speedy, impartial and public trial, to  Elements of the right to Counsel:
meet the witnesses face to face, and (1) the court is duty bound to inform the
to have compulsory process to defendant that he has a right to an
secure the attendance of witnesses attorney before he is arraigned;
and the production of evidence in his (2) the court must ask him if he desires the
behalf. However, after arraignment, services of counsel;
trial may proceed notwithstanding (3) if he does, and is unable to get one, the
the absence of the accused provided Court must give him to obtain one
that he has been duly notified and (4) or, if the accused wishes to procure
his failure to appear is unjustifiable. private counsel, the Court must give him
time to obtain one.
1. Right to due process (5) Where duly authorized “members of the
a. Impartial Tribunal bar are not available, the Court may
 See due process appoint any person resident of the
 Due process of law demands that in all province and of good repute for probity
criminal prosecutions (where the accused and ability.
stands to lose either his life or his liberty),  Where the appointed counsel could have
the accused shall be entitled to, among acted “in a double capacity” that is, if his
others, a trial. The trial contemplated by the actual interest were divided between the
due process clause is a trial by judicial prosecution and the defense, his appointment
constitutes reversible error.

145
 The arraignment in criminal prosecution is
precisely intended to comply with the right of
the accused to be informed of the nature and
4. Filing of demurrer to evidence is cause of the accusation against him. As
a waiver of right to be heard noted in Vera v. People, procedural due
process requires that the accused must be
 The right of the accused to present his informed why he is being prosecuted and
evidence is a constitutional right which what charge he must meet.
cannot be defeated by the dismissal of the
motion of demurrer [Abriol v. Homeres, 84 5. Right to speedy, impartial and
Phil 525, (1949)] public trial
 But Rule 119, sec. 5 of the 1985 Rules of
Criminal Procedure modified this ruling by a. Speedy
now providing that when at the end of the  The right to a speedy trial means one that is
presentation of evidence by the prosecution free from vexatious and oppressive delays.
the defense moves to quash the information, Its objective is to free the innocent person
the filing of such motion to quash is from anxiety and expense of a court
equivalent to a "waiver" of the right to litigation, or otherwise, to have his guilt
present evidence. determined within the shortest possible time,
 If the motion is denied, the court will no compatible with the presentation and
longer receive the evidence of the defense consideration of whatever legitimate defense
but instead proceed with the judgment on the the accused may interpose.
basis solely of the evidence of the  While reasonable delay may be allowed as
prosecution. This is not unconstitutional so determined on a case to case basis, an
long as it is made clear to the accused that if unreasonable delay on the part of the
he moves to demur to the evidence, he can prosecution to present its case violates the
no longer present his evidence. Also it does right of the accused to a speedy trial.
not follow that just because the demurrer is  The remedy of the accused in this case is
denied, then the accused would be convicted, habeas corpus if he has been restrained of his
in view of the quantum of evidence required liberty, or certiorari, prohibition or mandamus
to sustain a conviction. for the final dismissal of the case; and
 If on the other hand, the motion is granted dismissal based on the denial of the right to
and the court agrees that the information or speedy trial amounts to an acquittal.
prosecution evidence is insufficient to form a [Acevedo v. Sarmiento, 36 SCRA 247 (1970)]
case, then the effect of the grant is an
acquittal, to which no appeal can be taken b. Public
anymore, said the SC in People v. Donesa, 49
SCRA 281 (1973).  A public trial does not require that the entire
public can witness the trial. It is enough if it
Rule 119, Sec. 15. Demurrer to is conducted at a place where one's relatives
evidence.-- After the prosecution has and friends can be accommodated and the
rested its case, the court may dismiss the public may know what is going on.
case on the ground of insufficiency of  The right is not absolute. The court can
evidence: (1) ont its own intitiative order the public out of the trial room in the
after givint the prosecution an interest of morality and order.
opportunity to be heard; or (2) on
motion of the accused filed with proper c. Impartial trial
leave of court.
If the court denies the motion for  One aspect of an impartial trial is a neutral
dismissal, the accused may adduce magistrate who exercises cold impartiality.
evidence in his defense. When the  In Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), it
accused files such motion to dismiss was held that a town mayor who was paid on
without express leave of court, he waives the basis of the fine he imposes for every
the right to present evidence and submits conviction for violation of the drinking laws,
the case for judgment on the basis of the could not be an impartial judge. Under such
evidence for the prosecution. (Rules of a situation, he would be interested in
Court.) convicting those he tries so he would earn
more.
a. Right to be informed of  In Olaguer v. Military Commission, 150 SCRA
nature and cause of 144 (1987), the SC held that a civilian cannot
accusation be tried by a military court (in connection
with the Light a Fire Movement) so long as

146
the civil courts are open and operating, even
during Martial Law.  The following are the rules:
1. Generally, the accused has the right to
be present at all stages the trial (from
6. Right to personal confrontation arraignment to rendition of judgment).
2. If the accused is in the custody of the
 The purpose of this right is to enable the law, his presence during the trial is a
accused to test the credibility of the witness. duty only if the court orders his presence
The best means of confrontation is the to enable the prosecution witnesses to
process of cross-examination. identify him. (People v. Salas, infra.
reiterating Aquino v. Military
7. Right to secure attendance of Commiission, infra. modifying People v.
witnesses Avancena, infra.)
3. Although the accused is not in the
 There are various means available to the custody of the law (and more so if he is
parties to compel the attendance of witnesses in the custody of the law), his presence is
and the production of documents and things required in the following cases:
needed in the prosecution or defense of a a) Arraignment, regardless of the
case in an adversarial manner: subpoena and offense;
subpoena duces tecum: depositions and b) Entering a plea, regardless of
other modes of discovery; perpetuation of whether the plea is guilty or not
testimonies. guilty.
c) Promulgation of judgment, except
8. Trial in absentia that when the judgment is for a light
 Although the right to be present is not explicit offense, he may be represented by
in the provision, it is inferrable from the his counsel or a personal emissary.
phrase "trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused" a. Arraignment
 This right to be present may, however, be
waived by the accused. Rule 115, sec, 1(c), Rule 116, Sec. 1. Arraignment and plea;
talks of 3 ways that the waiver may take how made.--
place: (a) express waiver pursuant to the xxx
stipulations set forth in his bail bond, unless (b) The accused must be present at the
his presence is specifically ordered by the arraignment and must personally
court for purposes of identification; (b) enter his plea. Both arraignment and
implied waiver when the accused without any plea shall be made of record, but a
justifiable cause is absent at the trial on a failure to enter of record shall not
particular date of which he had notice; and affect the validity of the
(c) implied waiver when the accused under proceedings.
custody who had been notified of the date of
trial escapes. b. During trial for identification
 The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are:
[People v. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)]  Under the 1973 Constitution, trial even of a
(i) the accused has been arraigned; capital crime may proceed notwithstanding
(ii) he was duly notified of the hearing; and the absence of the accused. Accused may
(iii) his failure to attend the trial is waive his right to be present during all the
unjustified. stages of the proceedings, except when he is
 People v. Salas, further ruled that trial in to be identified. [Aquino v. Military
absentia applies even to capital cases. Commission No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 (1975)]
 In People v. Prieto, 84 SCRA 198 (1978), the
SC ruled that trial in absentia does not justify
the accused to jump bail. Just because th c. Promulgation of sentence,
Constitution allows trial in absentia does not unless it is for a light offense,
mean that the accused is now free to waive in which case accused may
his right to be present during the trial. If he appear by counsel, or a
does, he runds the risk of having his bail representative (Rule 120,
bond forfeited. Sec. 6.)
 In trial in absentia accused waives the right
to present evidence and confront witnesses
[Gimenez v. Nazareno, 160 SCRA 1 (1988)]
9. When presence of accused a duty

147
 In Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners, 28
SCRA 344 (1969), the SC held that the
10. Privilege against self- privilege against self-incrimination extends to
incrimination administrative proceedings which possess a
criminal or penal aspect. In this case, it was
Art. III, Sec. 17. No person shall be held that a doctor who was being investigated
compelled to be a witness against by a medical board for alleged malpractice
himself. and would lose his license if found guilty,
could not be compelled to take the witness
 Any confession or admission obtained in stand without his consent.
violation of section 17 hereof shall be  The privilege was held to extend to fact-
inadmissible in evidence against him. [Art. finding investigation by an adhoc body. A
III, Sec. 12 (3)] person can be compelled to testify provided
he is given immunity co-extensive with the
privilege against self- incrimination [Galman
a. Scope: compulsory v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)]
testimonial self-incrimination
c. Use immunity v.
 The privilege covers only testimonial transactional immunity
incrimination obtained compulsorily. It refers
therefore to the use of the mental process  Immunity statutes may be generally classified
and the communicative faculties, and not to a into two: one, which grants "use immunity"
merely physical activity. If the act is physical and the other, which grants what is known as
or mechanical, the accused can be compelled "transactional immunity." The distinction
to allow or perform the act, and the result between the two is: "Use immunity" prohibits
can be used in evidence against him. use of a witness' compelled testimony and its
 Thus the accused can be required to allow a fruits in any manner in connection with the
sample of a substance taken from his body criminal prosecution of the witness. On the
(U.S. v. Tan Teh. 23, Phil. 145 (1912)). other hand, "transactional immunity" grants
 The accused can be ordered to expel the immunity to the witness from prosecution for
morphine from his mouth (U.S. v. Ong Sio an offense to which his compelled testimony
Hong 36 Phil 735, (1917)). relates. PD 1886, sec. 5 grants merely
 The accused can be made to take off her immunity from use of any statement given
garments and shoes and be photographed. before the Board, but not immunity from
(People v. Otadura, 96 Phil 244 (1950)). prosecution by reason or on the basis
 A woman accused of adultery can be thereof. [Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274
compelled to show her body for physical (1985)]
investigation to see if she is pregnant
(Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920)). Art. XIII, Sec. 18. The Commission on
Viewed against present standards, however, Human Rights shall have the following
it is possible that this method of determining powers and functions
pregnancy would violate due process as being xxx
too barbaric. (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to
 The taking of footprint sample to see if it any person whose testimony or
matches the ones found in the scene of the possession of documents or other
crime is allowed (People v. Salas and People evidence is necessary or convenient
v. Sara). to determine the truth in any
 However, making the accused take dictation investigation conducted by it or
to get a specimen of her handwriting is not under its authority.
allowed, for this involves the use of the
mental process. [Bermudez v. Castillo, 64 5, PD No. 1886
Phil. 485 (1937).] Sec. 5. No person shall be excused from
 Also requiring the accused to reenact the attending and tesfifying or from
crime is not allowed, for this also involves the producing books, records,
mental process. correpondence, documents, or other
evidence in obedience to a subpoena
b. Proceeding where available issued by the Board on the ground that
his testimony or the evidence required of
 The privilege is available in any proceedings, him may tend to incriminate him or
even outside the court, for they may subject him to penalty or forfeiture; but
eventually lead to a criminal prosecution. his testimony or any evidence produced
by him shall not be used against him in

148
connection with any transaction, matter  Transactional Immunity: In a transactional
or thing concerning which he is immunity, a person is given immunity from
compelled, after having invoked his prosecution of the crime in connection with
privilege against self-incrimination, to which he gave his testimony. The immunity
testify or produce evidence, except from is from the prosecution, not merely from the
prosecution and punishment for perjury use of the testimony. Thus, even if the guilt
committed in so testifying, nor shall he of the person testifying can be proven by
be excempt from demotion or removal independent means, he can not be
from office. prosecuted anymore.
 Use and Fruit Immunity: In a use and fruit d. Exclusionary rule

immunity, a person is exempted from the use
of his testimony as well as the leads (fruits) Art. III, Sec. 12.
that the testimony opened up in a criminal xxx
prosecution arising from what he testified on. (3) Any confession or admission
The immunity in this case is from the obtained in violation of this or
testimony given. Thus, if the state can Section 17 hereof shall be
procure evidence, independent of the inadmissible in evidence against him.
testimony and its fruits, it can prosecute the
person testifying nevertheless.
 The paradigmatic application of the
RA no. 1379 exclusionary rule is a traditionally coerced
Sec. 8. Protection against self- confession, and not so much on uncounselled
incrimination.-- Neither the respondent statement. A fortiori, testimony forced out of
nor any other person shall be excused a person cannot be used in evidence against
from attending and tesfifying or from that person.
producing books, papers,
correspondence, memoranda and other e. Effect of denial of privilege by
records on the ground that the testimony court
or evidence, documentary or otherwise,  When the privilege against self-incrimination
required of his may tend to incriminate is violated outside of court, say, by the
him or subject him to prosecution; but no police, then the testimony, as already noted,
individual shall be prosecuted criminally is not admissible under the exclusionary rule.
for or on account of any transaction,  When the privilege is violated by the court
matter or thing concerning which he is itself, that is, by the judge, the court is
compelled, after having claimed his ousted of its jurisdiction, all its proceedings
privilege against self-incrimination, to are null and void, and it is as if no judgment
testify or produce evidence, documentary has been rendered. [Chavez v. Court of
or otherwise, except that such individual Appeals, 34 SCRA 663 (1968)]
so testifying shall not be exempt from
prosecution and conviction for perjury or 11. Right to speedy disposition of
false testimony in so tesfifying or from cases
administrative proceedings.
Art. III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the
R.A. 6832 (Davide Commission.) right to a speedy disposition of their
Sec. 8. Immunity from Criminal cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
Prosecution.-- The Commission is administrative bodies.
authorized to grant immunity from
criminal prosecution to any person who Art. VIII, Sec. 15.
provides information or testifies in any (1) All cases or matters filed after the
investigation conducted by it where, upon effectivity of this Constitution must
its evaluation, such information or be decided or resolved within twenty-
testimony is necessary and vitalto the four months from the date of
investigation. The immunity thereby submission for the Supreme Court,
granted shall continue to protect the and, unless reduced by the Supreme
witness who repeats such testimony Court, twelve months for all lower
before the appropriate court when collegiate courts, and three months
required to do so by the latter. Should for all lower courts.
he refuse to repeat such testimony, the (2) A case or matter shall be deemed
immunity granted him shall cease. submitted for decision or resolution
upon the submission of the last
pleading, brief, or memorandum

149
required by the Rules of Court or by
the court itself.  Punishments are cruel when they involve
(3) Upon the expiration of the torture or a lingering death; but the
corresponding period, a certification punishment of death is not cruel, within the
to this effect signed by the Chief meaning of that word as used in the
Justice or the presiding judge shall constitution. Cruel implies something
forthwith be issued and a copy inhuman and barbarous, something more
thereof attached to the record of the than the mere extinguishment of life
case or matter, and served upon the [Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice]
parties. The certification shall state
why a decision or resolution has not a. Excessive fines and cruel
been rendered or issued within said punishments
period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the Art. III, Sec. 19. (1) Excessive fines shall
applicable mandatory period, the not be imposed. nor cruel, degrading or
court, without prejudice to such inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
responsibility as may have been shall the death penalty be imposed,
incurred in consequence thereof, unless for compelling reasons involving
shall decide or resolve the case or heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
matter submitted thereto for provides for it. Any death penalty
determination, without further delay. already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
Art. VII, Sec. 18.
xxx  In People v. dela Cruz, 92 Phil. 900 (1953) the
The Supreme Court may review, in an SC ruled that it was the form of punishment
appropriate proceeding filed by any as fixed in antiquity (pillory
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis desembowelment, etc.) and not its severity,
of the proclamation of martial law or the that constituted "cruel and unusual" penalty
suspension of the privilege of the writ or under the 1935 Constitution. Thus a
the extension thereof, and must disproportionate penalty (10 years
promulgate its decision within thirty days imprisonment for theft) is not cruel or
from its filing. unusual because it is only a matter of
severity of an acceptable form of punishment
Art. IX, A, Sec. 7. Each Commission shall (imprisonment).
decide by a majority vote of all its  The SC spoke in a different way in People v.
Members any case or matter brought Borja 91 SCRA 340 (1979), Borja was
before it within sixty days from the date sentenced and he served at the national
of its submision for decision or resolution. penitentiary for 20 years before the case
A case or matter is deemed submitted for came to the SC. The Court said that Borja
decision or resolution upon the filing of had been living in the shadow of death.
the last pleading, brief, or memorandum Although the sentence was initially valid, it
required by the rules of the Commission had become cruel by the lapse of time. And
or by the Commission itself. Unless yet, this was a form of penalty that was
otherwise provided by this Constitution or neither cruel nor unusual.
by law, any decision, order, or ruling of
each Commission may be brought to the b. Involuntary servitude
Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from Art. III, Sec. 18 (2) No involuntary
receipt of a copy thereof. sevitudes in any form shall exist, except
as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been convicted.
 The right to a speedy disposition of cases
complements the right to a speedy trial.  Denotes a condition of enforced, compulsory
After the case has been submitted for service of one to another, no matter what
decision, so that technically the trial stage is form such servitude may have been
terminated, the Constitution mandates that disguised.
the judicial, quasi- judicial or administrative  Exceptions to the rule on involuntary
body or tribunal must decide the case servitude:
consistent with the right of the accused to a (1) as punishment for crime
speedy disposition of his case. (2) personal military service or civil service in
the interest of national defense
12. Unreasonable punishments

150
(3) return to work order issued by the required at the time of the commission of the
Department of Labor offense in order to convict the defendant
 Assuming to regulate civil rights and
remedies only. In effect imposes penalty or
deprivation of a right for something which
c. Imprisonment for debt when done was lawful
 Deprives a person accused of a crime of some
Art. III, Sec. 20. No person shall be lawful protection to which he has become
imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a entitled, such as the protection of a former
poll tax. conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of
amnesty.
 However, a person may be imprisoned as a
penalty for a crime arising from a contractual Bill of Attainder
debt and imposed in a proper criminal  A "bill of attainder" is a law which substitutes
proceedings the legislative determination of guilt for a
judicial determination. Through a statute,
d. Secret detention places, the legislature finds individuals or groups
solitary, incommunicado guilty, without the benefit of being proven so
and other forms of in court.
detention and the use of  A bill of attainder is of two kinds: (i) bill of
substandard or attainder proper (legislative imposition of the
inadequate penal death penalty) and (ii) bill of pains and
facilities penalties (imposition of a lesser penalty).
 In People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972), the
Art. III, Sec. 12. xxx Anti-Subversion Law (RA 1700) which
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, declared the Communist Party of the
intimidation, or any other means Philippines a clear and present danger to
which vitiate the free will shall be Philippine security, and thus prohibited
used against him. Secret detention membership in such organization, was
places, solitary, incommunicado, or contended to be a bill of attainder. The SC,
other similar forms of detention are however, dismissed the contention, holding
prohibited. that although the law mentions the CPP in
particular, its purpose is not to define a crime
Id., Sec. 19. xxx but only to lay a basis or to justify the
(2) The employment of physical, legislative determination that membership in
psychological, or degrading punishment such organization is a crime because of the
against any prisoner or detainee or the clear and present danger to national security.
use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions
shall be dealt with by law. 14. Double jeopardy
Art. III, Sec. 21. No person shall be twice

e. Indefinite imprisonment put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a
13. Ex Post facto laws and bills of law and an ordinance, conviction or
attainder acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution for the same
Art. III, Sec 22. No ex post facto law or bill act.
of attainder shall be enacted
 See post-arrest rights of accused.
Ex-post facto law  Elements of double jeopardy, (Rule 117, Sec
 Makes an action done before the passing of 7; People v. Obsania, 23 SCRA 249 (1968):
the law and which was innocent when done (1)Court of competent jurisdiction;
criminal, and punishes such action; or (2)A Complaint or Information sufficient in
 Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than form and substance to sustain a
when it was committed; conviction;
 Changes the punishment and inflicts a (3)Arraignment and plea by the Accused;
greater punishment than the law annexed to (4)Conviction, acquittal, or dismissal of the
the crime when it was committed case without the express consent, of the
 Alters the legal rules of evidence and receives accused.
less or different testimony than the law  Subsequent prosecution is barred for the
following:

151
(1) Same offense
(2) Attempt of the same offense
(3) Frustration of the same offense
(4) Offense necessarily included in the 1st
offense (All the elements of the 2nd
constitute some of the elements of the
1st offense)
(5) Offense that necessarily includes the 1st
offense (All the elements of the 1st
constitute some of the elements of the
2nd offense)
Exceptions to no. 5:
(1) The graver offense developed die to
"supervening facts" arising from the
same act or omission constituting the
former charged.
(2) The facts constituting the graver
charge became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the
former complaint or information.
(3) The plea of guilty to the lesser
offense was made without the
consent of the fiscal and the offended
party.
 When defense of double jeopardy
available.--
(1) Dismissal based on isufficiency of
evidence;
(2) dismissal bec. of denial of accused's right
to speedy trial;
(4) accused is discharged to be a state
witness.
 When defense of double jeopardy not
available.-- When the case is dismissed
other than on the merits upon motion of the
accused personally, or through counsel, such
dismissal is regarded as w/ express consent
of the accused, who is therefore deemed to
have waived the right to plea double
jeopardy.
15. privilege of writ of habeas corpus

 supra
C. Post Trial
1. Time to render judgment
directory
 The rendition of the judgment refers to the
filing of the signed decision with the clerk of
court. [Marcelino v. Cruz]
2. Right to appeal
 Appeal is not a matter of right in civil cases
but subject to the sound discretion of the
Court, and denial may be had when applying
the law or when it is worthwhile, so as not to
clog the docket of the appellate court, which
is not so, for while the right to appeal is
statutory and not constitutional, once it is
granted by statute, denial would be a
violation of the Constitution [Reyes v. CA]


Constitutional Law 2: I. Fundamental Powers of The State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law 2: I. Fundamental Powers of The State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

116

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Article III, Sec. 9. Private property shall 4. Taking

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

6. Balancing of Factors Art. 354. Requirement of publicity.-- Every

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

c. Prayer and Bible-reading in a. Flag Statute

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

 In case of invasion or rebellion, when the

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

vi. Issuance of arrest  To be valid, a search warrant must be

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

 The first right, against self-incrimination,  Signing receipts not

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

9. When presence of accused a duty

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

 Use and Fruit Immunity: In a use and fruit d. Exclusionary rule

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

Art. III, Sec. 21. No person shall be twice

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

15. privilege of writ of habeas corpus

[Lorybeth_Baldrias.head] [Nayna_Malayang.deputy] [Rhudz_Raymundo.secretariat] [Dionne_Sanchez.acads]

You might also like