TANGALIN, MC GLENN G.

JD - 1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
DMMMSU COLLEGE OF LAW
AY 2023-24 2nd SEMESTER
QUIZ, MAY 4, 2024 1PM-4PM
X-------------------X

1. SECTION 15 ARTICLE III

1. What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a judicial mandate requiring that a
prisoner be brought before the court to determine whether the
government has the right to continue detaining them. This writ is
a swift and effective legal remedy that provides relief from
unlawful imprisonment. It guarantees an individual’s right to
have their detention reviewed and justified in a court of law. The
Writ of Habeas Corpus applies to all instances of illegal
confinement or detention that results in an individual being
deprived of their freedom, or when the lawful custody of an
individual is denied to the person who is entitled to it.

2. How about the Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data and Kalikasan?

i. The Writ of Amparo serves as a legal remedy for any
individual whose rights to life, liberty, and security are
infringed or at risk due to an unlawful action or neglect by
a public servant or a private individual or entity. This writ
encompasses situations of extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances, including threats thereof.
ii. The Writ of Habeas Data is a legal recourse 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, employee, or a private individual or entity
involved in the accumulation, collection, or storage of
personal, familial, residential, and correspondence data or
information.
iii. The Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy accessible to a
natural or juridical person, legally authorized entity,
people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or
any public interest group accredited by or registered with
any government agency. It is invoked on behalf of
individuals whose constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official, employee, or private
individual or entity. This involves environmental damage of
such scale that it jeopardizes the life, health, or property of
residents in two or more cities or provinces.

3. May the Writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended? If so, what are the
instances when it may be suspended?
TANGALIN, MC GLENN G. JD - 1

Indeed, the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be

suspended under specific conditions as outlined in the 1987
Constitution. More precisely, according to Section 18, Article VII
of the Constitution, the President has the authority to suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus during instances of
invasion or rebellion, provided that public safety necessitates it.
This suspension is confined to a maximum duration of sixty days.

Throughout the suspension period, the President is obligated to

provide a report to Congress within forty-eight hours, detailing
the reasons for the suspension. Congress, through a joint vote,
holds the power to revoke the suspension by a majority vote of all
its members. Furthermore, Congress can extend the suspension
at the President’s request if the invasion or rebellion continues
and public safety demands it.

It’s crucial to note that the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is applicable only to individuals who are
judicially charged with rebellion or offenses connected to
invasion. Individuals who are arrested or detained during the
suspension must be judicially charged within three days;
otherwise, they must be released. This clause ensures that, even
during the suspension, the rights of individuals to due process
and immediate judicial review are upheld as much as possible
under the circumstances of invasion or rebellion.

4. Robin and Mariel are legally married but separated-in-fact and

the custody of their only child who is five (5) years old is with the
latter. Availing himself of his visitorial right, Robin visited his
child and Mariel allowed him to sleep with the child at the guest
room. At about 4:00 o’clock in the morning, without the
knowledge and consent of Mariel, he left with the child. May
Mariel file a Petition for Habeas Corpus in court for Robin to
produce their child? Why or why not?

Yes, Mariel has the right to submit a Petition for Habeas Corpus
in court to compel Robin to present their child. As per A.M. No.
03-04-04-SC, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, once verified,
can be lodged with the Family Court (or a regular court in the
absence of a Family Court judge) to regain custody of a minor
child.

Robin’s act of taking the child without Mariel’s permission

infringes on her custodial rights, thereby warranting judicial
intervention. The court will issue the writ, which is enforceable
within its jurisdiction, obliging Robin to present the child. The
court will then make a decision on the custody matter, keeping
the child’s best interest at heart.

Hence, Mariel is entitled to submit a Petition for Habeas Corpus

in court, requiring Robin to present their child.
TANGALIN, MC GLENN G. JD - 1

2. SECTION 16, ARTICLE III

1. In what cases may by the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases be

invoked?

The right to a speedy disposition of cases is not confined to defendants

in criminal trials, but applies to all parties in all types of cases,
encompassing civil and administrative cases, and all forms of
proceedings, including those in judicial and quasi-judicial settings.
Consequently, any party involved in a case can demand prompt action
from all officials responsible for administering justice.

However, this right can only be invoked when the proceedings are
marred by vexatious, arbitrary, and burdensome delays, or when
unwarranted trial postponements are requested and granted, or when
an extended period of time is allowed to pass without the party’s case
being tried, without any valid or justifiable reason. Therefore, a simple
calculation of the time elapsed would not be adequate. This right is
invoked when there is a significant delay that cannot be justified by the
circumstances of the case.

2. Is it correct to say that the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases covers

from arraignment to promulgation of judgment in criminal cases? Why
or why not?

No, it is not accurate to state that the Right to Speedy Disposition of

cases only spans from arraignment to the promulgation of judgment in
criminal cases.

The Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases has a much wider scope that
extends beyond just the trial phase. It covers the entire duration of the
case, from pre-trial proceedings, through the trial, and into the post-
trial stages, until the final resolution or disposition of the case. This
constitutional right is applicable not only during the trial stage but also
when the case has been submitted for decision, as clarified in the case
of Licaros v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2002).

The purpose of the right to speedy disposition is to prevent unnecessary

delays and ensure that justice is delivered promptly. Therefore, any
delay or prolonged period in the resolution of a case, whether it occurs
before, during, or after the trial, could potentially infringe upon this
fundamental right.

3. Is the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases the same as the Right to

Speedy Trial? Explain.

No, the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases and the Right to Speedy
Trial are related but not identical.
TANGALIN, MC GLENN G. JD - 1

The Right to Speedy Trial is primarily concerned with the swift

resolution of criminal proceedings. It spans from the time of arrest,
arraignment, and trial until the judgment is rendered. This right
ensures that an accused person does not suffer undue delay in jail
while awaiting trial, which could potentially harm their defense and
liberty.

Conversely, the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases has a broader

scope that goes beyond just the trial phase. It covers the entire duration
of the case, including pre-trial proceedings, the trial itself, and post-
trial stages, up until the final resolution or disposition of the case. This
more comprehensive right aims to prevent unnecessary delays at any
stage of the legal process, thereby preserving the overall efficiency and
integrity of the justice system.

3. SECTION 17, ARTICLE III

1. May a suspect in a homicide case be compelled to put on a pair of shoes

which was found at the scene of the crime? Why or why not?

No, it’s not permissible to force a suspect in a homicide case to wear a

pair of shoes discovered at the crime scene. This prohibition is
grounded in Section 17 of the Bill of Rights, which stipulates that no
individual shall be compelled to testify against themselves.

Requiring the suspect to put on the shoes from the crime scene would
effectively coerce them into participating in an act that could potentially
incriminate them. This would be deemed a form of self-incrimination,
infringing on the suspect’s constitutional right against self-
incrimination. Rather, any evidence collected, including the shoes,
should undergo appropriate forensic analysis and be presented as part
of the comprehensive investigation, in compliance with legal procedures
that safeguard the rights of the suspect.

Therefore, a suspect in a homicide case cannot be forced to wear a pair

of shoes found at the crime scene. This ensures the protection of their
rights and the integrity of the legal process.

2. May an accused in a rape case refuse to testify at the trial of his case?
Explain.

Yes, an individual accused in a rape case has the right to decline to

testify during his trial. This right is safeguarded without any negative
inference being drawn against him. This protection is enshrined in
Section 17 of the Bill of Rights, which states that no person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.

In any criminal case, including a rape case, the accused has the right
to remain silent and cannot be forced to testify or provide evidence that
could incriminate him. The responsibility of proving guilt lies with the
prosecution, and the accused is not obligated to prove his innocence or
testify in court. If the accused opts not to testify, the court must not
TANGALIN, MC GLENN G. JD - 1

interpret this choice as an admission of guilt, and the presumption of

innocence must be maintained throughout the trial.

Therefore, the accused’s decision to refuse to testify is a valid exercise

of his constitutional rights and should not be used against him when
determining his guilt or innocence.

3. A witness for the defense in a criminal case refuses to testify invoking

his right against self-incrimination? Is he correct? Explain.

I qualify my answer. Indeed, the decision of a defense witness in a

criminal case to refuse to testify by invoking their right against self-
incrimination is contingent on the specific circumstances and the
nature of the questions posed. As per Section 17 of Article III of the
1987 Constitution, individuals are protected from being forced to testify
against themselves in criminal cases. This implies that a witness has
the right to decline to answer questions that could potentially
incriminate them or expose them to criminal liability. As a general rule,
this right can only be invoked when a question that could elicit an
incriminating response is asked, as the witness cannot predict the
nature or impact of the question beforehand. However, this is only
applicable to ordinary witnesses.

If the testimony of the witness does not carry the risk of self-
incrimination, or if the witness has been granted immunity from
prosecution for the matters they are questioned about, then refusing to
testify based solely on Section 17, Article III of the 1987 Constitution
regarding protection against self-incrimination may not be justified.

Therefore, if a witness believes that responding to a question could

incriminate them, they have the right to invoke Section 17, Article III of
the Bill of Rights concerning the privilege against self-incrimination.
The court will then assess whether the privilege is appropriately
invoked, considering the specific circumstances of the case and the
nature of the questions asked.

4. SECTION 18, ARTICLE III

1. Ana requested Juana to buy for her a pair of shoes promising the latter
she will serve as her household help for a period of one (1) month of
which the latter acceded. However, upon receipt of the pair of shoes,
Ana reneged on her promise. Thus, Juana was compelled to file a case
of estafa against her for which she invoked her right against involuntary
servitude. Is she correct? Explain.

No, Juana’s assertion is not accurate. Involuntary servitude, as

safeguarded under Section 18(2) of the 1987 Constitution, pertains to
instances where individuals are forced into labor against their will,
typically associated with slavery or unjust imprisonment.

In the scenario provided, Juana’s claim of her right against involuntary

servitude in response to Ana’s failure to fulfill a promise to serve as
TANGALIN, MC GLENN G. JD - 1

household help in exchange for shoes may not be appropriate. The

agreement between Juana and Ana, although based on a promise,
involved a voluntary exchange of obligations rather than coercion or
forced labor. Juana’s voluntary agreement to provide household help in
exchange for the shoes does not constitute involuntary servitude unless
she was coerced or compelled into this arrangement.

Instead of invoking the right against involuntary servitude, Juana

might consider other legal remedies such as pursuing a civil action for
breach of contract or estafa against Ana for failing to fulfill her promise.
These legal avenues are more suitable for addressing Ana’s failure to
uphold her end of the agreement and seeking appropriate recourse
under civil or criminal law based on the circumstances of the case.

Therefore, while Juana may be rightfully upset by Ana’s actions, her

situation does not necessarily constitute involuntary servitude as
defined under constitutional protections against forced labor.

2. The members of the New People’s Army (NPA) are communists. Pedro is
not an NPA member but believes in communism. Is he liable for
subversion? Why or why not? Explain.

No, Pedro is not liable for subversion. His belief in communism is

protected as a fundamental right to freedom of political beliefs and
aspirations under Section 18 of the Bill of Rights. This constitutional
provision clearly states that no person shall be detained solely because
of their political beliefs and aspirations.

Subversion, as defined by law, involves specific actions that pose a

threat to national security or aim to overthrow the government through
unlawful means. Simply adhering to a political ideology, such as
communism, does not constitute criminal liability unless it is
accompanied by unlawful actions or behavior. Pedro’s right to freedom
of belief and expression protects him from being targeted solely based
on his political beliefs, ensuring that individuals are not persecuted for
their thoughts or affiliations without valid legal grounds. Therefore,
Pedro’s belief in communism, in and of itself, does not make him liable
for subversion.

3. May involuntary servitude be imposed as punishment for a crime? Why

or why not?
I qualify my answer. Involuntary servitude, as a punishment for a
crime, is only permissible under specific circumstances as outlined in
Article III, Section 18(2) of the 1987 Constitution. This constitutional
provision explicitly states that no form of involuntary servitude shall
exist, except as a punishment for a crime where the party has been duly
convicted. This means that involuntary servitude can only be imposed
as a lawful punishment following a criminal conviction.
TANGALIN, MC GLENN G. JD - 1

The prohibition against involuntary servitude is a fundamental

protection aimed at preventing any form of forced labor or slavery
outside the context of lawful punishment for a crime. It ensures that
individuals are not subjected to forced or compulsory labor against
their will, except in cases where a person has been duly convicted of a
crime and is serving a lawful sentence imposed by a competent court.

Therefore, while involuntary servitude is strictly prohibited under

normal circumstances, it may be imposed within the confines of the law
as part of a lawful punishment following a criminal conviction. This
ensures the protection of individual rights and the integrity of the legal
process.

ATTY. REYNALDO M. MOSUELA