BILL OF

RIGHTS
Ira Marie Camocon
May 3, 2022
WVSU Lecture
 The main sources of Philippine law are:
1 The Constitution
2 Statutes
3 Treaties and conventions
4 Judicial decisions
- the fundamental and supreme law of the
land
- including Acts of Congress, municipal charters,
municipal legislation, court rules, administrative
rules and orders, legislative rules and presidential
issuances
Venus
- Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that
‘judicial decisions applying to or interpreting the laws or
the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines’. Only decisions of its Supreme Court establish
jurisprudence and are binding on all other courts.
 It is a declaration and
WHAT IS enumeration of an
individual's rights and
BILL OF privileges which the
Constitution is designated

RIGHTS?
to protect against violations
by the government, or by
the public officers.
 Self-executing

WHAT IS It is recognized that

legislation is unnecessary
to enable courts to effectuate
BILL OF constitutional provisions
guaranteeing the

RIGHTS? fundamental rights of life,

liberty and the protection of
property.
(Gamboa vs. Teves, 2011)
BILL OF RIGHTS
VIS-A-VIS • Human rights are standards that recognize
HUMAN RIGHTS and protect the dignity of all human
beings.

• Article III of the 1987 Philippine

Constitution contains the chief protection
for human rights.
Other rights that the body of the
Constitution guarantees:

• Rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his

CIVIL RIGHTS citizenship in a state or community
• Rights intended for the protection of a person
accused of any crime
• E.g. rights to property, marriage, freedom to
contract, equal protection, etc.

POLITICAL RIGHTS  Rights that pertain to an individual's citizenship

vis-a-vis the management of the government
 E.g. right of suffrage, right to petition government
for redress, right to hold public office, etc.

SOCIAL AND  Rights which are intended to insure the well-being

and economic security of the individual
ECONOMIC RIGHTS
  
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the
BILL OF RIGHTS International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
VIS-A-VIS Rights, and International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICESCR and ICCPR)
HUMAN RIGHTS
- suggests that the scope of human rights can
be understood to include those that relate to
an individual’s social, economic, cultural,
political and civil relations.

- it shall include the universally accepted traits and attributes of

an individual, along what is generally considered to be his
INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS, encompassing
almost all aspects of life
 Have these broad concepts been EQUALLY
contemplated by the framers of our 1986
Constitutional Commission in adopting specific
provisions on human rights and in creating an
independent commission to safeguard these rights?
 
 The Constitution, thereafter,
remained the same until the
1935 Commonwealth
Malolos Constitution 1943 Constitution declaration of martial law on
Constitution November 15, 1935 Japanese-sponsored September 23, 1972.
1899 government

Philippine Organic Act 1902
Philippine Autonomy Act 1916
1902-1935
In 1940, the 1935 Constitution was amended Upon the liberation of the
by the National Assembly of the Philippines. Philippines in 1945, the
The legislature was changed from a 1935 Constitution came
unicameral assembly to a bicameral back into effect
congress. The amendment also changed the
term limit of the President of the Philippines
from six years with no reelection to four
years with a possibility of being reelected for
a second term.

Source: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/constitution-day/
 Javellana v. Executive Secretary
Before President Marcos declared Martial Law, a Chief Justice Roberto V. Concepcion in his dissenting opinion in the
Constitutional Convention was already in the process of case of Javellana v. Executive Secretary, exposed the fraud that
deliberating on amending or revising the 1935 Constitution. happened during the citizen’s assembly ratification of the 1973
Constitution on January, 10 – 15, 1973. However, the final decision of
Marcos announced that it had been ratified and in full force this case was that the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was valid
and effect on January 17, 1973. and was in force.

1986 People Power Revolution

 
Democracy was restored in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3, suspending certain provisions of the 1973
Constitution and promulgating in its stead a transitory constitution.

President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986, which created a Constitutional Commission tasked with writing a new charter to
replace the 1973 Constitution.

On February 11, 1987, by virtue of Proclamation No. 58, President Aquino announced the official canvassing of results and the ratification of
the draft constitution. The 1987 Constitution finally came into full force and effect that same day with the President, other civilian officials,
and members of the Armed Forces swearing allegiance to the new charter.
 

Source: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/constitution-day/
Have these broad concepts been EQUALLY contemplated by the framers of
our 1986 Constitutional Commission in adopting specific provisions on
human rights and in creating an independent commission to safeguard these
rights?

 
It may of value to look back at the country’s experience
under the martial law regime which may have, in fact,
impelled the inclusions of those provisions in our
fundamental law.

Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights, January 5,

1994
 Specific Objectives

1 To preserve
democratic ideals
Bill of 2
To safeguard
fundamental rights
Rights
3 To promote the
happiness of an
individual
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 1
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.
 DUE
PROCESS
OF LAW
Section 1
 Kinds of
Due Process
 Substantive
Publication of laws
Before a person may be bound by
law, he must be officially and
specifically informed of its
contents.
(Tañada v. Tuvera, 1986).
Procedural
Exceptions
Cancellation of Passport
The passport of a person sought for a
criminal offense may be cancelled without
hearing, to compel his return to the country
he has fled
(Suntay Y Aguinaldo vs. People of the
Philippines, 1957).
 EQUAL
PROTECTION
Section 1
1. (SPARK v. Quezon City, 2017)
It does not demand absolute equality
An ordinance imposing curfew upon minors
among residents. It merely requires that
in Quezon City
all persons shall be treated alike, under
like circumstances and conditions both as
to privileges conferred and liabilities
2. (Conference of Maritime Manning
enforced.
Agencies v. POEA, 1995)

Classification
Land-Based v. Sea-Based Filipino Overseas
Workers
The 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III The right of the people to be secure in their

Section 2 persons, houses, papers, and effects against

unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be 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.
 RIGHTS AGAINST
UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Section 2
 Types of Warrants
To whom is it directed?
Against the State; the right cannot be invoked
against a private individual. 1. Search Warrant
  Purpose: to gain evidence to convict
Who may invoke?
The constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures is a personal right, invocable 2. Warrant of Arrest
only by those whose rights have been infringed.
Purpose: to acquire jurisdiction over the
 
person of the accused
Probable cause must be personally determined
by the Judge
How it is done? The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
In the form of searching questions and answers, in  
writing and under oath. The Exclusionary Rule is extended to exclude
[Sec. 6, Rule 126, ROC] evidence which is derived or directly obtained
  from that which was illegally seized [BAUTIST
A].
Exceptions to the warrant requirement; VALID VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
[Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure]
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES  
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest a. In flagrante delicto
The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from being
harmed by the person arrested. (Valeroso v. CA, 2009) E.g. Buy-Bust
2. Seizure of evidence in plain view
Where the seized object is inside a closed package, the object is not in plain b. Hot Pursuit
view and, therefore, cannot be seized without a warrant. (Caballes v. CA, E.g.
2002)
Warrantless arrest of accused for selling marijuana 2
3. Search of a moving vehicle days after he escaped is invalid [People v. Kimura, G.R.
1. where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search No. 130805 (2004)].
2. where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or
 
visual
There is no personal knowledge when the commission
3. where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
of a crime and identity of the accused were merely
4. Consented warrantless search furnished by an informant.
5. Customs search [People v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-68955 (1986)].
6. Stop and Frisk
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
c. Escaped Prisoners
 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 3
1 2

The privacy 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.
Any evidence obtained in violation
of this or the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
 Three Strands of the
Right to Privacy
PRIVACY OF 1. Decisional privacy
COMMUNICATION The right to be let alone is indeed the
beginning of all freedom.
AND [Morfe v. Mutuc, supra]
 
CORRESPONDENCE 2. Informational privacy
right of an individual not to have private
information about himself disclosed
Section 3 [Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589, (1977)]
 
3. Locational or situational privacy
privacy that is felt in physical space [Vivares
v. St. Therese College, G.R. No. 202666
(2014)]
 REMINDER!
What is Exclusionary Rule?
Any evidence obtained in violation of Secs. 2 or 3, Art. III shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. [Section 3(2), Article III].

Forms of correspondence and When can there be a VALID INTRUSION into a person's
communication covered: privacy of communication and correspondence?
• Letters
• Messages
• Telephone calls 1. Upon lawful order of the court; or
• Telegrams 2. When public safety or order requires such intrusion as
• Others analogous to the foregoing prescribed by law (Sec 3(1), Article III)
[BERNAS]

Example: A person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy

  Privacy
Online Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), clearly and
A Facebook user who opts to make use of a privacy tool to grant or unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not
deny access to his or her post or profile detail should not be denied the authorized by all the parties to any private
informational privacy right which necessarily accompanies said choice. communication, to secretly record such
[Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)].
communications by means of a tape recorder.
 No law shall be passed abridging
The 1987 Constitution the freedom of speech, of
of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably
Section 4 to assemble and petition the
government for redress of
grievances.
The right to freedom of expression applies to the entire continuum of speech from utterances made to
conduct enacted, and even to inaction itself as a symbolic manner of communication. (The Diocese of
Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 205728, (2015))

Incitement and advocacy

Types of Regulations for (Speech)
1. Content Based Regulations
2. Content-Neutral Regulations
Criticism of the government, no matter how severe, is within
the range of liberty of speech, unless the intention and effect be
seditious [People v. Perez, G.R. No. 21049 (1923)].
 
Direct Incitement Test
Political discussion even among those opposed to the present
administration is within the protective clause of freedom of
speech and expression. The same cannot be construed as
subversive (seeking or intended to subvert an established
system or institution) activities per se or as evidence of
membership in a subversive organization [Salonga v. Cruz
Paño, G.R. No. L-59524 (1985)].

Parliamentary immunity
Prior Restraint
Examples of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint
●  COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators and
newspaper columnists from commenting on the issues
involved in a scheduled plebiscite. [Sanidad v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 90878 (1990)]
●  COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals
and stickers in mobile units such as cars and other vehicles.
[Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956 (1992)]
●  An announcement by a public official prohibiting the
media from airing or broadcasting the Garci tapes. [Chavez
v. Gonzales, supra]
Examples of Constitutional Prior Restraint
Film censorship: The power of the MTRCB can be
exercised only for purposes of reasonable classification, not
censorship. [NACHURA, citing Gonzalez v. Katigbak, G.R.
No. L-69500 (1985) and Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. v. Judge
Capulong, G.R. No. 82380 (1988)]
 
Law which prohibits, except during the prescribed election
period, making speeches, announcements, or commentaries
for or against the election of any candidate for office.
[Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833 (1969)]
 What does assembly means?
A right on the part of the citizens
to meet peaceably for consultation
in respect to public affairs.
FREEDOM It is a necessary consequence of
OF ASSEMBLY our republican institution and
complements the right of speech
( David vs. Arroyo, May 3, 2006)
Section 4
City or town mayors discretion in issuing the permit
- to determine or specify the streets or public places where the parade may pass or the meeting may
be held [Primicias v. Fugoso, G.R. No. L-1800 (1948)].
 
Freedom Parks

Sec. 15 of the law provides for an alternative forum through the creation of freedom parks where no
prior permit will be needed for peaceful assembly and petition at any time. Without such alternative
forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to deny the right to peaceably assemble [Bayan v.
Ermita, supra].
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 8
The right
01 of the people,
02 including
03 those
employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for
purposes not contrary to law law shall not be
abridged.
 Every group has a right to join the
democratic process, association
itself being an act of expression
of the member’s belief, even if the
group offends the sensibilities of
FREEDOM the majority. Any restriction to
OF ASSOCIATION such requires a compelling state
interest to be proven by the State
Section 8 [Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582
(2010)].
The 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III The right of the people to information
on matters of public concern shall be
Section 7 recognized. Access to official records,
and to documents and papers pertaining
to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government
Venus
research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law.
 Right to Information covers
matters of public concern, e.g.,

FREEDOM 1. Official records

2. Documents pertaining to official
OF INFORMATION acts
Section 7 3. Government research- data used
as basis for policy development
 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Limitations
The right of the people to information must be balanced against other genuine interests necessary for the
proper functioning of the government [BERNAS].
 
Exempted information
1. Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
2. Information of military and diplomatic secrets
3. Information affecting national and economic security
4. Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v. PEA and
Amari, supra]
5. Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716 (1998)]
6. Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations [Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516 (2008)]
7. Other confidential matters (i.e. RA 6713, closed door Cabinet meetings, executive sessions, or internal
deliberations in the Supreme Court) [Chavez v. PCGG, supra]
 
No law shall be made respecting an
The 1987 Constitution of the
establishment of religion, or Republic of the Philippines
prohibiting the free exercise Article III
thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without
Section 5
discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious
test shall be require for the exercise
of civil political rights.
 The twin clauses of free exercise and
non- establishment express an
FREEDOM underlying relational concept of
separation between religion and
OF RELIGION secular government. (BERNAS)
Section 5

Non-establishment clause
The State cannot set up a church, nor pass laws which aid
one religion, aid all religion or prefer one religion over
another, nor influence a person to or remain away from
church against his will or force him to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion, etc. (Everson vs. Board of
Education, 1946)
Acts not Permitted by Non- Establishment
Clause
 Prayer and Bible-reading in public schools
[Abington School District v. Schemp, 374 U.S. 203
(1963)]
Financial subsidy for parochial
schools
[Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602
(1971)]
Free Exercise Clause
The Constitution guarantees the freedom to believe
absolutely, while the freedom to act based on belief
is subject to regulation by the State when necessary to
protect the rights of others and in the interest of public
welfare [Valmores v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 217453
(2017)].
Exemption from flag salute in school [Ebralinag v. Division
Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770 (1993)]
 
Non-disqualification of religious leaders from local government
office [Pamil v. Teleron, G.R. No. L-34854 (1978)]
Working hours from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm without break during
Ramadan [Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts
of Iligan City, A.M. No. 02-2-10-SC (2005)]
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 6
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.
 Limitations
a. Liberty of Abode
LIBERTY OF May be impaired only upon lawful order of the
court
ABODE AND  
b. Liberty of Travel

FREEDOM OF May be impaired even without a lawful order

of the court
  
MOVEMENT On the basis of “national security, public
safety, or public health” and “as may be
Section 6
provided by law” (e.g. Human Security Act,
quarantine)
Right to Travel
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid the possibility of
losing jurisdiction if accused travels abroad [Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L- 62100
(1986)].

The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll
way.

The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another. The right to
travel does not entitle a person to the best form of transport or to the most convenient
route to his destination.
[Mirasol v. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793 (2006)].
 
Private property shall not be
taken for public use without
just compensation.

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines

Article III

Section 9
 Requisites for Valid Exercise

EMINENT 1. Private property

2. Genuine necessity

DOMAIN 3. For public use

4. Payment of just compensation
5. Due process
Section 9 (Manapat v. CA)
 Full payment of just compensation is not a
prerequisite for the Government’s effective
taking of the property; When the taking of the
property precedes the payment of just
compensation, the Government shall indemnify
the property owner by way of interest [Republic
v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892 (2015)].
Abandonment of Intended Use and Right of
Repurchase
If the expropriator (government) does not use the
property for a public purpose, the property reverts
to the owner in fee simple [Heirs of Moreno v.
Mactan-Cebu International Airport, G.R. No.
156273 (2005)].

Effect of Delay
General Rule: For non-payment, the remedy is the demand of payment of the fair market value of the property
and not the recovery of possession of the expropriated lots [Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 146587 (2002); Reyes v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 147511, (2003)].
 
Exception
When the government fails to pay just compensation within five years from the finality of the judgment in the
expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property
[Republic v. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656 (2005)].
 
No law impairing The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines

the obligation of Article III

contracts shall be Section 10

passed.
 What are the exceptions of the
non-impairment clause?

Valid exercise of the inherent

NON-IMPAIRMENT powers of state
OF CONTRACTS
Police Power
Section 10 Eminent Domain
Taxation
 
Free access to the courts and
quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 11
 Indigent party
 
ADEQUATE LEGAL exemption from payment of docket
and other lawful fees, and of
ASSISTANCE AND transcripts of stenographic notes
FREE ACCESS TO which the court may order to be
furnished to him.
COURTS  

Section 11
Free access to the court does NOT mean
the courts cannot impose filing fees.
 
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III No person shall be
Section 17 compelled to be a
witness against
himself.
  Exclusions
General Rule: The privilege is available in any An accused may be compelled to be
proceedings, even outside the court, for they may photographed or measured, his garments may be
eventually lead to a criminal prosecution. removed, and his body may be examined.
  
DNA testing and its results are now similarly
acceptable [Agustin v. CA, supra].
Purpose
The self-incrimination clause is meant to avoid:
1. Placing the witness against the strongest NOT ALLOWED:
temptation to commit perjury; and Re-enactment of the crime by the accused is not
2. Extorting a confession by force. allowed.
   
Jupiter Venus
When to invoke?
This right may only be invoked for that specific incriminating question and cannot be claimed for any other
time. [Sabio vs. Gordon, G.R. Nos. 174340, 174318 & 174177 (2006)]

It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena and decline to testify altogether. The witness must
still take the stand, be sworn, and answer questions. It is the duty of his/her counsel to advise him/her of
his/her right against self- incrimination. [People v. Ayson, supra].
 Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
1 informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other

means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
2 Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of

The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines 3 this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
Article III

The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
Section 12 4 violations of this section as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
When the investigation is no longer a general inquiry Other rights under custodial investigation
unto an unsolved crime. [People v. Mara, G.R. No. 4. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any
108494 (1994)]. other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
Includes issuing an invitation to a person under against him
investigation in connection with an offense he is 5. Secret detention places, solitary or other similar
suspected to have committed [Sec. 2, RA 7438]. forms of detention are prohibited

Miranda Warning (based upon Article III, Section 12)

The person under custodial investigation must be informed that:

1. He has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
2. That he has a right to have competent and independent counsel of his choice
3. That he has a right to be informed of the first two rights.
 
 General rule: No right to counsel
 
Exception: Right to counsel if accusatory. The moment there is a move or even an urge of said
investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or
innocuous at the time, from said suspect [Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291 (1988)].

Out of Court Identifications

What can be waived? Show-up
The right to remain silent and the right to ●  Out-of-court identification
counsel. ●  Accused is brought face-to-face with the witness for identification
 
 
Police Line-up
What cannot be waived? ●  Suspect is identified by witness from a group of persons gathered
The right to be given the Miranda for that purpose
warnings. ●  When the petitioner was identified by the complainant at the police
Rule on Waiver [Sec. 12, Art. III] line-up, he had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The
a. Must be in writing police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest, hence, he was not
yet entitled to counsel.
b. Made in the presence of counsel
 1. Criminal Due Process- Section 14
RIGHTS OF THE 2. Bail- Section 13
3. Presumption of innocence
ACCUSED 4. Right to be heard- Section 14 (2), Section 12 (1)
5. Assistance of Counsel- Section 12(1)
Section 14 6. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
7. Right to a speedy and impartial trial- Section 16
Section 13
8. Right of Confrontation
Section 12(1) 10. Trial in Absentia
Section 16
Section 15
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
2
Article III In all criminal prosecutions, the accused

Section 14 shall be presumed innocent until the

contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
1 public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of
No person shall be witnesses and the production of
held to answer for a evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed
criminal offense
notwithstanding the absence of the
without due process accused provided that he has been duly
of law. notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III  

Section 13
Bail As A Matter Of Right
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
All persons, except those charged with suspended.
 
offenses punishable by reclusion Excessive bail shall not be required. [Sec. 13, Art III, 1987
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, Constitution]
shall, before conviction, be bailable by  

sufficient sureties, or be released onJupiter Venus

Bail As A Matter Of Discretion
When the accused has been convicted in the RTC of an offense not
recognizance as may be provided by law. punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the
The right to bail shall not be impaired admission to bail becomes discretionary [Sec. 5, Rule 114, ROC]

even when the privilege of the writ of

habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive
bail shall not be required.
The 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 16 All persons shall have the

right to a speedy disposition
of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
The privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus shall not
be suspended except in
cases of invasion or The 1987 Constitution

rebellion when the public of the Republic of the Philippines

Article III
safety requires it.
Section 15

Writ of Habeas Corpus
Section 15
 
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 [Sombong v. CA, G.R. No.
111876 (1990)].
 
Writ of Amparo
Scope
The Amparo Rule was intended to address the
intractable problem of “extralegal killings” and
“enforced disappearances,” and its coverage, in its
present form is confined to these instances or to
threats thereof.
 
Writ of Kalikasan
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (13 April 2010)
Definition: Remedy against violation or threat of
violation of constitutional right to a balanced and
healthful ecology by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or private individual
or entity, involving environmental damage of such
magnitude as to prejudice the
 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 19
1 Excessive fines shall not be 2 The employment of physical,
imposed, nor cruel, degrading or psychological, or degrading
inhuman punishment inflicted. punishment against any
Neither shall the death penalty be
Jupiter prisoner or detainee or the
Venus
imposed, unless, for compelling use of substandard or
reasons involving heinous crimes, inadequate penal facilities
the Congress hereafter provides under subhuman conditions
for it. Any death penalty already shall be dealt with by law.
imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
 The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
Article III

Section 20
No person shall be imprisoned
for debt or non-payment of a
poll tax.
No person shall be twice
put in jeopardy of
The 1987 Constitution of the
punishment for the same Republic of the Philippines
Article III
offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an Section 21
ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same
act.
Examples where there is no double jeopardy:

1. Conviction of a crime under a special law, which also constitutes an offense under the
RPC, may not be a bar to the prosecution under the RPC because the former is malum
prohibitum while the other is malum in se.
 
2. Where two information are filed charging the same accused with two different offenses
arising from the act, where the two offenses have different elements.
 
Example:
B.P .22 (AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND ISSUANCE OF A
CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES)
and the bouncing checks for estafa
 No ex post facto law or bill
of attainder shall be enacted.

The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines

Article III

Section 22

An ex post facto law
- is one that would make a previous act
criminal although it was not so at the time it
was committed [CRUZ at 589].
 
In People v. Estrada [G.R. Nos. 164368-69
(2009)], R.A. 9160, which was made to apply
to the accused for acts allegedly committed
prior to its enactment, was considered ex post
facto. Prior to its enactment, numbered
accounts or anonymous accounts were
permitted banking transactions, whether they
be allowed by law or by a mere banking
regulation.
Bill of Attainder
It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment
without trial
RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the
Philippines a clear and present danger to Philippine
security, and thus prohibited membership in such
organization, was contended to be a bill of attainder.
Although the law mentions the CPP in particular, its
purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay a basis
or to justify the legislative determination that
membership in such organization is a crime because of
the clear and present danger to national security.
(People vs. Ferrer)