Topic III. The Bill of Rights

Topic III.
The Bill of Rights (1987 Philippine Constitution)
Introduction
Among the changes brought about by the period of Enlightenment was the shift of power from
the crown to the individual. The long reign of monarchs came to an end, and the rule of the
people became the standard. The government, while still the repository of power, was limited to
its role as the protector of the people and the guardian of rights. Liberalism, which took its cue
from individualism, advocated the principle of egalitarianism, in which men, regardless of their
status in life, are regarded as equals in terms of rights before the law. Modern democracies are
founded on these liberal ideals, in that the heart of democratic objectives is the protection of
human dignity and respect for human rights.
Nonetheless, the government remains to be a powerful institution, capable of summoning the

military, evoking its past image as the uncontestable holder of sovereignty. In fact, republicanism
essentially requires delegation of powers to the government; that although the people remain to be
the sovereign, actual exercise of it is given to the government. Protection and service of the
people is the primal duty of the government, but be that as it may, the government is still the
single biggest institution that exercises sovereign powers.
More so, it possesses the inherent powers which the Constitution itself does not confer. Every
government for it to exist exercises police power, power of eminent domain, and power of
taxation. A constitution does not grant such powers to the government; a constitution can only
define and delimit them and allocate their exercise among various government agencies. These
are awesome powers, which, if left uncheck, may seriously restrict and jeopardize the freedom of
individuals. Thus, it is inbuilt in every democratic constitution to meticulously include provisions
guaranteeing the rights of the individuals and those restricting the powers of the government. This
is to prevent the tragedy that the government created by the people will in turn be the instrument
to enslave and abuse them.
Learning Outcomes
At the end of this topic, the students will be able to:
1. Assess the significance of the bill of rights defined under the 1987 Philippine constitution in
relation to their future profession as criminologists.
2. Apply the concepts of the bill of rights in their future profession as would be peace officers
and guardians of justice.
Topic Objectives
By the end of the topic, the students will be able to:
1. Apply the right to due process in the investigation of complaints against suspects/offenders
2. Recognize actions committed by police officers that manifest violation of the rights of suspects
or offenders against unreasonable searches and seizures and arrests.
3. Demonstrate the rights of persons under custodial investigation, the rights of the accused, right
against self-incrimination in the conduct criminal investigation.
Topic Content
Lesson I. Concept of a Bill of Rights
1
Concept
It is a declaration and enumeration of a person’s rights and privileges which the constitution is
designed to protect against the violation by the government, or by individual or group of
individuals. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the
state.
The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an indispensable part of the Constitution. In fact, it is one of the
most important parts of the fundamental law since it aims at balancing the power of the
government and the various freedoms of the individual. As will be seen below, the Bill of Rights
provide for two things: first, restrictions directed against the state, and, second, explicit
identification and limitation of rights of the individuals. On the one hand, the government
exercises its tremendous powers, but its powers are limited by the Constitution. On the other
hand, the individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but subject also to limitations in recognition
of the powers of the government.
What balances the two (power and freedom) are the limitations provided by the Constitution,
which limitations are by nature compromises or solutions to situations resulting from the
overlapping or conflict of the two realms. In a clear perspective, while the government has the
inherent authority to take and convert a property for public use, and the people on the other have
the right to hold their private property, the constitution, contemplating a case of overlap or
conflict between the two, compromises both by prescribing that the government gives just
compensation to the private owner who in turn must surrender his property.
Government power vs. Individual freedom

From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights refers to the declaration
and enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights of a person with the primary
purpose of safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as well as by individuals
and group of individuals. It includes the protection of the following constitutional rights:
a. Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by virtue of their citizenship, such as
freedom to contract, right to property, and marriage among others;
b. Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of the individual vis-à-vis the
administration of the government, such as right of suffrage right to hold office, and right to
petition for redress of wrong;
c. Socio-economic rights or those which ensure the well-being and economic security of an
individual; and
d. Rights of the accused which refer to protections given to the person of an accused in any
criminal case.
It must be noted that the restriction provided in the Bill of Rights is directed against the
government, so that it does not govern private relations. As far as the Constitution is concerned,
Article III can be invoked only against the government. Nonetheless, with the inclusion of almost
all the constitutional rights in Article 32 of the Civil Code, the same may now be invoked in civil
cases involving relations between private persons. Thus, the definition above indicates that the
bill of rights is a safeguard not just against the abuses of the government but also of individuals or
group of individuals.
2
Lesson II. The Provisions of the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution
I. Right to due process and equal protection (Section 1) Constitutional

Provision.
Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.” The provision speaks of “due process” and “equal protection.”
Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons, whether citizens or aliens, natural or
juridical.
Life, Liberty, and Property
Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal protection cover the right to life,
liberty, and property. It is important therefore to know the meaning of the three.
1. Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers not just to physical safety but also
to the importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right to one’s
limbs against physical harm, and, equally important, right to a good quality of life. Life means
something more than mere animal existence.
2. Liberty. It includes “negative” and “positive” freedom. Negative freedom means freedom
from, or absence of, physical constraints, while positive freedom means freedom to exercise
one’s faculties. Right to liberty therefore includes the two aspects of freedom and it cannot be
dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint or servitude, but is deemed to embrace the
right of man to enjoy his God-given faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he
will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any vocation, and enter into
contracts.
3. Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing, property is
anything capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a right, it refers to right
to own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The constitution uses property in the sense
of right, and as such it includes, among others, right to work, one’s employment, profession,
trade, and other vested rights. It is important to note however that privileges like licenses are
not protected property; but they may evolve in a protected right if much is invested in them as
means of livelihood. Public office is not also a property; but to the extent that security of
tenure cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a limited sense analogous to
property.
Due Process
Meaning
Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee against hasty and unsupported deprivation of
some person’s life, liberty, or property by the government. While is it true that the state can
deprive its citizens of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so in observance of due process of
law. This right is “the embodiment of the supporting idea of fair play” and its essence is that it is
“a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only
after trial.”
When Invoked?
3
The right is invoked when the act of the government is arbitrary, oppressive, whimsical, or
unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts of executive and legislative department.
Two aspects of due process

Due process of law has two aspects: procedural and substantive. Basically, the procedural aspect
involves the method or manner by which the law is enforced, while the substantive aspect
involves the law itself which must be fair, reasonable, and just.
1. Procedural due process requires, essentially, the opportunity to be heard in which every citizen
is given the chance to defend himself or explain his side through the protection of general rules of
procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process are:

a. An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject matter;
b. Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the property which is the subject of
the proceeding;
c. Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement on notice and hearing); and
d. Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Notice and opportunity to be heard

What matters in procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard.
a.Notice. This is an essential element of procedural due process, most especially in judicial
proceedings, because without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will
not bind the defendant. The purpose of the notice is to inform the defendant of the nature and
character of the case filed against him, and more importantly, to give him a fair opportunity to
prepare his defense. Nevertheless, the notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.
b. Opportunity to be heard. It must be emphasized that what is required is not “actual”

hearing but a real “opportunity” to be heard. If, for instance, a person fails to actually appear in
a hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a decision rendered by the court is not
in violation of due process. Moreover, strict observance of the rule is not necessary, especially
in administrative cases. In fact, in administrative proceedings, notice and hearing may be
dispensed with for public need or for practical reasons. It is also sufficient that subsequent
hearing is held if the same was not previously satisfied.
2. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid, fair, reasonable, and just. For the
law to be fair and reasonable it must have a valid objective which is pursued in a lawful manner.
The objective of the government is valid when it pertains to the interest of the general public, as
distinguished from those of a particular class. The manner of pursuing the objective is lawful if
the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.
Equal Protection
Meaning
The guarantee of equal protection means that “no person or class of persons shall be deprived of
the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the same
place and in like circumstances.” It means that “all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.” The guarantee does not
4
provide absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate operation on persons. Persons or things that
are differently situated may thus be treated differently. Equality only applies among equals. What
is prohibited by the guarantee is the discriminatory legislation which treats differently or favors
others when both are similarly situated.
Purpose
The purpose of the guarantee is to prohibit hostile discrimination or undue favor to anyone, or
giving special privilege when it is not reasonable or justified.
Reasonable Classification
Well established is the rule that reasonable classification does not violate the guarantee, provided
that the classification has the following requisites: a. It must be based upon substantial
distinctions;
b. It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
c. It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
d. It must apply equally to all members of the class.
Discrimination against Aliens.

Although the protection extends to both citizens and aliens, discrimination against aliens may be
held valid under certain circumstances. For example, citizens by virtue of their membership to the
political community possess complete civil and political rights, while aliens do not have complete
political rights. The former can vote during elections, run for public office, own real property,
while aliens cannot.
II. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures and arrests. (Section 2)
Constitutional Provision
Section 2, Article III states that people have the inviolable right to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose, and a search warrant or warrant of arrest can only be issued upon showing of a
probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Scope
The protection extends to all persons, aliens or citizens, natural or juridical. It is a personal right
which may be invoked or waived by the person directly affected against unreasonable arrests or
searches by the government and its agencies. It cannot, however, be invoked against private
individuals.
Warrant of arrest and search warrant

Generally, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that before a
person is arrested or a personal property seized, it must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest
or a search warrant. The exceptions are in cases of valid warrantless arrests and searches.
A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court, issued in the name of the Philippines,
authorizing a peace officer to arrest a person, and put him under the custody of the court.
5
A search warrant is a written order of the court, authorizing or directing a peace officer to search
a specific location, house, or other premises for a personal property allegedly used in a crime or
may be utilized as a tool to prove a crime.
Requisites of a valid warrant

Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is reasonable when it is covered by a valid warrant, it is
thus important to know the requisites a valid warrant. The Court enumerates the requisites as
follows:
a. It must be based upon a probable cause. Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connect with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched;
b. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. That the judge “personally”
determines the probable cause means that “he personally evaluates the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the public prosecutor regarding the existence of the
probable cause,” or, if the same is insufficient, “require additional evidence to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.” Thus, personal determination
does not mean that he must personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. He may rely
on reports and evidence submitted to him, on the basis of which he determines the existence of
probable cause and orders the issuance of warrant. What is prohibited is to rely solely on the
recommendation of the prosecutors without doing any determination on his own;
c. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant
and the witness he may produce; and
d. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The property subject to search includes those used in the commission of the offense, stolen or
embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or used or intended to be used in the
commission of the offense.
General warrants are those that do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the
persons or things to be seized. They are unconstitutional because the sanctity of the domicile and
privacy of communication and correspondence of individuals are placed at the mercy, caprice,
and passion of peace officers.
Warrantless arrest
When warrantless arrest valid.
Arrest without warrant is strictly construed as an exception to the general rule requiring warrant.
Under the Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person even without a
warrant under the following instances:
a.In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b. Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
6
c.Arrest of escaped prisoners. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment of place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Citizen Arrest
It must be noted that a lawful warrantless arrest may be performed not just by a peace officer but
also by a civilian. This is permitted under the rules under limited circumstances, and it is called
citizen arrest.
In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an offense is committed “in the presence” of the arresting
officer or civilian. For example, if a person pushes illegal drugs in the presence of a police
officer, the latter can arrest the pusher even without a warrant of arrest because an offense is
actually being committed in his presence. The same principle underlies the “buy-bust” or
“entrapment” operations conducted by police officers in catching law offenders. In one case, the
Court held that rebellion is a continuing offense, and so the rebel may be arrested anytime even
without a warrant because he is deemed to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting
officer or person.
Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the arresting officer or civilian if the warrantless
arrest is performed outside the above rules.
Warrantless Searches
A search is valid even without a warrant, under the following instances:
a. Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. When a valid arrest precedes the search or
contemporaneous with it, and the search is limited to the immediate vicinity of the place of
arrest, for purposes of securing dangerous objects and effects of the crime;
b. Consented search. When the right has been voluntarily waived by person who has a right,
aware of such right, and has an actual intention to relinquish such right;
c. Plainview search. When prohibited articles are within the sight of an officer who has the right
to be in a position to that view;
d. Visual search at checkpoints. When the search at stationary checkpoints is pre-announced, and
limited to a visual search only;
e. Terry search. When a police officer, in interest of effective crime prevention, performs a “stop-
and-frisk” or patting of outer clothing for dangerous weapons, after observing a suspicious
conduct on the part of a citizen;
f. Search of moving vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts for violation of laws;
g. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building
regulations; and
h. Search in airports and other populous places.
Administrative Searches and Arrests

In cases of deportation, where the State expels an undesirable alien from its territory, court
intervention and proceedings are not required. Nonetheless, the alien’s constitutional rights are
still preserved because they are given fair trial and administrative due process.
Important to note is that no probable cause is required in deportation proceedings. It is the

Commissioner of Immigration or any officer designated by him, not the judge, who issues the
7
administrative warrant, after determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a
ground for deportation.
III. Rights to privacy (Section 3)

Constitutional Provisions
The right to privacy is scattered throughout the Bill of Rights. The right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, in Section 2, is an expression of this right, inasmuch as it is based on the
sacred right to be secure in the privacy of one’s person, house, paper, and effects. Due process of
law, in Section 1, also provides the same privacy security by protecting an individual’s life,
liberty, and property against undue interference by the government. Section 6 speaks of the right
to establish and change one’s home which likewise deals with the privacy and comfort of one’s
home. The right to form unions or associations under Section 8, and the right against self-
incrimination under Section 17 are also privacy rights which need protection against undue
intrusion by the government.
Nonetheless, the word “privacy” is expressly provided in Section 3(1), Article III, which states
that “the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful
order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.”
Privacy of communication and correspondence is also an expression of the right to privacy.
Statutory Reinforcements.
To reinforce these constitutional provisions, the Congress has passed laws that recognize and
protect the zones of privacy of an individual. These laws include:
a. The Civil Code of the Philippines;
b. The Revised Penal Code;
c. Anti-Wire Tapping Act;
d. The Secrecy of Bank Deposits; and
e. Intellectual Property Code.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

Subject of the Right
Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of search. However the subject of
search is not a tangible object but an intangible one, such as telephone calls, text messages,
letters, and the like. These forms of communication and correspondence may be intruded into by
means of wiretapping or other means of electronic eavesdropping. What the constitution prohibits
is government intrusion, by means of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping, into the privacy of
communication without a lawful court order or when public safety and order does not demand.
Rule
As a rule, the government cannot intrude into the privacy of communication and correspondence.
The exceptions are:
(a) when the court allows the intrusion, and
(b) when public safety and order so demands.
8
Anti-Wiretapping Act
R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as a reinforcement of privacy of communication, is a
law which prohibits a person not authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to
wiretap or use any devise to secretly overhear, intercept, record, or communicate the content of
the said communication to any person.
Wiretapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or criminal proceedings involving
specified offenses principally affecting national security, and only with previous authorization by
the court which must comply with the requirements of a warrant. The authority is effective only
for sixty days.
Writ of Habeas Data

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty,
or security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
Exclusionary Rule
The exclusionary rule states that any evidence unlawfully obtained is inadmissible as evidence
before the courts. This is based on Section 3(2), Article III which provides that any evidence
obtained in violation of right to privacy of communication or right to due process of law shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The same rule is applied to any evidence taken in
violate of R.A. 4200.
The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The name of the doctrine
metaphorically describes what happens to an “evidence” (fruit) taken through “unlawful means”
(poisonous tree). The evidence-fruit is discarded because it may infect or destroy the integrity of
the case and forfeit the purpose of the law.
IV. Freedom of Speech, Expression and of the Press (section 4) Constitutional

Provision.
Section 4, Article III provides that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.” The right underscores tolerance to different views and
thoughts.
Meaning and Scope

Aspects of the Right.
Freedom of expression has four aspects, to wit:
a. freedom of speech;
b. freedom of expression;
c. freedom of the press; and
d. freedom of assembly.
9
Nonetheless, the scope of the protection extends to right to form associations or societies not
contrary to law, right to access to information on matters of public concern, and freedom of
religion. These are all crucial to the advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of an
“uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in the free market of ideas.”
Importance of the Right.

Freedom of expression is accorded the highest protection in the Bill of Rights since it is
indispensable to the preservation of liberty and democracy. Thus, religious, political, academic,
artistic, and commercial speeches are protected by the constitutional guarantee.
Limitation.
The right is not absolute. It must be exercised within the bounds of law, morals, public policy and
public order, and with due regard for others’ rights. Thus, obscene, libelous, and slanderous
speeches are not protected by the guarantee. So are seditious and fighting words that advocate
imminent lawless conduct.
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment

Freedom of speech and of the press has two aspects:
a. freedom from prior restraint, and
b. freedom from subsequent punishment.
Although the system of prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional, it is allowed under the
following instances:
a. Undue utterances in time of war;
b. Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of military information;
c. Obscene publication; and
d. Inciting to rebellion.
On the other hand, freedom from subsequent punishment refers to the assurance that citizens can
speak and air out their opinions without fear of vengeance by the government. Subsequent
chastisement has the effect of unduly curtailing expression, and thus freedom therefrom is
essential to the freedom of speech and the press. The State, however, can validly impose
subsequent punishment under the following instances:
a. Libel which is the most common form of subsequent punishment, refers to a public and
malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act or omission,
status tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or
blacken the memory of one who is dead;
b. Obscenity which includes works (taken as a whole) appealing to prurient interest or
depicting sexual conduct as defined by law or lacking of serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value;
c. Criticism of official conduct made with actual malice; and
d. School articles which materially disrupt class work or involves substantial disorder or
invasion of rights of others.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech

Two kinds of restrictions
The State may impose two kinds of restrictions on speech under a system of prior restraint:
10
1. Content-based restriction. The restriction is content-based when restriction is directed to the
speech itself. An example of a content-based restriction is when the government prohibits
speeches against the President, in which case the restriction is on the speech itself
2. Content-neutral restriction. The restriction is content-neutral when it is directed, not to the
speech itself, but to the incidents (such as time, place, or manner) of the speech.. An
example of a content-neutral restriction is when the government regulates the manner of
posting campaign advertisements, in which case the restriction is on the manner the right is
made.
Regulations on Mass Media

Mass media may be broadcast media (e.g. television and radio) or print media (e.g. newspaper).
The two have a substantial difference in that broadcast media has a uniquely pervasive presence
in the lives of Filipinos. Thus, freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser
than the freedom accorded to the print media; greater regulation is imposed over broadcast media
because of its greater tendency to invade the privacy of everyone than print media.
Commercial Speech
Meaning
Commercial speech is one that proposes a commercial transaction done in behalf of a company or
individual for purposes of profit. It is a protected speech for as long as it is not false or misleading
and does not propose an illegal transaction. But if the government has a substantial interest to
protect, even a truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated. Private speech is
accorded more freedom and protection than commercial speech.
V. Freedom of Religion (Section 5) Constitutional

Provision.
Section 5, Article III provides that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion

1. Freedom to believe – This aspect is in the realm of the mind, and as such it is absolute,
since the State cannot control the mind of the citizen. Thus, every person has the absolute right to
believe (or not to believe) in anything whatsoever without any possible external restriction by the
government. The aspect refers to the externalization of belief as it is now brought out from the
bosom of internal belief. Since it may affect peace, morals, public policy, and order, the
government may interfere or regulate such aspect of the right.
2. Freedom to act on one’s belief. This aspect provides the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
VI. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel (Section 6)

Section 6, Article III provides that “the liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall
the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
health, as may be provided by law.”
11
Freedom of Movement
Aspects of the Freedom of Movement:
1. Freedom to choose and change one’s domicile, and
2. Freedom to travel within and outside the country. A person’s place of abode or domicile is his
permanent residence.
Limitations
Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has limitations. Liberty of abode may be
impaired or restricted when there is a “lawful court order.” The right to travel may also be
restricted in interest of national security, public safety, or public health, or when a person is on
bail, or under a watch-list and hold departure order.
Right to return to one’s country

Although the right to return to one’s country is not among the rights expressly mentioned in the
Bill of Rights, it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the Philippines. It is a generally
accepted principle of international law, and as such it is part of the law of the land, pursuant to the
doctrine of incorporation. It is different from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
VII. Right to Information (Section 7) Constitutional Provision.

Section 7, Article III provides that “the right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law.”
Scope and Limitation.

The right guarantees access to official records for any lawful purpose. However, access may be
denied by the government if the information sought involves:
a. National security matters, military and diplomatic secrets;
b. Trade or industrial secrets;
c. Criminal matters; and
d. Other confidential information (such as inter-government exchanges prior to consultation
of
treaties and executive agreement, and privilege speech).
VIII. Right to form Associations (Section 8) Constitutional

provision.
Section 8, Article III provides that “the right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged.”
Who may exercise the right.

The right of association may be exercised by the employed or the unemployed and by those
employed in the government or in the private sector. It likewise embraces the right to form unions
both in the government and private sector. The right of civil servants to unionize is expressly
provided in Section 2(5), Article IX-B: “The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
12
government employees.” The right of labor in general to unionize is likewise provided in Section
3, Article XIII: “The State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law.”
IX. Right to just compensation of private property (section 9)

Constitutional provision
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Application
Republic Act No. 10752, also known as “The Right-of-Way Act,” which aims to facilitate the
acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) site for government infrastructure projects. In building new
roads and other infrastructure projects, the contentious issue of computing for the compensation
of real estate acquired for ROW sites is based on this constitutional provision.
These sites can be acquired by the government through different modes:
 by donation,
 negotiated sale,
 expropriation, and
 other modes of acquisition authorized by existing laws.
In negotiated sales, which are the most preferred mode, the Bureau of Internal Revenue zonal
value is no longer the basis for compensation. The offered compensation price is the sum of the
1) current market value of the land;
2) replacement cost of structures and improvements; and 3) current
market value of crops and trees in the property.
The appraisal to make a reasonable offer is to be done by government financial institution with
adequate experience in property appraisal, or an independent property appraiser accredited by the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), or a professional association of appraisers recognized by the
BSP. The law (Republic Act No. 10752) provides guidelines for expropriation proceedings (Sec.
7), as well as addresses Ecological and Environmental Concerns (Sec. 8) and Relocation of
Informal Settlers (Sec. 9).
X. Non-Impairment of Contracts (section 10)

Contract Clause
Section 10, Article III provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed.” This is the so-called contract clause, which seeks to restrain substantial legislative
impairment of, or intrusion into, the obligations of contracts. What the clause guarantees is the
integrity of contracts against undue interference by the government.
Contracts Affected
1. Only valid contracts, either executed or executory, are covered by the guarantee.
2. The agreement of the parties, as long as it is valid, is the law between them. Their will should
prevail, and this must be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent
laws. Well-established is the policy that the subject of contractual agreements is “imbued with
paramount public interest.”
13
Limitations
As between freedom of contract and police power, police power prevails. Thus, laws enacted in
exercise of police power will prevail over contracts. After all, private rights and interest in
contracts must yield to the common good. Every contract affecting public welfare is presumed to
include the provisions of existing laws and a reservation of police power.
The supremacy of police power is felt most clearly in labor contracts and agricultural tenancy
contracts. For instance, a law (Blue Sunday Law) which provides for work or play on a Sunday is
upheld as valid even if it nullifies existing labor contracts, since it is a legitimate exercise of
police power. In another case, a law (R.A. No. 34) changed the crop-sharing system between the
landlord and tenants from 50-50 to 55-45 in favor of the tenants. The Court held that the law is
valid. Consistent with the policy of social justice, the law favored the tenants as well as the
general welfare of the people in exchange of contractual rights.
The power of taxation and power of eminent domain, inasmuch as they are also sovereign powers
of the state, can validly impair obligations of contracts.
Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses are franchises or privileges given by the State to
qualified entities that may be withdrawn or relinquished when national interests so require.
However, like contracts, they yield to police power.
XI. Right to Legal Assistance and Free Access to Courts (section 11)
Section 11, Article III provides that “free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
Protection for the Poor. Free access is a right covered by the due process clause, because a
person, regardless of his status in life, must be given an opportunity to defend himself in the
proper court or tribunal. Nonetheless, the right is placed in a separate provision to emphasize the
desire for constitutional protection of the poor.
XII. Rights of Persons under Custodial Investigation (section 12)

Constitutional Provision.
Section 12, Article III enumerates the rights of a person under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense, to wit:
Miranda Rights
a. Right to remain silent, right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice, right to free legal services if he cannot afford one, and the right to informed of
these rights. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel;
b. Right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate his free will. Prohibition against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention;
c. Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision or the right
against self-incrimination as evidence against him; and
d. Sanctions against violators and compensation for rehabilitation of victims.
14
Why called Miranda Rights?
The present provision is usually referred to as the “Miranda Rights” because it is an adoption of
the rights provided in the American case “Miranda v. Arizona.”
Purpose of the Right

The provision emphasizes on the duty of law enforcement officers to treat properly and humanely
those under investigation. It recognizes the fact that the environment in custodial investigations is
psychologically if not physically coercive in nature, so that law enforcers should be reminded of
the sanctity of individual rights and the limitations on their means of solving crimes. In fact, as
far as the present provision is concerned, the “presumption of regularity” of official acts and the
behavior of police or prosecution is not observed if the person under investigation was not
informed.
Custodial Investigation
The enumeration of rights above may be invoked during custodial investigations. Custodial
investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has
been taken into custody. The rights are available when the person interrogated is already treaded
as a particular suspect and the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime.
However, during this stage, no complaint or criminal case has been filed yet. As such, the person
suspected to have committed a crime is not yet an accused, since no case was instituted against
him.
During custodial investigations, suspects are identified by way of show-ups, mug shots, and line
ups. Show-ups are done by bringing the lone suspect face-to-face with the witness for
identification. Mug shots are performed by showing photographs to witnesses to identify the
suspect. And in line ups, the witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons.
Extrajudicial Confession
Meaning.
Extrajudicial confession refers to a confession or admission of guilt made outside (extra) the court
(judicial). It is a critical area of study in Constitutional Law. With respect to the present
provision, it refers to a confession given during a custodial investigation, which is not judicial in
nature. Under the Miranda Rights, a person may waive his right to remain silent and admit the
charge against him because anything that he says may be used against him. However, the waiver
or confession must be valid to be admissible as evidence against him.
Requisites for validity.

For an extrajudicial confession to be valid and admissible as evidence in court, it must be:
 voluntary;
 made in the assistance of a competent and independent counsel;  express;
and  in writing.
Involuntary confession.
There are two kinds of involuntary confession:
(a) confession through coercion; and
15
(b) confession without being informed of the Miranda rights.
Both forms are invalid and cannot be admitted as evidence against the confidant, the confession
considered as a fruit of a poisonous tree. Extrajudicial confessions must be given voluntarily.
However, there is a distinction between the two. On the one hand, an extrajudicial confession
alleged to be taken through torture or coercion is presumed voluntarily given and valid since the
law enforcers are presumed to perform their duty regularly, so that the complainant-suspect
should prove that there is torture to invalidate his confession. On the other hand, a confession
given without being informed of the Miranda rights is presumed involuntarily given, so that the
law enforces must prove its regularity.
Assistance of Counsel.
An extrajudicial confession made in the absence of a counsel, or even in his presence but without
adequate assistance, is also invalid and inadmissible. The rule requires that the assisting counsel
must be independent and competent. For this matter, a fiscal or a public prosecutor, who
represents the interest of the State, cannot assist the suspect or person under investigation. His
interest is adverse to the latter. Thus, even if competent, he cannot be an independent counsel for
the suspect. A counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office is qualified to assist a person in
executing an extrajudicial confession, his interest not adverse to the latter.
XIII. Right to Bail (section 13) Constitutional

Provision.
Section 13, Article III provides that “all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail
shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.”
Meaning of Bail.
Bail refers to the security given for the temporary release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be
required. For instance, a person arrested and detained for the offense of homicide may post a
bond for his temporary release on the condition that he will appear in the court during the trial or
when the court so requires.
Purpose of Bail.
Probational release through bail is corollary to the right to be presumed innocent and a means of
immediately obtaining liberty. During the duration of release, the accused is given the chance to
prepare his defense, and thus level the playing field for the parties. Worth emphasizing is the
reason why those charge with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and against whom
evidence of guilt is strong, are not allowed to bail. Under such circumstances, there is
improbability of appearance, and bail merely becomes an instrument of evading the law.
When Right May be Invoked

General Rule.
16
The right to bail may be invoked from the moment of detention or arrest. Even if no formal
charges have been filed yet, for as long as there is already an arrest, the right may already be
availed of.
Bail as a Matter of Right.

Bail may be invoked as a matter of right if the charge is not punishable by reclusion perpetua and
there is no final judgment of conviction yet. Technically, the instances when bail is a matter of
right are:
a. Before or after conviction by the MTC; and
b. Before conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment.
Bail as a Matter of Discretion.

Bail may be invoked as a matter of discretion on the part of the court in the following instances:
a. After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment;
b. Pending appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman; and
c. After conviction, pending appeal when the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment for
more than six years but not more than twenty years, and it is not shown that the accused
repeated a crime, an escapee, committed an offense while under the custody of the
probational release, or had the tendency of flight or to commit another offense.
When Right May not be Invoked

It could be inferred from the present provision that the right to bail may not be invoked if the
offense for which the person is detained is punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of
guilt is strong.
Important also to note is that the military may not invoke the right to bail. Among other reasons,
allowing military members to bail would pose a great danger to national security. They are
allowed to use firearms and they are paid using government money. Their sheer number and
unique structure, as well as the military mentality that they carry, may very well result to the
overthrow of the government if continuous allowance of the right to bail is given them most
especially when there are coup attempts. Allowing them to bail could mean resumption of
widespread commission of heinous activities.
Mandatory Hearing
When the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua, before rendering a judgment, due
process demands that the court must conduct a mandatory hearing to determine if evidence of
guilt is strong. This is one of the instances when bail is a matter of discretion. But if the
prosecutor simply manifested that he leaves it to the sound discretion of the judge to grant bail
and the judge grants the same without hearing, then the judge commits an error because he cannot
repose solely on the prosecutor his decision. Even if there is no objection, there must be a
hearing.
XIV. Rights of the Accused (section 14)
17
Constitutional Provision (Criminal Cases)
Section 14, Article III deals with the rights of the accused. It contemplates a scenario where a
case has already been filed against a person, in contrast to custodial investigations where a case
may not have been filed yet. The case filed is a criminal case, in which the parties are the “People
of the Philippines” and the “accused.” The People of the Philippines is the complainant, while the
accused is the person formally charged of a crime or offense punishable by law.
A case is said to be criminal when it involves the prosecution of a crime by the State and the
imposition of liability on erring individuals. It highlights the relation of the individual and the
state, with the state having the right to inflict punishment to an offender once his guilt is proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
The real offended party or victim in a criminal case is the State or the People of the Philippines,
and not the private complainant. This is because what has generally been violated is the law of the
Philippines which provides protection to the people and guarantees peace and order in the land.
Violation of the law poses danger not just to a private person, but to the people as a whole, and is
a threat to the sovereignty of the State.
The accused, who is the person charged in a criminal case, is pitted against the State. With all its
machineries, manpower, and almost unlimited sources of money, the State is placed in an
advantaged position. To level therefore the playing field, the Constitution provides for numerous
rights of the accused and of persons under investigation. Justice demands that they should be
given a fighting chance against the most powerful institution, which is the State.
Criminal Due Process

Constitutional Provision.
Section 14(1), Article III provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.” The provision refers to due process in criminal cases. As to its
procedural aspect, criminal due process requires that:
a. The accused is brought into a court of competent jurisdiction;
b. He is notified of the case;
c. He is given the opportunity to be heard; and
d. There is a valid judgment deliberated and rendered by the court. As to its substantive
aspect, the criminal cases must be based on a penal law.
The right to appeal is not a constitutional right. It is a statutory right granted by the legislature.
But when it is expressly granted by law, then it comes within the scope of due process.
Criminal due process requires impartiality or objectivity on the part of the court. Although a
separate right to impartial trial is granted in Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Bill of Rights, it refers
only to the right of the accused during trial. Impartiality in criminal due process (Section 14,
paragraph 1) is broader since it extends to preliminary investigations conducted before the filing
criminal cases in court. One of the instances wherein impartiality is compromised is the socalled
trial by publicity. When preliminary investigations are held for purposes of determining whether
an information or a case should be filed against the respondent, the investigating prosecutor
should not be swayed by the circumstances of pervasive and prejudicial publicity. It was held that
18
prejudicial publicity may be invoked as denial of due process if it prevents the “observance of
those decencies” or requirements of procedural due process.
A military court has its own unique set of procedures consistent with the nature and purpose of
the military. Because of its distinct features, a military court cannot try and exercise jurisdiction,
even during martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly committed by them as long as
civilian courts are still open and functioning. Due process therefore demands that civilians can
only be tried for an offense in civilian courts and not in military courts, unless no civilian court is
available.
Rights of the accused during trial Constitutional

Provision.
Section 14(2), Article III enumerates rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions, to wit:
a. Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
b. Right to be heard by himself and counsel;
c. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
d. Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial;
e. Right to meet the witnesses face to face; and
f. Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of
evidence in his behalf.
These are rights of the accused “in criminal prosecutions.” Under the Rules, criminal proceedings
start from arraignment up to the rendition of final judgment by the court. Arraignment refers to
that stage of the criminal proceeding when the information is read to the accused to which he
pleads guilty or not guilty. The proceeding continues until a final judgment is entered by the
court. The judgment is final when there is nothing for the court to do but to execute it. Thus,
during this duration the accused can invoke the said rights under the proper circumstances.
Right to be Presumed Innocent Meaning.

The right refers to the constitutional guarantee that the accused should be treated as if innocent
until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process.

Basically, the rights in Section 14(2) are elaborations of criminal due process. The right to
presumption of innocence, for instance, is based on the fundamental procedural rule that the court
must hear first before it condemns. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the accused, then
procedural due process is violated. In fact, the accused is already in a disadvantaged position
since he is pitted against the State. Presumption of guilt renders the rights of the accused
nugatory. To protect therefore individual rights, in particular one’s liberty, it should be the State
that proves the guilt of accused, and not that the accused proves his innocence. It is the
prosecution (State) who has the burden of overcoming the presumption of innocence. It should
rely on its own merits and not on the weakness of the defense.
When Presumption is overcome.
19
The presumption of innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under the rules of
evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest quantum of evidence. Such proof requires
that the court is morally certain that the accused is guilty of the crime, so that if there is
reasonable doubt that lurks in the mind of the judge, the accused must be acquitted. When the
defense creates reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence remains. It must be noted that the
certainty required by law is not absolute certainty but moral certainty as to every proposition of
proof requisite to constitute the offense.
Why Right is granted?

The philosophy behind the very high quantum of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused is
expressed by the court as follows: “It is better to acquit a person upon the ground of reasonable
doubt even though he may in reality be guilty, than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be
innocent.”
Presumption of guilt.
The law and rules, however, allow that presumption of innocence may be overcome by another
presumption through prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence means an evidence deemed
sufficient unless contradicted. This is based on logic and human experience. When the
prosecution, for instance, establishes that the stolen object is in the possession of the accused, it
creates a prima facie evidence that the accused committed the crime of theft. The presumption of
innocence is overturned, and the evidence creates a prima facie proof of the guilt of the accused.
This does not, however, mean that the presumption of innocence is finally overcome. The burden
of proof simply shifts from the prosecution to the defense (side of the accused) who will in turn
present contradictory evidence to overcome the prima facie proof.
Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel Right to be heard

The right to be heard is the heart of criminal due process. Basically, it refers to all the
mechanisms afforded to the accused during the criminal proceedings. It is a safeguard against
prejudicial and partial judgments by the courts, as well as a guarantee that the accused be given
an opportunity to participate during trial in defense of himself.
Related rights.
Participation of the accused in the right to be heard includes three specific rights:
a. the right to present evidence and to be present at the trial;
b. the right to be assisted by counsel; and
c. the right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.
Right to counsel
The right of the accused to counsel is based on the reason that only a lawyer has a substantial
knowledge of the rules of evidence, and a non-lawyer, in spite of his education in life, may not be
aware of the intricacies of law and procedure. Depriving a person of such right constitutes
violation of due process.
Related right.
Included in the right to counsel is the duty of the court to inform the accused of his right to
counsel before arraignment and to give a counsel in case the accused cannot afford the services of
one. The counsel representing the accused must be independent and competent. A counsel who
20
has a divided interest between the prosecution (State) and the defense (accused) is disqualified on
the ground of lack of independence and conflict of interest.
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Right to be informed is again an essential aspect of procedural due process. The constitutional
mandate is complied with by the arraignment of the accused in which he is informed by the court
of the offense charged to which the accused either pleads guilty of not guilty.
Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in the complaint and not the title of the case that
determines the nature of the offense.
Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

1. Right to speedy trial is based on the maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied.”
Unreasonable delays may result to a prolonged suffering of an innocent accused or an evasion
of justice by a truly guilty person. It offends not just the accused but also the State, inasmuch as
what is at stake is the speedy, inexpensive, and orderly administration of justice. Undue
postponements not only deplete the funds of the defense but also of prosecution. Thus, if the
prosecution unreasonably delays the criminal proceedings because of too many postponements
and unjustifiable absences, the accused may be acquitted on the ground of violation of right to
speedy trial. This does not, however, mean that the court cannot grant reasonable
postponements. What is prohibited is oppressive and vexatious postponements.
2. Right to impartial trial primarily requires that the judge who sits in the case must be
objective and renders a decision based on the cold neutrality of the evidence presented. For
instance, a judge who is hostile to the accused based on his comments and utterances, or who is
substantially swayed by the prejudicial publicity of the case, is a partial judge and must be
inhibited from the case.
3. Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be conducted in such a way that the
public may know what transpires during the trial. It is not necessary that the entire public can
witness the proceedings; it is enough that the relatives and friends of the interested parties are
accommodated in the trial venue. In fact, the court is allowed under the rules to order the public
to leave the premises of the court room in interest of morality and order.
Right to meet the witnesses face-to-face

The right to confrontation enables the accused to test the credibility of the witnesses. The right is
reinforced under the rules of criminal procedure by the so-called cross-examination.
Crossexamination is conducted after the presentation and direct examination of witnesses by the
opposing side. Both parties are allowed to test the veracity of the testimonies presented by the
other.
Right to compulsory process

Reason for the Right
The form of criminal proceeding is adversarial because two opposing parties battle out against
each other and only one of them could emerge as victor. It is often the case that the party with the
weightier evidence wins. In criminal proceedings, the accused needs only to create reasonable
doubt on the mind of the court to be acquitted. Nevertheless, evidence is difficult to find because
21
of people’s anxiety in testifying in court as well as their dislike for burdensome court processes.
In recognition therefore of this fact, the law and the rules give the accused the right to avail of
compulsory means for attendance of witnesses and production of needed document or things.
Kinds of Compulsory Processes

When the person sought to testify is uncooperative or just afraid of court-related actions, the
remedy of subpoena ad testificandum may be availed to compel the person to testify. When
relevant documents are needed but the holder thereof refuses to produce them, the remedy of
subpoena duces tecum may be availed of to compel the production of the same. These remedies
are also available to the prosecution.
Right to be Present
Meaning and Purpose of the Right
As a rule, the accused has the right to be present at all stages of trial, from arraignment to
rendition of judgment, in order that he may be informed of what transpires in every stage of the
proceedings, to guard himself from technical blunders, and ultimately, to fully defend himself
from the accusation against him. Thus, it is again an incident of criminal due process.
Waiver of Right
Right to be present, inasmuch as it is a right, may be waived by the accused. For as long as it does
not prejudice others, rights may be waived by its possessor. An example of a valid waiver of the
right to be present is the so-called trial in absentia. Even in the absence of the accused, trial may
still proceed (trial in absentia) if after his arraignment and notification of the date of the hearing,
he still unjustifiably failed to appear. The effect of the waiver is that the accused will no longer
have the right to present evidence and confront the witnesses.
When Right not waivable.

It must be noted that the presence of the accused becomes a duty, and therefore not waivable, in
the following:
a. During arraignment and plea;
b. When he is to be identified;
c. During the promulgation of judgment, except when it is for a light offense.
In all these instances, the accused must appear because his non-appearance may either prejudice
his rights or that of the State.
XV. Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (section 15)

Section 15, Article III states that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.” This is a
reiteration of Section 18, Article VII. What is constitutionally guaranteed is the right of a person
detained by another to test or challenge, through habeas corpus, the validity of his detention when
the authority of the detaining person or agency is at issue.
Writ of habeas corpus is a written order issued by the court directed to a person detaining another
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day
and cause of his capture and detention, to do, to submit to, and to receive whatever court or judge
22
awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf. When a person is illegally confined or detained, or
when his liberty is illegally restrained, he has the constitutional right to file a petition of habeas
corpus. Should the court find out that the person is illegally confined or detained, he shall be
immediately released from detention.
When privilege suspended

The privilege of habeas corpus is suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. This is in order to
meet the exigencies in such cases.
Writ of amparo.
It is another available remedy to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security has been
violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. This remedy is especially available in cases of
enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
XVI. Right to speedy disposition of cases (section 16)

Section 16, Article III states that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”
Unlike the right to speedy trial which applies only in criminal proceedings, the right to speedy
disposition of cases may be invoked in all cases, whether judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative. Thus, right to speedy disposition of cases is broader than right to speedy trial.
XVII. Right against self-incrimination (section 17)

Meaning of right against self-incrimination
Section 17, Article III provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.” This constitutional guarantee is better known as right against self-incrimination. The
right allows a person not to answer an incriminating question. An incriminating question is one
that if answered renders a person liable for an offense. However, it is only when the incriminating
question is put to a witness stand that the right may be invoked.
When right available

The right is available in all government proceedings, whether criminal or civil, and whether
judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative. It is even available in legislative investigations and
impeachment proceedings. In addition, the right may be invoked by all persons subject to judicial
examination and legislative investigation. Thus it may be invoked not just by the accused in
criminal cases, but also defendants in civil cases, and witnesses in all kinds of proceedings.
State witnesses cannot avail of the right because the very purpose of their being state witnesses is
to give them immunity or protection to testify. Their testimonies are so crucial to the resolution of
a criminal case so that in attainment thereof immunity is given to them by the State. This means
that they will no longer be prosecuted for the crime for which they are testifying. Since they have
to unravel everything, even their guilt, in exchange of immunity, the right against self-
incrimination could no longer be invoked.
23
Basis of the right
The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is similar to the other rights of the accused.
From the very start, the accused is already in an adverse position pitted against the entire
machinery of the State. If evidence will still be taken from the lips of the accused, it would even
tilt the scales heavily in favor of the State.
The right is founded on public policy and humanity. Public policy demands that a person be
spared from answering incriminating questions because requiring him would likely lead to the
crime of perjury, which is basically lying to the court after having promised to tell the truth and
nothing but the whole truth. Humanity prevents extorting confession by duress.
XVIII. Right against Involuntary Servitude (section 18)

Section 18, Article III provides that no person should be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations, nor should involuntary servitude in any form exist, except as a
punishment for a crime. The first part of the provision deals with the right not to be detained by
reason solely of political beliefs and aspirations. This is essentially embodied in the freedom of
expression but with emphasis on the prohibition against incarceration of “political prisoners.” The
second part deals with the right against involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude refers to the
compulsory service of another or simply modern day slavery. The right is based on the egalitarian
principle of democracy which prescribes equality of everyone in law, and on humanity which
prevents degradation of human dignity through enforced labor.
Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a commodity under the complete power of the
master. This has never been practiced in the Philippines, but has its remnants in modern forms of
enforced labor and peonage.
Enforced labor happens when a person is unlawfully compelled to work against his will; it is
involuntary and to a certain extent resembles slavery. When a person, because of poverty or lack
of money, works for another in payment of his debt, the same is prohibited by the present
guarantee even if the service is rendered voluntarily. This voluntary service in payment of debt is
called peonage. While it appears voluntary, peonage is prohibited because the person is forced to
work by the circumstances of his indebtedness, although not by his creditor.
Exceptions:
Involuntary servitude may be allowed under the following instances:
a. as punishment for crime;
b. in the case of personal, military or civil service in defense of the State; and
c. in compliance to a return to work order issued by the Department of Labor and
Employment.
XIX. Right against Excessive Fines and Cruel Punishments (section 19)
Section 19(1), Article III states that “excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted…”
24
Meaning of excessive fine and cruelty
A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and beyond the limits prescribed by law. The amount
of the fine is said to be unreasonable if the court does not take into consideration certain
standards, such as the nature of the offense, and the circumstances of the person punished by fine.
The imposed fine may never go beyond the statutory prescription, otherwise it is unlawfully
excessive.
A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the conscience of mankind and it involves prolonged
suffering and agony to the person punished. For a penalty to violate the constitutional guarantee,
it must be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be degrading to human dignity, and it must be
unreasonably disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the senses of the
community. The mere severity of a penalty does not make the punishment cruel or inhumane, for
as long as it is within the limits provided by law. As one maxim states, “even if the law is harsh, it
is still the law (dura lex sed lex).” A penalty that is germane to purpose of the penal law is not
cruel and inhumane.
A penalty must be acceptable to the contemporary society. Ancient forms of punishment, such as
pillory, disembowelment, and crucifixion, which are already considered barbarous practices, are
cruel and inhumane. If a person, for instance, is paraded around town naked with a tag on his
neck saying “I am a thief; do not imitate me,” the form of punishment is cruel and inhuman; it is
barbarous and so ancient that it is no longer acceptable to the present-day society.
Death penalty
Section 19(2) also states that “… neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.” The present provision abolishes death
penalty, although with a reservation that the Congress can subsequently pass a law imposing it for
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
Death penalty not cruel

The constitutional provision on death penalty or capital punishment does not explicitly mention
that it is cruel and inhumane. In fact, the Constitution allows the Congress to impose death
penalty for the right reasons. It could even be argued that extinguishment of human life is not
cruel and inhumane for the following reasons:
a It is proportionate to the nature of the offense. Death penalty may only be imposed by
Congress in the commission of heinous crimes and for compelling reasons. Heinous crimes
are crimes which are so flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the conscience of civilized
persons, such as genocide, rape with homicide, murder, rebellion, and treason, especially
when committed against the innocent and helpless. With compelling reasons, Congress may
impose death penalty since it is proportionate to the atrocities committed;
b. This form of penalty still has currency in the contemporary time. Death by lethal injection
is prevalently practiced by many countries for the punishment of heinous offenses; and
c.Death by lethal injection is not cruel and inhumane because it does not prolong suffering or
inflict excruciating agony to the person punished. In truth, it only induces the person to
sleep through a lethal substance injected in the bloodstream which thereafter painlessly put
the person to death.
25
Proper treatment of persons legally detained or imprisoned
Section 19(2), Article III provides that “the employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.”
Purpose of the right

This constitutional guarantee recognizes the inalienability of human dignity. Even when a person
is imprisoned or detained, and even if he commits heinous crimes, he is still a person entitled to
proper treatment and protection. Paraphrasing it, the Constitution provides that even if a person is
imprisoned or detained, he must be protected against physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment, and is entitled to the use of standard or adequate penal facilities under humane
conditions.
XX. Right against imprisonment for debt (section 20)

Section 20, Article III provides that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a
poll tax.”
Debt
A debt, as covered by the constitutional guarantee, refers to a contractual obligation by a debtor to
pay money to the creditor. If by reason of poverty or lack of money a person cannot pay his debt,
he cannot be imprisoned by reason thereof. The creditor only has himself to blame if he
voluntarily agreed to lend money to someone who apparently cannot pay or whom he thought
could pay but did not. Nevertheless, although the debtor cannot be imprisoned, his property may
be taken or attached by the court, and then sold at public auction in payment of his debt to the
creditor.
Estafa
Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee. What is punished in estafa is not the
nonpayment of debt but the deceit accompanying the act of non-payment.
Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of imprisonment.

A poll tax is a tax of a fixed amount imposed on individuals residing within a specified territory,
whether citizens or not, without regard to their property or the occupation in which they may be
engaged. Community tax or residence tax is an example of poll tax. As far as poll tax is
concerned, non-payment is not punished by the government in consideration of the plight of the
poor who cannot even afford to pay it. Poverty could never be a reason for a person’s
imprisonment. It must be emphasized, however, that as regards other forms of taxes, non-
payment may be a cause of imprisonment. Failure to pay income taxes is considered a crime (tax
evasion), and punishable under the law by imprisonment.
XXI. Right against double jeopardy (section 21)

26
Section 21, Article III states that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.” This is more famously known as
the right against double jeopardy.
Meaning of double jeopardy
Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at the risk of conviction for the same act or
offense. The right against double jeopardy therefore means that a person can only be indicted or
charge once by a competent court for an offense. When a person, for instance, has been charged
of homicide and the court acquitted him of the case, he can no longer be prosecuted for the same
offense or act. He can now invoke his right against double jeopardy.
Types of double jeopardy

There are two types of double jeopardy. The first happens when a person is put twice in jeopardy
of punishment for the same offense, and the second happens when an act is punishable by a law
and an ordinance at the same time, in which case the conviction or acquittal in either one of them
constitute as bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Requisites of double jeopardy

a. A valid complaint or information;
b. Filed before a competent court;
c. To which the defendant has pleaded; and
d. The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
When double jeopardy could be claimed

Before double jeopardy could be claimed, there must be a first jeopardy. The first jeopardy
attaches only:
a. upon good indictment;
b. before a competent court;
c. after arraignment;
d. when a valid plea has been entered; and
e. the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused. A case is
said to be terminated without the consent of the accused when there is acquittal or a final
decision convicting him.
To substantiate therefore the claim for double jeopardy, the following must be proven:
a. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first jeopardy;
b. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
c. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit
the same or is a frustration thereof.
XXII. Right against Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder (section 22)
Section 22, Article III provides that “no ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.”
27
Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law
An ex post facto law is one
which:
a. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law which was innocent when done, and
punishes such an act;
b. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
c. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed;
d. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony
than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
e. Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
f. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled,
such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
Applicable only in Criminal Cases

The constitutional prohibition applies only in criminal cases. One of the characteristics of
criminal law is prospectivity in which only crimes committed after the enactment of a penal are
punishable. It cannot retroact and punish acts which were not yet criminalized before its passage.
The basic rule is that before an act may be considered an offense or crime, it must first be defined
as a crime and a penalty must be imposed for it under a law passed by the legislative body. An act
therefore is not a crime if there is no law punishing it. In the same vein, a person does not commit
a crime, no matter how apparently illegal it is, if there is no law defining and punishing it. It is for
this reason that an ex post facto law is not allowed because it criminalizes what was not yet a
crime during its commission.
Meaning of Bill of Attainder

Definition
A bill of attainder is “a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.”
Kinds of bill of attainder

1. The bill of attainder proper which involves the legislative imposition of death penalty, and
2. The bill of pains and penalties which involves imposition of a lesser penalty.
Reason for Prohibition

The prohibition against bill of attainder is an implementation of the principle of separation of
powers. The legislature cannot bypass the judiciary by enacting a law that punishes an act without
need of judicial proceedings. The legislative department should be confined to its law-making
function; it cannot encroach the authority of the courts by prescribing a law that directly adjudges
guilt without judicial determination.
28

Topic III. The Bill of Rights

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

Topic III. The Bill of Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Topic III.

The Bill of Rights (1987 Philippine Constitution)

Nonetheless, the government remains to be a powerful institution, capable of summoning the

Lesson I. Concept of a Bill of Rights

Government power vs. Individual freedom

I. Right to due process and equal protection (Section 1) Constitutional

Two aspects of due process

In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process are:

Notice and opportunity to be heard

b. Opportunity to be heard. It must be emphasized that what is required is not “actual”

Discrimination against Aliens.

Warrant of arrest and search warrant

Requisites of a valid warrant

Administrative Searches and Arrests

Important to note is that no probable cause is required in deportation proceedings. It is the

III. Rights to privacy (Section 3)

Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

Writ of Habeas Data

IV. Freedom of Speech, Expression and of the Press (section 4) Constitutional

Meaning and Scope

Importance of the Right.

Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment

Restrictions on Freedom of Speech

Regulations on Mass Media

V. Freedom of Religion (Section 5) Constitutional

Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion

VI. Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel (Section 6)

Right to return to one’s country

VII. Right to Information (Section 7) Constitutional Provision.

Scope and Limitation.

VIII. Right to form Associations (Section 8) Constitutional

Who may exercise the right.

IX. Right to just compensation of private property (section 9)

X. Non-Impairment of Contracts (section 10)

XII. Rights of Persons under Custodial Investigation (section 12)

Purpose of the Right

Requisites for validity.

XIII. Right to Bail (section 13) Constitutional

When Right May be Invoked

Bail as a Matter of Right.

Bail as a Matter of Discretion.

When Right May not be Invoked

XIV. Rights of the Accused (section 14)

Criminal Due Process

Rights of the accused during trial Constitutional

Right to be Presumed Innocent Meaning.

Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process.

When Presumption is overcome.

Why Right is granted?

Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel Right to be heard

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

Right to meet the witnesses face-to-face

Right to compulsory process

Kinds of Compulsory Processes

When Right not waivable.

XV. Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (section 15)

When privilege suspended

XVI. Right to speedy disposition of cases (section 16)

XVII. Right against self-incrimination (section 17)

When right available

XVIII. Right against Involuntary Servitude (section 18)