Government Power vs.

Individual Freedom
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.
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. For example, 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.

Meaning of the Bill of Rights

From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights refers to the
declaration and enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights of a person with the
primary purpose of safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as well as by
individuals and group of individuals. It includes the protection of the following rights:
(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by virtue of their citizenship, such as freedom
to contract, right to property, and marriage among others;
(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of the individual vis-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.

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

Life, Liberty, and Property

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.
Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal protection cover the right to
life, liberty, and property. It is important therefore to know the meaning of the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers not just to physical safety but also to the
importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right to one’s limbs against
physical harm, and, equally important, right to a good quality of life. Life means something more
than mere animal existence.
(b) Liberty. It includes “negative” and “positive” freedom. Negative freedom means freedom from, or
absence of, physical constraints, while positive freedom means freedom to exercise 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.
(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing, property is anything
capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a right, it refers to right to own, use,
possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The constitution uses property in the sense of right, and as
such it includes, among others, right to work, 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.

These rights are intimately connected. For example, if one’s property right over employment is
taken away, the same will adversely affect one’s right to life since quality of living is jeopardized.
Consequently, in the absence of property and a good quality of life, the ability to do what one wants
is impeded.
Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are intimately related, they have a hierarchy. As to their
order of importance, right to life comes first, followed by right to liberty, and then right of property.

Due Process
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. 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.
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.
Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies, the Court also provides requirements
of procedural due process in administrative proceedings. These requirements, also known as “seven
cardinal primary rights,” are:

(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present evidence in support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence;
(d) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
known to the parties affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its own independent consideration of
evidence, and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate; and
(g) The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way that the parties are apprised of the
issues involved and the reasons for the decision.
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.
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.
Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or law that is vague is void because it
violates the rights to due process. A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards which
men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily know as to its common meaning but differ as to its
application. Such kind of statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to accord persons
proper understanding or fair notice, and because the government is given unbridled freedom to carry
out its provision. For this doctrine to be operative, however, the statute must be utterly vague. Thus,
if a law, for example, could be interpreted and applied in various ways, it is void because of
vagueness. Corollary to this is the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a statute that is “overly
broad” is void. This is because it prevents a person from exercising his constitutional rights, as it fails
to give an adequate warning or boundary between what is constitutionally permissive and not. If a
law, for instance, prohibits a bystander from doing any “annoying act” to passersby, the law is void
because “annoying act” could mean anything to a passerby and as such, overly broad.
Equal Protection
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
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.

Example. In one case, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code was challenged for being
unconstitutional, as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The provision distinguishes between
an elective official and an appointive official in the filing of their certificate of candidacy. While
elective officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing their certificates, appointive officials are.
The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional and not violative of equal protection since the
classification is valid. The Court argues that elective office is different from appointive office, in that
the mandate of the former is from the people, while that of the latter is from the appointing authority.
The term of the elective officials is likewise longer than that of the appointive officials. Thus, the
classification is adjudged reasonable and valid.
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.
Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it said to be subject to “judicial
review.”
There are three standards followed by the court in judicial review, these are:
(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or consistent to the guarantee of equal
protection when they are rational and the classifications therein bear a relation to a legitimate
governmental interests or purpose. In here the courts do not seriously inquire into the substantiality
of the interest and possibility of alternative means to achieve the objectives;
(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the governmental interest is closely scrutinized
as well as the availability of less restrictive means or alternatives. This standard is used if the
classification involves important but not fundamental interests; and
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the presence of a compelling
government interest, rather than a mere substantial interest, and the absence of a less restrictive
means for achieving the interest. Upon showing of these requirements, the limitation of a
fundamental constitutional right is justified. This standard is used if the law classifies persons and
limits others of their exercise of fundamental rights.

ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
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.
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
(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
administrative warrant, after determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a
ground for deportation.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy
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.

Anti-Wire Tapping 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 wire
tap or use any devise to secretly overhear, intercept, record, or communicate the content of the said
communication to any person.
Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or criminal proceedings involving
specified offenses principally affecting national security, and only with previous authorization by the
court which must comply with the requirements of a warrant. The authority is effective only for sixty
days.

Writ of Habeas Data

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty, or security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.

Exclusionary Rule
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.
For example, if police officers search a house without a search warrant and the same does not
fall under any of the instances of a valid warrantless search, the evidence obtained even if material in
the case cannot be admitted in court. Or if police officers wiretap a conversation without court
authorization, the recorded conversation shall be excluded as an evidence in court. Thus, the
evidences are said to be fruits of a poisonous tree.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meaning and Scope
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.
Aspects of the Right. Freedom of expression has four aspects, to wit: (a) freedom of speech; (b)
freedom of expression; (c) freedom of the press; and (d) freedom of assembly. Nonetheless, the scope
of the protection extends to right to form associations or societies not contrary to law, right to access
to information on matters of public concern, and freedom of religion. These are all crucial to the
advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of an “uninhibited, robust and wide-open
debate in the free market of ideas.”
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.
On the one hand, freedom from prior restraint means freedom from censorship or governmental
screening of what is politically, morally, socially, and artistically correct. In here, persons and the
media are freed from total suppression or restriction by the government of what could be
disseminated, and prevents the government from being a subjective arbiter of what is acceptable and
not. Although the system of prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional, it is allowed under the
following instances:
(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.

Tests to Determine When Right Maybe Suppressed

There are six tests or rules to determine when the freedom may be suppressed. These are:
(a) Dangerous Tendency Test which provides that if a speech is capable of producing a substantive
evil which the State is mandated to suppress or prevent, even if it did not materialize, the State is
justified of restricting the right. This rule has already been abandoned;
(b) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a more libertarian rule, provides that the finding out of
substantive evil is not enough to suppress the right. Rather the substantive evil must have clear and
present danger type depending on the specific circumstances of the case. This rule is consistent with
the principle of “maximum tolerance” and is often applied by the Court in freedom of expression
cases;
(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when there is conflict between a regulation and
freedom of speech, the court has the duty to determine which of the two demands greater protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant to supplant the clear and present danger
test, determines whether the gravity of the evil, less its improbability to happen, can justify the
suppression of the right in order to avoid the danger;
(e) O’Brien Test which provides that when “speech” and “non-speech” elements are combined in the
same course of conduct, a sufficiently important government interest that warrants the regulation of
the “non-speech” element can also justify incidental limitations on the speech element; and
(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words are uttered and the likely result of the
utterance, that is, whether or not they will directly incite or produce imminent lawless action.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may impose two kinds of restrictions on speech under a
system of prior restraint: content-based restriction and content-neutral restriction. The restriction is
content-based when restriction is directed to the speech itself, while the restriction is content-neutral
when it is directed, not to the speech itself, but to the incidents (such as time, place, or manner) of the
speech. An example of a content-based restriction is when the government prohibits speeches against
the President, in which case the restriction is on the speech itself. An example of a content-neutral
restriction is when the government regulates the manner of posting campaign advertisements, in
which case the restriction is on the manner the right is made.
Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. If the governmental restriction is content-based, the
applicable rule or test is the clear and present danger test. This is to give the government a heavy
burden to show justification for the imposition of such prior restraint which bears a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality. If the restriction is content-neutral, the applicable rule is only an
intermediate approach, inasmuch as the restraint is only regulatory and does not attack the speech
directly.
Example. In one case, the court held that the act of granting a permit to rally under the
condition that it will be held elsewhere is a content-based restriction and not content-neutral because
it is directed to the exercise of the speech right itself and not merely to the manner. As such, the
applicable test is the clear and present danger test.

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.

Doctrine of Fair Comment

Meaning. Under the doctrine of fair comment, a discreditable imputation directed against a
public person in his public capacity, does not necessarily make one liable. Although generally every
discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false and malicious because every man is
presumed innocent until proven guilty, nevertheless, if the imputation directed against a person in
his public is based on “established facts,” even if the inferred opinion is wrong, the comments as
justified. As long as the opinion might reasonably inferred from the facts, it is not actionable. In order
to that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a “false
allegation” or a “baseless comment.”
Example. If a case of theft was filed against a barangay official, and someone commented that
he maliciously stole things from the local residents, the doctrine of fair comment is applicable,
inasmuch as the opinion was based on such fact. In here, the comment is justified.

Commercial Speech
 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.

Freedom of Assembly
Meaning. Freedom of assembly refers to the right to hold a rally to voice out grievances
against the government.
Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a rule, freedom of assembly is not subject to prior
restraint or prior issuance of permit by government authorities. Nevertheless, it must be exercised in
such a way that will not to prejudice public welfare. Freedom of assembly is reinforced by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 880, otherwise known as the Public Assembly Acts of 1985, which basically provides
the requirements and procedure for holding rallies. It also implements the observance of “maximum
tolerance” towards participants of rallies consistent with the clear and present danger test.
Permit Requirement. Under the said law, permit is required to hold a rally. It must be
emphasized, however, that the permit is not a requirement for the validity of the assembly or rally,
because the right is not subject to prior restraint. Rather, the permit is a requirement for the use of the
public place.
When Permit not Required. Permit is not required if the rally is held in a private place, in a
campus of a state college or university, or in a freedom park, in which case only coordination with
the police is required. If the application for permit is not acted upon by the mayor within two
working days, then the same is deemed granted.
Political rally during election is regulated by the Omnibus Election Code, not by BP 880.

Right to Form Associations

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 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.”
Right to Strike not Included. The right to form associations or to self-organization does not
include the right to strike. Thus, public school teachers do not enjoy the right to strike even if they are
given the constitutional right of association. The terms and conditions of employment in the
Government, including in any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government
owned and controlled corporations with original charters, are governed by law and the employees
therein shall not strike for purposes of securing changes.

Right to Information
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).

FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a) the freedom to believe, and (b) the freedom to act on
one’s belief. The first aspect is in the realm of the mind, and as such it is absolute, since the State
cannot control the mind of the citizen. Thus, every person has the absolute right to believe (or not to
believe) in anything whatsoever without any possible external restriction by the government. The
aspect refers to the externalization of belief as it is now brought out from the bosom of internal belief.
Since it may affect peace, morals, public policy, and order, the government may interfere or regulate
such aspect of the right.
The second aspect is expressed in Section 5, Article III, thus “… The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”
Non-establishment Clause
Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III provides that “no law shall be made respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Explanation. The non-establishment clause holds that the State cannot set up a church or pass
laws aiding one religion, all religion, or preferring one over another, or force a person to believe or
disbelieve in any religion. In order words, it prohibits the State from establishing an official religion.
It discourages excessive government involvement with religion and manifest support to any one
religious’ denomination. Manifestly, the clause is rooted in the principle of separation of church and
state.
Particular Prohibitions. In particular, the non-establishment clause prohibits, among others,
prayers of a particular denomination to start a class in public schools, financial subsidy of a parochial
school, display of the ten commandments in front of a courthouse, law prohibiting the teaching of
evolution, mandatory reading of the bible, and using the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance.
Exceptions to the Prohibition. The clause, however, permits the following:
(a) Tax exemption on property “actually, directly and exclusively used” for religious purposes;
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools and expansion of educational facilities in parochial
schools for secular activities;
(c) Religious instruction in public schools, elementary and high school, at the option of parents or
guardians expressed in writing, within regular class hours by designated instructors, and without
additional costs to the government;
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary assigned to the armed forces,
penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium;
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which traditions are used to be purely religious but have
now acquired secular character; and
(f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as the venue of a significant religious event, in that the
benefit to religious sect is incidental to the promotion of the Philippines as a tourist destination.

Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act Violates Freedom of Religion

Different tests are used to determine if there are governmental violations of non-establishment
clause and free exercise clause. On the on hand, Lemon Test is used to determine whether an act of
the government violates the non-establishment clause. Under this test, a law or a governmental act
does not violate the clause when it has a secular purpose, does not promote or favor any set of
religious beliefs, and does not get the government too entangled with religion.
On the other hand, Compelling State Interest Test and Clear and Present Danger Test are used
to determine whether there is violation of free-exercise clause. Compelling state interest test is used to
determine if the interests of the State are compelling enough to justify intrusion into an individual’s
freedom of religion. Under this test, government infringement is justified if the burden it creates on
freedom of religion is due to a sufficiently compelling state interest and the means used to attain its
purpose is the least intrusive. Clear and present danger test is used to determine whether the
circumstances are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about a
substantive evil which the state has the right to prevent.
Example. In one case, the Court held that expulsion from school is unjustified if is based on the
conflict between religious beliefs and school practices (saluting the flag). The expulsion violates the
right of children to education. Using the clear and present danger test, the Court held that the danger
of disloyalty which the government is trying to prevent may be the very same thing that it advocates
if expulsion is validated. Times have changed. Freedom of religion is now recognized as a preferred
right.

Religious Solicitations
Under Presidential Decree No. 1564, also known as the Solicitation Law, permit is required
before solicitations for “charitable and public welfare purposes” may be carried out. The purpose of
the law is to protect the public from fraudulent solicitations. Nonetheless, permit is no longer
required if the solicitation is for “religious purposes.” Fraud is much less in religion. If the law is
extended to religion, then it becomes unconstitutional; it constitutes restriction on freedom of religion
as resources necessary for maintenance are deprived of churches.
Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is someone who sincerely claims the right to refuse to perform
military service and salute a flag on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.
He may be granted exemption from military service or from saluting the flag if he establishes that his
objection is “sincere,” based on “religious training and belief,” and not arbitrary.

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL

Freedom of Movement
Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III provides that “the liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful
order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of movement has two aspects: (a) Freedom to choose and
change one’s domicile, and (b) 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.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
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.
For example, if a lawyer enters into a contract with a client by which the latter will pay 5% of the
value of the monetary claim, a subsequent law which deprives the lawyer of the said value is
arbitrary and unreasonable since it is destructive of the inviolability of contracts, and therefore
invalid as lacking of due process.
Contracts Affected
Only valid contracts, either executed or executory, are covered by the guarantee.
The agreement of the parties, as long as it is valid, is the law between them. Their will should
prevail, and this must be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent laws.
Well-established is the policy that the subject of contractual agreements is “imbued with paramount
public interest.”

Kind of Impairment Covered

For the clause to be operative, the impairment caused by law must be substantial. Substantial
impairment happens when the law changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the
time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or
authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. In other words, the
act of impairment is anything that diminishes the value of the contract.
The cause of the impairment must be legislative in nature. The obligation of contract must be
impaired by a statute, ordinance, or any legislative act for it to come within the meaning of the
constitutional provision. An administrative order or court decision is not included in the scope of the
constitutional guarantee.
In one case, the Court held that a Rehabilitation Plan approved by the Securities and Exchange
Commission which suspends contractual claims against an insolvent or bankrupt corporation does
not violate the contract clause. The impairment must be legislative in character. SEC’s approval of the
plan is not a legislative act but an administrative act. Thus, there is not impairment of the freedom to
contract.

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.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
Constitutional Provision. Section 11, Article III provides that “free access to the courts and
quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.”
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.
Litigation in Forma Pauperis. In consonance with this constitutional provision, the Rules of
Court provide for litigation in forma pauperis in which paupers and indigents, who have only their
labor to support themselves, are given free legal services and access to courts.

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Miranda Rights
Constitutional Provision. Section 12, Article III enumerates the rights of a person under
custodial investigation for the commission of an offense, to wit:
(a) Right to remain silent, right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice, right to free legal services if he cannot afford one, and the right to informed of these rights.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel;
(b) Right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate his free will. Prohibition against secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention;
(c) Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision or the right
against self-incrimination as evidence against him; and
(d) Sanctions against violators and compensation for rehabilitation of victims.
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
 This enumeration of rights above may be invoked during custodial investigations. Custodial
investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody. The rights are available when the person interrogated is already treaded as a
particular suspect and the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime.
However, during this stage, no complaint or criminal case has been filed yet. As such, the person
suspected to have committed a crime is not yet an accused, since no case was instituted against him.
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: (a) voluntary; (b) made in the assistance of a competent and independent counsel;
(c) express; and (d) in writing.
Involuntary Confession. There are two kinds of involuntary confession: (a) confession through
coercion; and (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.
An extrajudicial confession to a mayor, even if uncounseled, may be admissible. While a
mayor has power of supervision over the police, an admission to him, not in the capacity of a law
enforcer, is deemed freely given. The uncounseled admission to him does not violate the right to legal
assistance and therefore the confession is admissible as evidence against the confidant. In addition,
extrajudicial confession to a media man who is acting as a news reporter and not under the
supervision of the police, is admissible.
 Because of the inherent danger of using information from broadcast media, extreme caution
must be taken in further admitting similar evidence or confession. There is presumption of
voluntariness in confessions which media describes as freely given. They must be strictly scrutinized.

RIGHT TO BAIL
Meaning of Right
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.

Standards for Fixing Amount of Bail

The law does not prescribe for a fix amount of bail. What it requires is that the amount should
be reasonable and not excessive otherwise the right is rendered useless. Under the Rules of Court, the
amount is reasonable if the judge bases it primarily, but not exclusively, on the following guidelines:
(a) Financial ability of the accused;
(b) Nature and circumstances of offense;
(c) Penalty for offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of evidence against him;
(g) Probability of his appearance at trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
(i) The fact that he is a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
When Right May be Invoked
General Rule. The right to bail may be invoked from the moment of detention or arrest. Even if
no formal charges have been filed yet, for as long as there is already an arrest, the right may already
be availed of.
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.
Right not Suspended. The present constitutional provision clearly provides that the right to
bail is not suspended when the President suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. While
bail and habeas corpus are remedies intended for the immediate release of a detainee, there are
fundamental differences between them so that the suspension of one does not mean the suspension
of the other. Firstly, in bail, there is an implicit recognition of the validity of detention or arrest, while
in habeas corpus, there is an assumption that the detention or arrest is illegal. And secondly, the
prayer in bail is for the temporary release of the detainee, whereas in habeas corpus, the prayer is for
permanent release.
When the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended, the remedy of immediate release cannot be
availed of (although filing is still allowed). Under the current rules, if the detainee files a bail for his
temporary release, then it moots the purpose of habeas corpus, because it destroys the assumption of
illegality of the arrest or detention.
The law still allows those who jumped bail to exercise the right before conviction for as long as
bail is still a matter of right. What the court must do in such cases is to increase the amount of bail.
Bail is now available in extradition cases, consistent with the developments in international
law which now treats an individual as a subject or party.

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.