FABON, APRIL JOAN B.

JD 1
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
QUIZ
May 4, 2024

1. SECTION 15, ARTICLE III

2. Writ of habeas corpus is a writ issued by a 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 caption and detention, to do, to submit to
and to receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his
behalf.

3. Writ of Amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

Meanwhile, writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened 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.

The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity

authorized by law, People’s Organization, Non-government Organization or any
public interest group accredited by or registered with any government agency, on
behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual of entity, involving environmental
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants
in two or more provinces.

4. Yes, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in cases of invasion
or rebellion when public safety requires it. Under the Constitution, the President
may, for a period of not exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.

5. Yes, Mariel can file a petition for habeas corpus against Robin in order to produce
their child.

Under the law the filing of petition of habeas corpus can extend to cases by which
rightful custody of any person withheld from the person entitled thereto.
 In the present case, Mariel has the rightful custody over their child who is 5 years
old since generally no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the
mother, except when the court finds cause to order otherwise as provided by law.

Therefore, the petition for habeas corpus can be filed by Mariel.

2. SECTION 16, ARTICLE III

1. The right to speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and
administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial
hearings. Thus, any party to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials
who are tasked with the administration of justice.

2. Yes, it is correct to say that the right to speedy disposition of cases covers from
arraignment to promulgation of judgment in criminal cases because such right can
be invoked by the accused in all criminal proceedings.

3. Right to Speedy Disposition and Right to Speedy Trial is similar on how these
rights can be violated like when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the trial
are asked for and secured or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period
of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.

3. SECTION 17, ARTICLE III

1. Yes, a suspect in a homicide case can be compelled to put on a pair of shoes which
was found at the scene of the crime.

Under the law, the right against self-incrimination may be invoked to testimonial
compulsion only. The use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused is prohibited and not the inclusion of his body in
evidence.

In the given case, putting on a pair of shoes does not require testimonial evidence
hence the right against self-incrimination shall not apply.

Therefore, the suspect can be compelled to put on a pair of shoes found at the crime
scene.

2. Yes, an accused in a rape case may refuse to testify at the trial of a case.
 The law provides that the right against self-incrimination is available to the
accused in all criminal prosecution. The accused in a rape case may refuse to testify
simply because it is a testimonial compulsion which may incriminate the accused
to admission of guilt.

3. Yes, the witness for the defense in a criminal case is correct in invoking his right
against self-incrimination because, said right is not only available to the accused
but to the witness as well. Therefore, such right can be invoked by the witness for
the defense of criminal cases.

4. SECTION 18, ARTICLE III

1. No, Ana is incorrect in invoking her right against involuntary servitude in the crime
of estafa filed against her.
Under the law, the right against involuntary servitude can be invoked in cases
where a person holds someone to do slavery as a payment of debt, avoid
punishment or because he or she has no choice, or to work against his or her will,
with little control over his or her working conditions.
In the given case, there is already an agreement which was initiated by Ana that
she will work for Juana for 1 month in order to pay the pair of shoes. Therefore,
Ana knew that she has options or has control over the situation on how she’s going
to pay Juana. There is no involuntary servitude in the case since Ana promised to
render her service as payment for the pair of shoes she requested Juana to buy.
Therefore, Ana cannot invoke the right against involuntary servitude in the crime
of estafa filed against her.
2. No, Pedro cannot be held liable for subversion.

Under the constitution, no person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.

In the given case, Pedro who believes in communism cannot be held liable for
subversion since he was not a member of the communist party that overthrows the
government, thus he cannot be held liable for subversion by reason of his political
beliefs.

3. Yes, involuntary servitude may be imposed in case of punishment for a crime

committed. This includes prison labor or prisoners who are forced to work. It also
includes subsidiary penalty wherein the prisoner was not able to pay the fine
included in the judgment hence converting it to jail time or increase in the
imprisonment as payment for the fine.