Anti Terror Law

Constitutional construction; Primary task.—The primary task in constitutional

construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of
the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution.
(J. M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Land Tenure Administration, No. L-21064. February 18,
1970)

(Aquino, Jr. vs Enrille, No. L-35546. September 17, 1974)

Same; Same; A continuing state of Communist rebellion exists in the Philippines.—The

suspension of the privilege of the writ was lifted on January 7, 1972, but soon
thereafter chaos engulfed the nation again. A large area of the country was in open
rebellion. The authority of the Government was frontally challenged by a coalition of
forces. It was against this backdrop of violence and anarchy that martial law was
proclaimed on September 21, 1972. Personally, I take notice of this condition, in
addition to what the Court has found in cases that have come to it for decision, and
there is no cogent reason for me to say as a matter of law that the President
exceeded his powers in declaring martial law. Nor do I believe that the Solicitor
General’s manifestation of May 13, 1974 to the effect that while on the whole the
military challenge to the Republic has been overcome there are still large areas of
conflict which warrant the continued imposition of martial law, can be satisfactory
controverted by the petitioners or by any perceptive observer of the national scene.
Same: Same; Central matter involved in the cases at bar is not merely liberty of
isolated individuals, but collective peace and security of whole nation.—I am not
insensitive to the plea made here in the name of individual liberty. But to
paraphrase Ex parte Moyer, if it were the liberty alone of the petitioner that is in
issue we would probably resolve the doubt in his favor and grant his application.
But the Solicitor General, who must be deemed to represent the President and the
Executive Department in these cases, has manifested that in the President’s
judgment peace and tranquility cannot be speedily restored in the country unless
the petitioners and others like them meantime remain in military custody. For,
indeed, the central matter involved is not merely the liberty of isolated individuals,
but the collective peace, tranquility and security of the entire nation.

The violation of human liberty is justified only if it is necessary to the defense of the
state.—The simplicity of constitutional fundamentalism may not suffice for the
complex problems of the day. Still the duty remains to assure that the supremacy of
the Constitution is upheld. Whether in good times or bad, it must be accorded the
utmost respect and deference. That is what constitutionalism connotes. It is its
distinctive characteristic. Greater restraints may of course be imposed. Detention, to
cite the obvious example, is not ruled out under martial law, but even the very
proclamation thereof is dependent on public safety making it imperative. The
powers, rather expansive, perhaps at times even latitudinarian, allowable the
administration under its aegis, with the consequent diminution of the sphere of
liberty, are justified only under the assumption that thereby the beleaguered state is
in a better position to protect, defend and preserve itself. With these habeas corpus
petitions precisely rendering peremptory action by this Court, there is the
opportunity for the assessment of liberty considered in a concrete social context.
With full appreciation then of the complexities of this era of turmoil and disquiet, it
can hopefully contribute to the delineation of constitutional boundaries. It may even
be able to demonstrate that law can be timeless and yet timely.

Tanada vs. Angara (GR 118295)

Unquestionably, the Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the

country from the rest of the world. In its Declaration of Principles and State Policies,
the Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as
part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation and amity, with all nations.” By the doctrine of incorporation,
the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which
are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. One of the oldest and most
fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda — international
agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty engagement is not a mere
moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties x x x. A state
which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its
legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of the
obligations undertaken.

(186 SCRA 217 )

Enrile vs. Salazar

Personal evaluation of report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor,

sufficient to determine probable cause.—It is also contended that the respondent
Judge issued the warrant for petitioner’s arrest without first personally determining
the existence of probable cause by examining under oath or affirmation the
complainant and his witnesses, in violation of Art. III, sec. 2, of the Constitution. This
Court has already ruled, however, that it is not the unavoidable duty of the judge to
make such a personal examination, it being sufficient that he follows established
procedure by personally evaluating the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the prosecutor. Petitioner claims that the warrant of arrest issued
barely one hour and twenty minutes after the case was raffled off to the respondent
Judge, which hardly gave the latter sufficient time to personally go over the
voluminous records of the preliminary investigation. Merely because said
respondent had what some might consider only a relatively brief period within
which to comply with that duty, gives no reason to assume that he had not, or could
not have, so complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome the
legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.

68 SCRA 99
Evangelista vs. Jarencio

 To quote from Chief Justice Warren, ‘the constitutional foundation underlying the
privilege is the respect a government x x x must accord to the dignity and integrity of
its citizens.’ ” and that “while earlier decisions stressed the principle
of humanity on which this right is predicated, precluding as it does all resort to
force or compulsion, whether physical or mental, current judicial opinion places
equal emphasis on its identification with the right to privacy. 

PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

By 
Atty. FLORIMOND C. ROUS
The testimony of the accused is, generally speaking, subject to the same rules and
principles as that of any other witness. He is presumed to be innocent until his guilt
is proven and in determining his guilt the whole evidence on record must be
considered. In determining his credibility his testimony, it is true, is to be
considered subject to the same qualification that he is interested in the outcome of
the trial and is testifying in his own behalf, but that alone is no reason for
disregarding it. (U.S. vs. De los Santos, 24 Phil. 329)
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed to overcome presumption of
innocence. (People vs. Reyes, 60 SCRA 126)
Guilt of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (People vs.
Maliwanag, 58 SCRA 323)
Only by proof beyond reasonable doubt, which requires moral certainty, may the
presumption of innocence be overcome. (People vs. Custodio, 47 SCRA 289; People
vs. Basuel, 47 SCRA 207)
Circumstances which cast grave doubt upon the guilt of the accused. (People vs.
Imperio, 44 SCRA 75)
To overcome presumption of innocence, the guilt of appellant must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, meaning the degree of proof which after investigation of
the whole record produces moral certainty in an unprejudiced mind of appellant’s
culpability. (People vs. Ramos, 41 SCRA 19; etc.)
The doctrine that conclusions of trial court on credibility of witnesses are not to be
disturbed, must bow to the rule that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. (People vs. Pagkaliwanagan, 36 SCRA 113)

By reasonable doubt is meant “doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole

proof and an inability after such investigation to let the mind rest easy upon
certainty of guilt.” (People vs. Alipia, 14 SCRA 297)

(b) Legal Pointers
When confronted with cases involving proof beyond reasonable doubt, the legal
practitioner should always bear in mind that the accused is always presumed
innocent unless there is proof to the contrary (Article IV, Sec. 19, 1973 Constitution),
and in a criminal case, the defendant is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is
shown beyond a reasonable doubt (Rule 133, Section 2, Revised Rules of Court)

The rule that in all criminal prosecutions the guilt of the accused must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt is based obviously upon broad principles
of humanity which forbid the infliction of punishment until the commission of the
crime is established to a reasonable certainty. (State vs. Bartlett, 43 N.H. 224, 80 Am.
Dec. 154)
The rule requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt applies to all crimes,
regardless of their character or the degree of the crimes. To sustain a criminal
conviction for the violation of a penal statute, it is not enough for the state to show
that the prisoner indicted has violated the spirit of the statute, the evidence must
show beyond a reasonable doubt that he has offended against the letter of the law.
(20 Am. Jur. 1108-1109)

A FIRE IN OUR HEARTS*Address of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee at the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines Testimonial Dinner in honor of the Chief
Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court on July 24, 1986 at the
Manila Hotel Fiesta Pavilion. 145 SCRA xi,

Address of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
Testimonial Dinner in honor of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court on July 24, 1986 at the Manila Hotel Fiesta Pavilion.

For many years we were a nation lost in the woods of history. In place of truth
reigned falsehood, disinformation, outright deception and fraud. Justice, freedom,
equality became mere words used to cover the very crimes against human dignity
and the most basic human decency. Public office lost all concept of public trust and
public accountability—lost was the distinction between what belonged to the state
and what belonged to the servants of the state. They behaved as though they had
received the mandate of heaven to rule, rather than to serve, and no individual right,
freedom or liberty was large enough or precious enough not to be cast into the
sacrificial flames of the most capricious of all authoritarian gods—that of national
security. Every excess and abuse of power—every disregard of the sacredness of
human life and liberty—every corruption of public office—every suppression of free
expression—was premised on national security, even though it involved nothing
more than the authoritarian ruler’s personal and political security.

Non ex regulajus sumatur, sed ex jure quod est regula fiat “What is right,” said
Julius Paulus, the Roman jurist, “is not derived from the rule but the rule arises from
our knowledge of what is right.”