Imposition & Legality of House Arrest in the Philippines

By: Luna C. Ofenda

Technically the term house arrest refers more to the fact of detention of
the body of a person than that the fact of arrest itself.

In legal perspective, the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. Baloloy,
381 SCRA 31 held that:

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in

order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense, and it is made by an actual
restraint of a person to be arrested, or by his
submission to the person making an arrest.

The import of house arrest is to make effective the legal custody and
detention of a person in some other place other than the penal facilities
established by the government for detention and rehabilitation of persons in
conflict with law.

The regular detention facilities are those which are under the control and
supervision of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology or the detention
facilities of the Philippine National Police both such department are under the
Department of Interior and Local Government. They are the institution which
takes good care of the body of a person who are in custody of the law either due
to conviction from an offense or those with pending criminal case before the
courts of law.

Corollarily, a person who is charged criminally for the commission of a

crime or those who have been convicted by final judgment still enjoys certain

rights which are guaranteed by our Constitution. These are basically embodied
in the Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution.

Thus, Article III, Setion 1, Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution

provides, that:

Page 2 of 3 {House Arrest Luna C. Ofenda}

Sec. 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.

Equal protection simply means, people or things of the same class must
be treated alike under the law.

Moreover, every individual likewise enjoy security to life whether

convicted of a crime or not. Except when upon conviction by final judgment the
penalty imposable as provided by law is death.

The right to security or the right to security of person finds a textual

hook in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, and at the core of this
guarantee is the immunity of ones person, including the extensions of his/her
person-houses papers, and effects-against government intrusion. (Secretary of
National Defense vs. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1)

A closer look at the right to security of person would yield various

permutations of the exercise of this right: First, the right to security of person
is freedom from fear, Second, the right to security of person is a guarantee of
bodily and psychological integrity and security, and, Third, the right to security

of person is a guarantee of protection of ones rights by the government.

(Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo, 568 SCRA 1)

With all these in view, there are persons who belongs to different class.
Such classification varies depending on the surrounding circumstances
availing each person. There are persons, detainees or convicts which suffers
high risks with respect to security of their life and limb. With such reasonable
classification, there must be a different way of dealing with their security when
in custody of the law.

Page 3 of 3 {House Arrest Luna C. Ofenda}

An individual may reasonably not be mixed-up with detainees with the

facilities of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology or the Philippine
National Police considering that the probability of attempt in their life is too
high to consider. It is not only from possible life threatening situation wherein a
person may be considered for house arrest. There are also situations wherein
possible rescue of a detention prisoner may be had by criminal elements of who
interest on the well being of such prisoner.

In order to avoid such a situation, house arrest of certain individuals

may be justified in order to see to it that justice may effectively be served.
It is worth to note that house arrest is not secured or implemented to
favor certain individual but rather for facilitation of effective administration of
justice.