You are on page 1of 37



Government Power vs. Individual Freedom
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.[1] 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.
4. 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
1. 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.
2. 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

Life, Liberty, and Property

1. 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.”
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons, whether citizens or aliens, natural or
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal protection cover theright 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.[2] Life means
something more than mere animal existence.[3]
(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.[4]
(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.[5]
5. 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
6. 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
1. 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”[6] and its essence
is that it is “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.”[7]

4. the Court also provides requirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings. also known as “seven cardinal primary rights. 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. oppressive. and just. the procedural aspect involves the method or manner by which the law is enforced. the requirements of procedural due process are:[8] (a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject matter. When Invoked. whimsical. (b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement on notice and hearing). (c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence. Two Aspects of Due Process. 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. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. Due process of law has two aspects: procedural andsubstantive. (d) The evidence must be substantial. In judicial proceedings. while the substantive aspect involves the law itself which must be fair. Basically. (f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its own independent consideration of evidence. essentially. Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies. The right is invoked when the act of the government is arbitrary. (e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing. and (d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing. Procedural due process requires. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is particularly directed against the acts of executive and legislative department. where a party may present evidence in support of his case. or at least contained in the record and known to the parties affected. (b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the property which is the subject of the proceeding. or unreasonable.2. . 5. and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate. 3. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. reasonable. What matters in procedural due process arenotice and an opportunity to be heard. These requirements.” are:[9] (a) The right to a hearing.

Meaning.”[11] It means that “all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike. The purpose of the notice is to inform the defendant of the nature and character of the case filed against him. The manner of pursuing the objective is lawful if the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive. In fact. reasonable. because without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will not bind the defendant. strict observance of the rule is not necessary. This is because it prevents a person from exercising his constitutional rights. it is void because of vagueness.[10] If. the statute must be utterly vague. 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. Moreover.(a) Notice. especially in administrative cases. as distinguished from those of a particular class. Persons or things that are differently situated may thus be treated differently. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid. Equal Protection 1. to give him a fair opportunity to prepare his defense. and more importantly. both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. for example. 6. Thus. Such kind of statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to accord persons proper understanding or fair notice. If a law. For this doctrine to be operative. could be interpreted and applied in various ways. For the law to be fair and reasonable it must have a valid objective which is pursued in a lawful manner. It is also sufficient that subsequent hearing is held if the same was not previously satisfied. most especially in judicial proceedings. What is prohibited by the guarantee is the discriminatory legislation which treats differently or favors others when both are similarly situated. It must be emphasized that what is required is not “actual” hearing but a real “opportunity” to be heard. 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. . for instance. fair. in administrative proceedings. Nevertheless. a person fails to actually appear in a hearing even though he was given the chance to do so. and because the government is given unbridled freedom to carry out its provision. notice and hearing may be dispensed with for public need or for practical reasons. overly broad. and just. (b) Opportunity to be Heard. Corollary to this is the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a statute that is “overly broad” is void. however. the notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard. the law is void because “annoying act” could mean anything to a passerby and as such. a statute or law that is vague is void because it violates the rights to due process. a decision rendered by the court is not in violation of due process. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness. if a law. for instance. as it fails to give an adequate warning or boundary between what is constitutionally permissive and not. 7. This is an essential element of procedural due process. Equality only applies among equals. prohibits a bystander from doing any “annoying act” to passersby.” The guarantee does not provide absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate operation on persons. The objective of the government is valid when it pertains to the interest of the general public.

This standard is used if the law classifies persons and limits others of their exercise of fundamental rights. Upon showing of these requirements. (c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only. and the absence of a less restrictive means for achieving the interest. appointive officials are. In one case. the limitation of a fundamental constitutional right is justified. The former can vote during elections.” There are three standards followed by the court in judicial review. Reasonable Classification. 4. If the laws are scrutinized by the court. while aliens do not have complete political rights. rather than a mere substantial interest. Discrimination against Aliens. 6. Review of Laws. Thus.[13] Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code was challenged for being unconstitutional. Purpose. run for public office. The term of the elective officials are likewise longer than that of the appointive officials. The provision distinguishes between an elective official and an appointive official in the filing of theire certificate of candidacy. the classification is adjudged reasonable and valid. . and (c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the presence of a compelling government interest. While elective officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing their certificates. The Supreme Court held that the law is constitutional and not violative of equal protection since the classification is valid. For example. In here the courts do not seriously inquire into the substantiality of the interest and possibility of alternative means to achieve the objectives. provided that the classification has the following requisites:[12] (a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions. Although the protection extends to both citizens and aliens. 5. while that of the latter is from the appointing authority. Example. 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. and (d) It must apply equally to all members of the class. 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. while aliens cannot. it said to be subject to “judicial review. The Court argues that elective office is different from appointive office. discrimination against aliens may be held valid under certain circumstances. Well established is the rule that reasonable classificationdoes not violate the guarantee. This standard is used if the classification involves important but not fundamental interests. (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. in that the mandate of the former is from the people. (b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law. as it is violative of the equal protection clause. citizens by virtue of their membership to the political community possess complete civil and political rights.2. own real property. 3.

on the basis of which he determines the existence of probable cause and orders the issuance of warrant. or other premises for a personal property allegedly used in a crime or may be utilized as a tool to prove a crime. it is thus important to know the requisites a valid warrant. 3. 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. 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. however. issued in the name of the Philippines.ARRESTS. Requisites of a Valid Warrant 1. aliens or citizens.[16] He may rely on reports and evidence submitted to him. The exceptions are in cases of valid warrantless arrests and searches. Constitutional Provision. Article III states that people have the inviolable right to be secure in their persons. natural or juridical.”[15]Thus. be invoked against private individuals. if the same is insufficient. and put him under the custody of the court. it must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest or a search warrant. The protection extends to all persons. It is a personal right which may be invoked or waived by the person directly affected[14]against unreasonable arrests or searches by the government and its agencies. papers. authorizing or directing a peace officer to search a specific location. The Court enumerates the requisites as follows: (a) It must be based upon a probable cause. houses. Section 2. Generally. It cannot. the right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that before a person is arrested or a personal property seized. personal determination does not mean that he must personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. What is prohibited is to rely solely on the recommendation of the prosecutors without doing any determination on his own. 2. . and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court. (b) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. A search warrant is a written order of the court. authorizing a peace officer to arrest a person. “require additional evidence to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. 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. an arrest or search is reasonable when it is covered by a valid warrant.” or. Scope. 2. Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant 1. house. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures 1. Since as a general rule.

(c) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce. in his presence. Arrest without warrant is strictly construed as an exception to the general rule requiring warrant. and (d) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. under the following instances: . For example. 2. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. This is permitted under the rules under limited circumstances. and (c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. The property subject to search includes those used in the commission of the offense.[17] Warrantless Arrest 1. 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. 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. 3. and passion of peace officers. the latter can arrest the pusher even without a warrant of arrest because an offense is actually being committed in his presence. In one case. stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense. or is attempting to commit an offense. 4.[18] a peace officer or a private person may arrest a person even without a warrant under the following instances: (a) In flagrante delicto arrest. General warrants are those that do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized. When an offense. and it is called citizen arrest. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. When Warrantless Arrest Valid.[19] the Court held that rebellion is a continuing offense. if a person pushes illegal drugs in the presence of a police officer. 2. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the arresting officer or civilian if the warrantless arrest is performed outside the above rules. When. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest. Under the Rules of Court. has in fact just been committed. the person to be arrested has committed. The same principle underlies the “buy-bust” or “entrapment” operations conducted by police officers in catching law offenders. caprice. 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. an offense is committed “in the presence” of the arresting officer or civilian. is actually committing. They are unconstitutional because the sanctity of the domicile and privacy of communication and correspondence of individuals are placed at the mercy. (b) Hot pursuit. or used or intended to be used in the commission of the offense. Warrantless Searches A search is valid even without a warrant.

(e) Terry search. and (h) Search in airports and other populous places. performs a “stopand-frisk” or patting of outer clothing for dangerous weapons. 2. where the State expels an undesirable alien from its territory. in Section 2. and aircrafts for violation of laws. (f) Search of moving vehicles. sanitary. the alien’s constitutional rights are still preserved because they are given fair trial and administrative due process. and effects. Nonetheless. which states that “the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of . paper. The right to privacy is scattered throughout the Bill of Rights. Due process of law. and limited to a visual search only. also provides the same privacy security by protecting an individual’s life. and building regulations. RIGHT TO PRIVACY Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy 1. aware of such right. Important to note is that no probable cause is required in deportation proceedings. Administrative Searches and Arrests 1. after determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for deportation. 2. Constitutional Provisions. When a valid arrest precedes the search or contemporaneous with it. In cases of deportation. Nonetheless. not the judge. When the right has been voluntarily waived by person who has a right. the word “privacy” is expressly provided in Section 3(1). (c) Plainview search. and has an actual intention to relinquish such right. house. is an expression of this right. When the search at stationary checkpoints is pre-announced. and the search is limited to the immediate vicinity of the place of arrest. after observing a suspicious conduct on the part of a citizen. court intervention and proceedings are not required. and the right against self-incrimination under Section 17 are also privacy rights which need protection against undue intrusion by the government. When a police officer. for purposes of securing dangerous objects and effects of the crime. The right to form unions or associations under Section 8. who issues the administrative warrant. 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. [21] The right against unreasonable searches and seizures. and property against undue interference by the government. in interest of effective crime prevention. When prohibited articles are within the sight of an officer who has the right to be in a position to that view. Article III. liberty.[20] It is the Commissioner of Immigration or any officer designated by him. (d) Visual search at checkpoints.(a) Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. (b) Consented search. in Section 1. (g) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire. vessels. inasmuch as it is based on the sacred right to be secure in the privacy of one’s person.

collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person. What the constitution prohibits is government intrusion. Privacy of Communication and Correspondence 1. the government cannot intrude into the privacy of communication and correspondence. 2. The exceptions are: (a) when the court allows the intrusion. Rule. 3. to wire tap or use any devise to secretly overhear. or when public safety or order requires otherwise. is a law which prohibits a person not authorized by all the parties to any private communication. To reinforce these constitutional provisions. Anti-Wire Tapping Act 1. Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or criminal proceedings involving specified offenses principally affecting national security. into the privacy of communication without a lawful court order or when public safety and order does not demand. and (e) Intellectual Property Code. by means of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act. As a rule. the Congress has passed laws that recognize and protect the zones of privacy of an individual. 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 . and correspondence of the aggrieved party. [22] However the subject of search is not a tangible object but an intangible one. (b) The Revised Penal Code. and (b) when public safety and order so demands. Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of search. Exclusionary Rule 1. home. R. intercept.the court. and the like. such as telephone calls. text messages. Writ of Habeas Data The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life.A. letters. as a reinforcement of privacy of communication. Subject of the Right. These forms of communication and correspondence may be intruded into by means of wiretapping or other means of electronic eavesdropping. and only with previous authorization by the court which must comply with the requirements of a warrant.” Privacy of communication and correspondence is also an expression of the right to privacy. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence unlawfully obtained is inadmissible as evidence before the courts. This is based on Section 3(2). or security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. The authority is effective only for sixty days. or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering. These laws include: (a) The Civil Code of the Philippines. family. Statutory Reinforcements. record. or communicate the content of the said communication to any person. liberty. (c) Anti-Wire Tapping Act. 2. as prescribed by law. (d) The Secrecy of Bank Deposits.

Constitutional Provision. to wit: (a) freedom of speech.A. Importance of the Right. Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment 1. So are seditious and fighting words that advocate imminent lawless conduct. It must be exercised within the bounds of law. Limitation. The same rule is applied to any evidence taken in violate of R. The right is not absolute. socially. (c) freedom of the press. Section 4.”[23] 3. and freedom of religion. the scope of the protection extends to right to form associations or societies not contrary to law. Thus. Article III provides that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. Nonetheless. and prevents the government from being a subjective arbiter of what is . 4200. robust and wide-open debate in the free market of ideas.” The right underscores tolerance to different views and thoughts. 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. 2. For example. Or if police officers wiretap a conversation without court authorization. Freedom of speech and of the press has two aspects: (a) freedom from prior restraint. In here.for any purpose in any proceeding. Freedom of expression has four aspects. Freedom of expression is accorded the highest protection in the Bill of Rights since it is indispensable to the preservation of liberty and democracy. On the one hand. (b) freedom of expression. Aspects of the Right. of expression. the evidence obtained even if material in the case cannot be admitted in court. The name of the doctrine metaphorically describes what happens to an “evidence” (fruit) taken through “unlawful means” (poisonous tree). morally. persons and the media are freed from total suppression or restriction by the government of what could be disseminated. freedom from prior restraint means freedom from censorship or governmental screening of what is politically. right to access to information on matters of public concern. These are all crucial to the advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of an “uninhibited. and (b) freedom from subsequent punishment. religious. public policy and public order. morals. and with due regard for others’ rights. 4. the evidences are said to be fruits of a poisonous tree. artistic. and slanderous speeches are not protected by the guarantee. and (d) freedom of assembly. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. and commercial speeches are protected by the constitutional guarantee. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Meaning and Scope 1. or of the press. 2. academic. 2. libelous. Thus. obscene. and artistically correct. the recorded conversation shall be excluded as an evidence in court. 3. Thus. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. political. The evidence-fruit is discarded because it may infect or destroy the integrity of the case and forfeit the purpose of the law.

refers to a public and malicious imputation of a crime. the State is justified of restricting the right.[27] and (d) School articles which materially disrupt class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others.[25] (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. freedom from subsequent punishment refers to the assurance that citizens can speak and air out their opinions without fear of vengeance by the government. discredit or contempt of a natural or juridical person. it is allowed under the following instances:[24] (a) Undue utterances in time of war. provides that the finding out of substantive evil is not enough to suppress the right. even if it did not materialize. 3. Although the system of prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional. and (d) Inciting to rebellion. Subsequent chastisement has the effect of unduly curtailing expression. the court has the duty to determine which of the two demands greater protection. artistic. (c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when there is conflict between a regulation and freedom of speech. political or scientific value. (b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of military information. vice or defect. This rule is consistent with the principle of “maximum tolerance” and is often applied by the Court in freedom of expression cases. This rule has already been abandoned.acceptable and not. and thus freedom therefrom is essential to the freedom of speech and the press. On the other hand. or blacken the memory of one who is dead. The State. status tending to cause dishonor. however. real or imaginary or any act or omission. (2) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a more libertarian rule. .[28] Tests to Determine When Right Maybe Suppressed There are six tests or rules to determine when the freedom may be suppressed. Rather the substantive evil must have clear and present danger type depending on the specific circumstances of the case. These are: (1) 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. (c) Obscene publication. can validly impose subsequent punishment under the following instances: (a) Libel which is the most common form of subsequent punishment. [26] (c) Criticism of official conduct made with actual malice.

The two have a substantial difference in that broadcast media has a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of Filipinos. or manner) of the speech.[30] Regulations on Mass Media Mass media may be broadcast media (e. The restriction is content-based when restriction is directed to the speech itself. 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. nevertheless. 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.[31]greater regulation is imposed over broadcast media because of its greater tendency to invade the privacy of everyone than print media. Example.g. television and radio) or print media (e. An example of a content-neutral restriction is when the government regulates the manner of posting campaign advertisements. Meaning. 2. An example of a content-based restriction is when the government prohibits speeches against the President. a sufficiently important government interest that warrants the regulation of the “non-speech” element can also justify incidental limitations on the speech element. in which case the restriction is on the manner the right is made. Although generally every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false and malicious because every man is presumed innocent until proven guilty. a discreditable imputation directed against a public person in his public capacity. but to the incidents (such as time.” even if the inferred opinion is wrong. the applicable rule or test is the clear and present danger test. if the imputation directed against a person in his public is based on “established facts. Doctrine of Fair Comment 1. In one case. the comments as . the applicable test is the clear and present danger test. and (f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words are uttered and the likely result of the utterance. that is. 3. Two Kinds of Restrictions. place. determines whether the gravity of the evil. If the governmental restriction is content-based. does not necessarily make one liable. If the restriction is content-neutral. inasmuch as the restraint is only regulatory and does not attack the speech directly. newspaper). Restrictions on Freedom of Speech 1.[29] (e) O’Brien Test which provides that when “speech” and “non-speech” elements are combined in the same course of conduct. can justify the suppression of the right in order to avoid the danger. Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. freedom of television and radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the freedom accorded to the print media. in which case the restriction is on the speech itself. Under the doctrine of fair comment.(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant to supplant the clear and present danger test. As such. The State may impose two kinds of restrictions on speech under a system of prior restraint: content-based restriction and content-neutral restriction. the applicable rule is only an intermediate approach. less its improbability to happen.g. Thus. not to the speech itself. whether or not they will directly incite or produce imminent lawless action. while the restriction is content-neutral when it is directed.

3. It also implements the observance of “maximum tolerance” towards participants of rallies consistent with the clear and present danger test. it is not actionable. Section 8. In here. Who may Exercise the Right. which basically provides the requirements and procedure for holding rallies. freedom of assembly is not subject to prior restraint or prior issuance of permit by government authorities. even a truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated. It is a protected speech for as long as it is not false or misleading and does not propose an illegal transaction.” 2.justified. But if the government has a substantial interest to protect. Private speech is accorded more freedom and protection than commercial speech. because the right is not subject to prior restraint. it must be exercised in such a way that will not to prejudice public welfare. however. or in a freedom park. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. it must either be a “false allegation” or a “baseless comment. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. Example. and someone commented that he maliciously stole things from the local residents. permit is required to hold a rally. As a rule. then the same is deemed granted. If the application for permit is not acted upon by the mayor within two working days. 2. In order to that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable. 5. It must be emphasized. including those employed in the public and private sectors. Commercial speech is one that proposes a commercial transaction done in behalf of a company or individual for purposes of profit. Rather. Freedom of Assembly 1.”[32] 2. inasmuch as the opinion was based on such fact. Meaning. 4. in a campus of a state college or university.[33] 2. in which case only coordination with the police is required. Constitutional Provision. that the permit is not a requirement for the validity of the assembly or rally. Permit is not required if the rally is held in a private place. Under the said law. Freedom of assembly is reinforced by Batas Pambansa Blg. associations. Meaning.[34] 3. 880. Article III provides that “the right of the people. When Permit not Required. the permit is a requirement for the use of the public place. Permit Requirement. 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. Right to Form Associations 1. Commercial Speech 1. Political rally during election is regulated by the Omnibus Election Code. As long as the opinion might reasonably inferred from the facts. the comment is justified. the doctrine of fair comment is applicable. not by BP 880. to form unions. otherwise known as the Public Assembly Acts of 1985. It likewise embraces . Nevertheless. If a case of theft was filed against a barangay official. Freedom of assembly refers to the right to hold a rally to voice out grievances against the government.

” Non-establishment Clause 1. are governed by law and the employees therein shall not strike for purposes of securing changes. and peaceful concerted activities. and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts. public school teachers do not enjoy the right to strike even if they are given the constitutional right of association. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. Constitutional Provision. or decisions. since the State cannot control the mind of the citizen. The second aspect is expressed in Section 5. The right to form associations or to self-organization does not include the right to strike. Article III provides that “the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.” . and privilege speech). and (d) Other confidential information (such as inter-government exchanges prior to consultation of treaties and executive agreement. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Article XIII: “[The State] shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. shall be afforded the citizen. thus “… The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. 2. every person has the absolute right to believe (or not to believe) in anything whatsoever without any possible external restriction by the government. The right of civil servants to unionize is expressly provided in Section 2(5). Article III provides that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. including in any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government owned and controlled corporations with original charters.” 2.[36] Right to Information 1. The right guarantees access to official records for any lawful purpose. Section 7.the right to form unions both in the government and private sector. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. collective bargaining and negotiations. The first aspect is in the realm of the mind. Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a) the freedom to believe. including the right to strike in accordance with law. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.[35] The terms and conditions of employment in the Government. Right to Strike not Included. Access to official records. military and diplomatic secrets. and as such it is absolute. Thus. Article III. and (b) the freedom to act on one’s belief. without discrimination or preference. Thus. FREEDOM OF RELIGION Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion 1. the government may interfere or regulate such aspect of the right. transactions. However. (b) Trade or industrial secrets. and order. shall forever be allowed. Scope and Limitation. Since it may affect peace. The aspect refers to the externalization of belief as it is now brought out from the bosom of internal belief. access may be denied by the government if the information sought involves: (a) National security matters.” The right of labor in general to unionize is likewise provided in Section 3. Constitutional Provision. (c) Criminal matters. public policy.” 3. Article IX-B: “The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees. Section 5. morals.

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. elementary and high school.[49] and (f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as the venue of a significant religious event. however. permits the following: (a) Tax exemption on property “actually.[50] Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act Violates Freedom of Religion 1.[42] and using the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance. Under this test. or dignitary assigned to the armed forces. the clause is rooted in the principle of separation of church and state. does not promote or favor any set of religious beliefs. Manifestly. Compelling State Interest Test and Clear and Present Danger Testare used to determine whether there is violation of free-exercise clause. 3. penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium. in that the benefit to religious sect is incidental to the promotion of the Philippines as a tourist destination. minister. Exceptions to the Prohibition.[38]financial subsidy of a parochial school.[47] (d) Financial support given to priest. The non-establishment clause holds that the State cannot set up a church or pass laws aiding one religion. and without additional costs to the government. at the option of parents or guardians expressed in writing. . Particular Prohibitions. and does not get the government too entangled with religion. Clear and present danger test is used to determine whether the circumstance 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. or force a person to believe or disbelieve in any religion. Lemon Test is used to determine whether an act of the government violates the non-establishment clause.[48] (e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which traditions are used to be purely religious but have now acquired secular character. On the other hand.[41] mandatory reading of the bible.[46] (c) Religious instruction in public schools. all religion. In particular. 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.2. the non-establishment clause prohibits. prayers of a particular denomination to start a class in public schools. On the on hand. it prohibits the State from establishing an official religion. or preferring one over another.[44] (b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools[45] and expansion of educational facilities in parochial schools for secular activities. directly and exclusively used” for religious purposes.[40] law prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Different tests are used to determine if there are governmental violations of non-establishment clause and free exercise clause. It discourages excessive government involvement with religion and manifest support to any one religious denomination.[39] display of the ten commandments in front of a courthouse. Under this test.[37] In order words.[43] 4.[51] 2. among others. a law or a governmental act does not violate the clause when it has a secular purpose. The clause. within regular class hours by designated instructors. preacher. Explanation.

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. pursuant to the doctrine of . 1564. conscience. If the law is extended to religion. and (b) Freedom to travel within and outside the country. It has limitations. Using the clear and present danger test. Conscientious Objector Test A conscientious objector is someone who sincerely claims the right to refuse to perform military service[53] and salute a flag[54] on the grounds of freedom of thought. Constitutional Provision. Aspects of the Freedom. and as such it is part of the law of the land. as may be provided by law. Religious Solicitations Under Presidential Decree No. Limitations 1. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL Freedom of Movement 1. or public health. or when a person is on bail. Section 6. or public health.” 2. Nonetheless. Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. The right to travel may also be restricted in interest of national security. It is a generally accepted principle of international law.” Fraud is much less in religion.[52] the Court held that expulsion from school is unjustified if is based on the conflict between religious beliefs and school practices (saluting the flag). it constitutes restriction on freedom of religion as resources necessary for maintenance are deprived of churches. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. In one case. or under a watch-list and hold departure order.” and not arbitrary. 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. The purpose of the law is to protect the public from fraudulent solicitations. permit is required before solicitations for “charitable and public welfare purposes” may be carried out. Freedom of religion is now recognized as a preferred right.3. then it becomes unconstitutional. Freedom of movement has two aspects: (a) Freedom to choose and change one’s domicile. Liberty of abode may be impaired or restricted when there is a “lawful court order. also known as the Solicitation Law. permit is no longer required if the solicitation is for “religious purposes.” 2. Times have changed. and/or religion. He may be granted exemption from military service or from saluting the flag if he establishes that his objection is “sincere. it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the Philippines.” based on “religious training and belief. public safety. 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. A person’s place of abode or domicile is his permanent residence. public safety. The expulsion violates the right of children to education. Example.

the obligations of contracts. Thus. or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms. as long as it is valid.[59] An administrative order or court decision is not included in the scope of the constitutional guarantee. 3. Limitations 1.[56] Contracts Affected 1. The cause of the impairment must be legislative in nature.[57] In other words. After all.incorporation. Their will should prevail. Well-established is the policy that the subject of contractual agreements is “imbued with paramount public interest. Article III provides that “no law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. The agreement of the parties. As between freedom of contract and police power. a subsequent law which deprives the lawyer of the said value is arbitrary and unreasonable since it is destructive of the inviolability of contracts. What the clause guarantees is the integrity of contracts against undue interference by the government. if a lawyer enters into a contract with a client by which the latter will pay 5% of the value of the monetary claim. ordinance. police power prevails. either executed or executory. For example. or intrusion into. Thus. is the law between them. or dispenses with those expressed. 2. The obligation of contract must be impaired by a statute. or imposes new conditions.[55] NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Contract Clause 1. or any legislative act for it to come within the meaning of the constitutional provision. The impairment must be legislative in character. Section 10. In one case.” Kind of Impairment Covered 1. .[60] 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. either in the time or mode of performance. private rights and interest in contracts must yield to the common good. are covered by the guarantee.[58] 2. and therefore invalid as lacking of due process. For the clause to be operative. the act of impairment is anything that diminishes the value of the contract. laws enacted in exercise of police power will prevail over contracts. Every contract affecting public welfare is presumed to include the provisions of existing laws and a reservation of police power. Only valid contracts. the impairment caused by law must be substantial. 2. and this must be respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent laws. there is not impairment of the freedom to contract. Substantial impairment happens when the law changes the terms of a legal contract between parties. It is different from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” This is the so-called contract clause. SEC’s approval of the plan is not a legislative act but an administrative act. which seeks to restrain substantial legislative impairment of.

34) changed the crop-sharing system between the landlord and tenants from 50-50 to 55-45 in favor of the tenants. Licenses are different from contracts.2. No. Nonetheless. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. right to free legal services if he cannot afford one.[61] In another case. Protection for the Poor. the right is placed in a separate provision to emphasize the desire for constitutional protection of the poor. (b) Right against the use of torture. The Court held that the law is valid.A. because a person. since it is a legitimate exercise of police power. 3. they yield to police power. Free access is a right covered by the due process clause. incommunicado. (c) Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in violation of this provision or the right against self-incrimination as evidence against him. Licenses are franchises or privileges given by the State to qualified entities that may be withdrawn or relinquished when national interests so require. . For instance. or other similar forms of detention. violence. regardless of his status in life. intimidation.[62] 3. the Rules of Court provide for litigation in forma pauperis in which paupers and indigents. Section 12. who have only their labor to support themselves. the law favored the tenants as well as the general welfare of the people in exchange of contractual rights. right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. However. 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. a law (R. like contracts. inasmuch as they are also sovereign powers of the state. or any other means which vitiate his free will.” 2. threat. can validly impair obligations of contracts. Constitutional Provision. force. must be given an opportunity to defend himself in the proper court or tribunal. to wit: (a) Right to remain silent. 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. The power of taxation and power of eminent domain. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION Miranda Rights 1. The supremacy of police power is felt most clearly in labor contracts and agricultural tenancy contracts. Section 11. and (d) Sanctions against violators and compensation for rehabilitation of victims. Consistent with the policy of social justice. Prohibition against secret detention places. and theright to informed of these rights. Litigation in Forma Pauperis. are given free legal services and access to courts. LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS 1. solitary. 4. In consonance with this constitutional provision. Constitutional Provision. Article III enumerates the rights of a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense.

Extrajudicial consfession refers to a confession or admission of guilt made outside (extra) the court (judicial). Meaning. Involuntary Confession. On the one hand. during this stage.[65] Custodial Investigation 1. However. There are two kinds of involuntary confession: (a) confession through coercion. It recognizes the fact that the environment in custodial investigations is psychologically if not physically coercive in nature. 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. 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. Custodial investigation refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody. and (d) in writing. 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. Show-ups are done by bringing the lone suspect face-to-face with the witness for identification. However. mug shots. Extrajudicial confessions must be given voluntarily. However. it must be: (a) voluntary. With respect to the present provision.[64] so that law enforcers should be reminded of the sanctity of individual rights and the limitations on their means of solving crimes. the “presumption of regularity” of official acts and the behavior of police or prosecution isnot observed if the person under investigation was not informed. the confession considered as a fruit of a poisonous tree. which is not judicial in nature. 3. As such. since no case was instituted against him. and line ups.[66] and (b) confession without being informed of the Miranda rights.[67] Both forms are invalid and cannot be admitted as evidence against the confidant. 2. And in line ups. Extrajudicial Confession 1. suspects are identified by way of show-ups. Why called Miranda Rights. (c) express. the waiver or confession must be valid to be admissible as evidence against him. Mug shots are performed by showing photographs to witnesses to identify the suspect. there is a distinction between the two. Requisites for Validity. (b) made in the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. It is a critical area of study in Constitutional Law. it refers to a confession given during a custodial investigation. This enumeration of rights above may be invoked during custodial investigations. Under the Miranda Rights. 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. Arizona. In fact. no complaint or criminal case has been filed yet.”[63] Purpose of the Right The provision emphasizes on the duty of law enforcement officers to treat properly and humanely those under investigation.2. so that the complainant-suspect should prove that there is . the person suspected to have committed a crime is not yet an accused. For an extrajudicial confession to be valid and admissible as evidence in court. 2. as far as the present provision is concerned. the witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons. During custodial investigations.

conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be required. Assistance of Counsel.” 2. Purpose of Bail. even if uncounselled. a fiscal or a public prosecutor. 7. or even in his presence but without adequate assistance. even if competent. who represents the interest of the State. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. An extrajudicial confession to a mayor. shall. not in the capacity of a law enforcer. is also invalid and inadmissible. Meaning of Bail. his interest not adverse to the latter. His interest is adverse to the latter. he cannot be an independent counsel for the suspect. Worth emphasizing is the reason why those charge with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and against whom evidence of guilt is strong.[69]While a mayor has power of supervision over the police. They must be strictly scrutinized.[71] and thus level the playing field for the parties. There is presumption of voluntariness in confessions which media describes as freely given. furnished by him or a bondsman. cannot assist the suspect or person under investigation. On the other hand. A counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office is qualified to assist a person in executing an extrajudicial confession. Probational release through bail is corollary to the right to be presumed innocent and a means of immediately obtaining liberty.[68] 4.[70] During the duration of release. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. may be admissible. Constitutional Provision. For instance. so that the law enforces must prove its regularity. and bail merely becomes an instrument of evading the law. be bailable by sufficient sureties. RIGHT TO BAIL Meaning of Right 1. a confession given without being informed of the Miranda rights is presumed involuntarily given.torture to invalidate his confession. For this matter. 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. before conviction. The rule requires that the assisting counsel must be independent and competent. an admission to him. 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. there is improbability of appearance. The uncounselled admission to him does not violate the right to legal assistance and therefore the confession is admissible as evidence against the confidant. 6. the accused is given the chance to prepare his defense. are not allowed to bail. Thus. extrajudicial confession to a media man who is acting as a news reporter and not under the supervision of the police. In addition. Under such circumstances. 3. Bail refers to the security given for the temporary release of a person in custody of the law. is admissible. . is deemed freely given. extreme caution must be taken in further admitting similar evidence or confession. Article III provides that “all persons. An extrajudicial confession made in the absence of a counsel. Because of the inherent danger of using information from broadcast media. Section 13. 5.

Bail as a Matter of Discretion. Under the Rules of Court. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (g) Probability of his appearance at trial. and (j) Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail. but not exclusively. pending appeal when the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment for more than six years but not more than twenty years. When Right May be Invoked 1. 2. Technically. The right to bail may be invoked from the moment of detention or arrest. What it requires is that the amount should be reasonable and not excessive otherwise the right is rendered useless. 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. the right may already be availed of. and (b) Before conviction of the RTC of an offense not punishable by death. for as long as there is already an arrest. (b) Pending appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman. and it is not shown that the accused repeated a crime. and (c) After conviction. The law does not prescribe for a fix amount of bail. the instances when bail is a matter of right are: (a) Before or after conviction by the MTC. the amount is reasonable if the judge bases it primarily. 3. Even if no formal charges have been filed yet. (i) The fact that he is a fugitive from justice when arrested. . Bail as a Matter of Right. (e) Age and health of the accused. (b) Nature and circumstances of offense. reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. (c) Penalty for offense charged.Standards for Fixing Amount of Bail 1. General Rule. (d) Character and reputation of accused. (h) Forfeiture of other bonds by him. (f) Weight of evidence against him. 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. on the following guidelines:[72] (a) Financial ability of the accused.

because it destroys the assumption of illegality of the arrest or detention. 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. Under the current rules. the prayer is for permanent release. consistent with the developments in international law which now treats an individual as a subject or party. Bail is now available in extradition[73] cases. What the court must do in such cases is to increase the amount of bail. 3. allowing military members to bail would pose a great danger to national security. due process demands that the court must conduct a mandatory hearing to determine if evidence of guilt is strong. 2. 4. there must be a hearing. 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. 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. whereas in habeas corpus. then the judge commits an error because he cannot repose solely on the prosecutor his decision. Even if there is no objection. as well as the military mentality that they carry. before rendering a judgment.[74] When Right May not be Invoked 1. 5. Important also to note is that the military may not invoke the right to bail. When the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended. there is an implicit recognition of the validity of detention or arrest. committed an offense while under the custody of the probational release.[75] Among other reasons. Mandatory Hearing When the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua. 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. While bail and habeas corpus are remedies intended for the immediate release of a detainee. And secondly. then it moots the purpose of habeas corpus.[76] RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED . Allowing them to bail could mean resumption of widespread commission of heinous activities. the remedy of immediate release cannot be availed of (although filing is still allowed). while in habeas corpus. 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. in bail. if the detainee files a bail for his temporary release. Their sheer number and unique structure. there are fundamental differences between them so that the suspension of one does not mean the suspension of the other. there is an assumption that the detention or arrest is illegal. Right not escapee. They are allowed to use firearms and they are paid using government money. This is one of the instances when bail is a matter of discretion. Firstly. the prayer in bail is for the temporary release of the detainee. or had the tendency of flight or to commit another offense.

and (d) There is a valid judgment deliberated and rendered by the court. Constitutional Provision. (b) He is notified of the case. To level therefore the playing field. With all its machineries. It highlights the relation of the individual and the state. The case filed is a criminal case. Article III provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. A case is said to be criminal when it involves the prosecution of a crime by the State and the imposition of liability on erring individuals. manpower. Section 14. the State is placed in an advantaged position. The accused. the investigating prosecutor . It contemplates a scenario where a case has already been filed against a person. who is the person charged in a criminal case. and almost unlimited sources of money. it refers only to the right of the accused during trial. When preliminary investigations are held for purposes of determining whether an information or a case should be filed against the respondent. Impartiality in criminal due process (Section 14.[77] As to its substantive aspect. while the accused is the person formally charged of a crime or offense punishable by law. in contrast to custodial investigations where a case may not have been filed yet. and not the private complainant. (c) He is given the opportunity to be heard.Criminal Cases 1. the criminal cases must be based on a penal law. with the state having the right to inflict punishment to an offender once his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. in which the parties are the “People of the Philippines” and the “accused. paragraph 2 of the Bill of Rights. The real offended party or victim in a criminal case is the State or the People of the Philippines. Section 14(1). but to the people as a whole. which is the State. paragraph 1) is broader since it extends to preliminary investigations conducted before the filing criminal cases in court. Criminal Due Process 1. Violation of the law poses danger not just to a private person. and is a threat to the sovereignty of the State. Although a separate right to impartial trial is granted in Section 14. Article III deals with the rights of the accused. The provision refers to due process in criminal cases. 3. The right to appeal is not a constitutional right. the Constitution provides for numerous rights of the accused and of persons under investigation. It is a statutory right granted by the legislature. 4.” The People of the Philippines is the complainant. Justice demands that they should be given a fighting chance against the most power institution.” 2. then it comes within the scope of due process. Criminal due process requires impartiality or objectivity on the part of the court. This is because what has generally been violated is the law of the Philippines which provides protection to the people and guarantees peace and order in the land. But when it is expressly granted by law. 4. One of the instances wherein impartiality is compromised is the socalled trial by publicity. As to its procedural aspect. is pitted against the State. criminal due process requires that: (a) The accused is brought into a court of competent jurisdiction. 3. 2.

The judgment is final when there is nothing for the court to do but to execute it. To protect therefore individual rights. The proceeding continues until a final judgment is entered by the court. In fact. Meaning. Criminal Prosecution. These are rights of the accused “in criminal prosecutions. during this duration the accused can invoke the said rights under the proper circumstances. Right to be Presumed Innocent 1.” Under the Rules. over civilians for offenses allegedly committed by them as long as civilian courts are still open and functioning. then procedural due process is violated. a military court cannot try and exercise jurisdiction. is based on the fundamental procedural rule that the court must hear first before it condemns. the rights in Section 14(2) are elaborations of criminal due process. (d) Right to have a speedy. Rights of the Accused during Trial 1. and (f) Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.[78] 5. 2. and public trial. A military court has its own unique set of procedures consistent with the nature and purpose of the military.should not be swayed by the circumstances of pervasive and prejudicial publicity. to wit: (a) Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. the accused is already in a disadvantaged position since he is pitted against the State. (e) Right to meet the witnesses face to face. The right to presumption of innocence. The right refers to the constitutional guarantee that the accused should be treated as if innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus. Because of its distinct features. it should be the State that proves the guilt of accused. (b) Right to be heard by himself and counsel. for instance. even during martial law. It was held that prejudicial publicity may be invoked as denial of due process if it prevents the “observance of those decencies” or requirements of procedural due process. Arraignment refers to that stage of the criminal proceeding when the information is read to the accused to which he pleads guilty or not guilty. Section 14(2). 2. Article III enumerates rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions. Basically. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the accused. Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process. impartial.[79] Due process therefore demands that civilians can only be tried for an offense in civilian courts and not in military courts. and not that the accused proves . criminal proceedings start from arraignment up to the rendition of final judgment by the court. in particular one’s liberty. unless no civilian court is available. Constitutional Provision. Presumption of guilt renders the rights of the accused nugatory. (c) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

It should rely on its own merits and not on the weakness of the defense. When Presumption is Overcome. Participation of the accused in the right to be heard includes three specific rights: (a) the right to present evidence and to be present at the trial. The right to be heard is the heart of criminal due process. 2. mean that the presumption of innocence is finally overcome. Ratio of Right to Counsel. than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be innocent. It is a safeguard against prejudicial and partial judgments by the courts. The counsel representing the accused must be independent and competent. The is based on logic and human experience. Related Right. It must be noted that the certainty required by law is not absolute certainty but moral certainty as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. Right to be Heard. Depriving a person of such right constitutes violation of due process. in spite of his education in life. Under the rules of evidence. The presumption of innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. and (c) the right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. it creates a prima facie evidence that the accused committed the crime of theft. (b) the right to be assisted by counsel. Why Right is Granted. and a non-lawyer. the presumption of innocence remains.[80] 3. The philosophy behind the very high quantum of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused is expressed by the court as follows: “It is better to acquit a person upon the ground of reasonable doubt even though he may in reality be guilty. 2. The burden of proof simply shifts from the prosecution to the defense (side of the accused) who will in turn present contradictory evidence to overcome the prima facie proof. it refers to all the mechanisms afforded to the accused during the criminal proceedings. When the prosecution. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel 1. The right of the accused to counsel is based on the reason that only a lawyer has a substantial knowledge of the rules of evidence. so that if there is reasonable doubt that lurks in the mind of the judge. The law and rules. Included in the right to counsel is the duty of the court to inform the accused of his right to counsel before arraignment and to give a counsel in case the accused cannot afford the services of one. The presumption of innocence is overturned. When the defense creates reasonable doubt. [82] 3. allow that presumption of innocence may be overcome by another presumption through prima facie evidence. This does not. however. the accused must be acquitted. for instance. however.”[81] 4. Basically. may not be aware of the intricacies of law and procedure. Presumption of Guilt. as well as a guarantee that the accused be given an opportunity to participate during trial in defense of himself. Related Rights. Such proof requires that the court is morally certain that the accused is guilty of the crime. A counsel who has a divided interest between the prosecution (State) .Prima facie evidence means an evidence deemed sufficient unless contradicted. and the evidence creates a prima facie proof of the guilt of the accused. establishes that the stolen object is in the possession of the accused. 4.his innocence. It is the prosecution (State) who has the burden of overcoming the presumption of innocence. proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest quantum of evidence.

and orderly administration of justice. The form of criminal proceeding is adversarial because two opposing parties battle out against each other and only one of them could emerge as victor. inasmuch as what is at stake is the speedy. 2. 3. In criminal proceedings. For instance. it is enough that the relatives and friends of the interested parties are accommodated in the trial venue. Impartial and Public Trial 1. The constitutional mandate is complied with by the arraignment of the accused in which he is informed by the court of the offense charged to which the accused either pleads guilty of not guilty. What is prohibited is oppressive and vexatious postponements.” Unreasonable delays may result to a prolonged suffering of an innocent accused or an evasion of justice by a truly guilty person. evidence is difficult to find because of people’s anxiety in testifying in court as well as their dislike for burdensome court processes. Right to impartial trial primarily requires that the judge who sits in the case must be objective and renders a decision based on the cold neutrality of the evidence presented. Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in the complaint and not the title of the case that determines the nature of the offense. In fact. Both parties are allowed to test the veracity of the testimonies presented by the other. or who is substantially swayed by the prejudicial publicity of the case. is a partial judge and must be inhibited from the case. Right to be informed is again an essential aspect of procedural due process. Reason for the Right. Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be conducted in such a way that the public may know what transpires during the trial. mean that the court cannot grant reasonable postponements. inexpensive. 2. Right to Compulsory Process 1. the accused needs only to create reasonable doubt on the mind of the court to be acquitted. It is not necessary that the entire public can witness the proceedings. Right to speedy trial is based on the maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied. Right to Meet the Witnesses Face-to-Face The right to confrontation enables the accused to test the credibility of the witnesses. Thus. It offends not just the accused but also the State. The right is reinforced under the rules of criminal procedure by the so-called cross-examination. In recognition therefore of this fact. the law and the rules give the accused the right to . if the prosecution unreasonably delays the criminal proceedings because of too many postponements and unjustifiable absences. however. Right to Speedy. a judge who is hostile to the accused based on his comments and utterances.and the defense (accused) is disqualified on the ground of lack of independence and conflict of interest. This does not. Nevertheless. Undue postponements not only depletes the funds of the defense but also of prosecution. the court is allowed under the rules to order the public to leave the premises of the court room in interest of morality and order. Crossexamination is conducted after the presentation and direct examination of witnesses by the opposing side. It is often the case that the party with the weightier evidence wins. Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation 1. the accused may be acquitted on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial.

2. An example of a valid waiver of the right to be present is the so-called trial in absentia. the validity of his detention when the authority of the detaining person or agency is at issue.[85] (c) During the promulgation of judgment. trial may still proceed (trial in absentia) if after his arraignment and notification of the date of the hearing. . except when it is for a light offense. This is in order to meet the exigencies in such cases. to submit to. [86] In all these instances. the remedy of subpoena ad testificandum may be availed to compel the person to testify. inasmuch as it is a right.avail of compulsory means for attendance of witnesses and production of needed document or things. he shall be immediately released from detention. the accused must appear because his non-appearance may either prejudice his rights or that of the State. Meaning and Purpose of the Right. When relevant documents are needed but the holder thereof refuses to produce them. Thus. it is again an incident of criminal due process. the remedy of subpoena duces tecum may be availed of to compel the production of the same. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1. Article III states that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion. in the following: (a) During arraignment and plea. rights may be waived by its possessor. The writ of habeas corpus is a written order issued by the court directed to a person detaining another commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place. Should the court find out that the person is illegally confined or detained. When the person sought to testify is uncooperative or just afraid of court-related actions. and ultimately. When Privilege Suspended. Waiver of Right. in order that he may be informed of what transpires in every stage of the proceedings. and to receive whatever court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf. 2. Right to be present. For as long as it does not prejudice others. Right to be Present 1. he has the constitutional right to file a petition of habeas corpus. When a person is illegally confined or detained. The effect of the waiver is that the accused will no longer have the right to present evidence and confront the witnesses. It must be noted that the presence of the accused becomes a duty. from arraignment to rendition of judgment. with the day and cause of his capture and detention. the accused has the right to be present at all stages of trial. As a rule. Section 15.[84] (b) When he is to be identified.[83] These remedies are also available to the prosecution. Kinds of Compulsory Processes. or when his liberty is illegally restrained.” This is a reiteration of Section 18. 2. through habeas corpus. What is constitutionally guaranteed is the right of a person detained by another to test or challenge. and therefore not waivable. to do. to fully defend himself from the accusation against him. When Right not Waivable. 3. he still unjustifiably failed to appear. Article VII. 3. Even in the absence of the accused. may be waived by the accused. to guard himself from technical blunders. The privilege of habeas corpus is suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. Constitutional Provision. when the public safety requires it.

However. the right may be invoked by all persons subject to judicial examination and legislative investigation. Article III provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It is even available in legislative investigations and impeachment proceedings. The right allows a person not to answer an incriminating question. And the second is. or administrative. Aside from the writ of habeas corpus. and the opposing counsel asked “was there an instance that you cheated on your wife?. but also defendants in civil cases. quasi-judicial. First is by refusing to testify altogether during trial. quasi-judicial. whether criminal or civil. Thus. but an accused can invoke the same in two ways. when a witness is subjected to direct examination by the opposing party. the writ of amparo is another available remedy to any person whose right to life. It is not automatically operational once an incriminating question is asked. If no objection is raised. special utilization of the right is given to the accused. Article III states that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. liberty. For example.” This constitutional guarantee is better known as right against self-incrimination. When Right Available 1. nonetheless. is not self-executing. quasi-judicial. by refusing to answer questions that tend to incriminate him for another offense. and whether judicial or quasi-judicial or administrative. .” Unlike the right to speedy trial which applies only in criminal proceedings. it is only when the incriminating question is put to a witness stand that the right may be invoked. It must be properly invoked by objecting to an incriminating question. and legislative investigations can invoke the right under proper circumstances. whether judicial. when he chooses to testify. In addition. Writ of Amparo. and witnesses in all kinds of proceedings. the right to speedy disposition of cases may be invoked in all cases. The right. and security has been violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee. then the answer may be used as evidence against the witness for the proper criminal charge. A witness can invoke the right only when the question tends to be selfincriminating. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION Meaning of Right against Self-Incrimination Section 17. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES Section 16. An incriminating question is one that if answered renders a person liable for an offense. Thus it may be invoked not just by the accused in criminal cases.4. right to speedy disposition of cases is broader than right to speedy trial. 2. Although all persons subject to judicial. or administrative bodies. or of a private individual or entity. The right is available in all government proceedings.” the right may be invoked by a timely objection to the incriminating question. This remedy is especially available in cases of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. administrative. 3.

4. This has never been practiced in the Philippines. . If evidence will still be taken from the lips of the accused. in exchange of immunity. nor should involuntary servitude in any form exist. the right against selfincrimination could no longer be invoked. The right is founded on public policy and humanity. 5. works for another in payment of his debt. 2.[87] Public policy demands that a person be spared from answering incriminating questions because requiring him would likely lead to the crime of perjury. From the very start. the same is prohibited by the present guarantee even if the service is rendered voluntarily. Article III provides that no person should be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. Enforced labor happens when a person is unlawfully compelled to work against his will. When a person. because of poverty or lack of money. which is basically lying to the court after having promised to tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth. although not by his creditor. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE 1. even their guilt. This is essentially embodied in the freedom of expression but with emphasis on the prohibition against incarceration of “political prisoners. peonage is prohibited because the person is forced to work by the circumstances of his indebtedness. Constitutional Provision. While it appears voluntary. The right is based on the egalitarian principle of democracy which prescribes equality of everyone in law. In one case. The first part of the provision deals with the right not to be detained by reason solely of political beliefs and aspirations. the accused is already in an adverse position pitted against the entire machinery of the State. 2. Their testimonies are so crucial to the resolution of a criminal case so that in attainment thereof immunity is given to them by the State. the Court held that writing is not a pure mechanical act but requires the use of the intellect. The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is similar to the other rights of the accused. This voluntary service in payment of debt is called peonage. Subjecting the body of the accused when material to solve the case is allowed and not violative of the right. and on humanity which prevents degradation of human dignity through enforced labor. Basis of the Right 1. Section 18. State witnesses cannot avail of the right because the very purpose of their being state witnesses is to give them immunity or protection to testify. but has its remnants in modern forms of enforced labor and peonage. Thus. it would even tilt the scales heavily in favor of the State. This means that they will no longer be prosecuted for the crime for which they are testifying. Involuntary servitude refers to the compulsory service of another or simply modern day slavery. it is involuntary and to a certain extent resembles slavery. Humanity prevents extorting confession by duress. Since they have to unravel everything. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a commodity under the complete power of the master.” The second part deals with the right against involuntary servitude. except as a punishment for a crime. In criminal proceedings what is prohibited is physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused. an accused cannot be compelled to write or sign and use the same as evidence against him.

“even if the law is harsh. Involuntary servitude may be allowed under the following instances: (a) as punishment for crime.[88] The mere severity of a penalty does not make the punishment cruel or inhumane.” the form of punishment is cruel and inhuman. murder. nor cruel. (b) in the case of personal. such as genocide. Section 19(2) also states that “… neither shall death penalty be imposed. especially when committed against . 4. although with a reservation that the Congress can subsequently pass a law imposing it for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. are cruel and inhumane. rebellion. Constitutional Provision. disembowelment. such as the nature of the offense. In fact. otherwise it is unlawfully excessive. A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and beyond the limits prescribed by law. Article III states that “excessive fines shall not be imposed. do not imitate me. For a penalty to violate the constitutional guarantee. and the circumstances of the person punished by fine. The imposed fine may never go beyond the statutory prescription. and it must be unreasonably disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the senses of the community. and (c) in compliance to a return to work order issued by the Department of Labor and Employment. and crucifixion. The constitutional provision on death penalty or capital punishment does not explicitly mention that it is cruel and inhumane. the Constitution allows the Congress to impose death penalty for the right reasons.2. If a person.” A penalty that is germane to purpose of the penal law is not cruel and inhumane. military or civil service in defense of the State. degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted…” 2. As one maxim states. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced toreclusion perpetua. it is barbarous and so ancient that it is no longer acceptable to the present-day society. it is still the law (dura lex sed lex). 3. it must be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be degrading to human dignity. rape with homicide. Ancient forms of punishment. Heinous crimes are crimes which are so flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the conscience of civilized persons. Lastly. for instance. such as pillory. a penalty must be acceptable to the contemporary society. A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the conscience of mankind and it involves prolonged suffering and agony to the person punished. Exceptions. is paraded around town naked with a tag on his neck saying “I am a thief. Death Penalty 1. and treason. RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL PUNISHMENTS Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty 1. It could even be argued that extinguishment of human life is not cruel and inhumane for the following reasons: (a) It is proportionate to the nature of the offense. Section 19(1). the Congress hereafter provides for it.” The present provision abolishes death penalty. The amount of the fine is said to be unreasonable if the court does not take into consideration certain standards. which are already considered barbarous practices. Constitutional Provision. 2. for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. unless. Death penalty may only be imposed by Congress in the commission of heinous crimes and for compelling reasons. Death Penalty not Cruel. for as long as it is within the limits provided by law.

. psychological. Paraphrasing it. If by reason of poverty or lack of money a person cannot pay his debt. or degrading punishment. Failure to pay income taxes is considered a crime (tax evasion).the innocent and helpless.[89] Community tax or residence tax is an example of poll tax. Article III provides that “the employment of physical. A poll tax is a tax of a fixed amount imposed on individuals residing within a specified territory. RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT 1. In truth. This constitutional guarantee recognizes the inalienability of human dignity. Purpose of the Right. Nevertheless.” 2. and (c) Death by lethal injection is not cruel and inhumane because it does not prolong suffering or inflict excruciating agony to the person punished. A debt. Death by lethal injection is prevalently practiced by many countries for the punishment of heinous offenses. 3. that as regards other forms of taxes. Section 20. he is still a person entitled to proper treatment and protection. non-payment is not punished by the government in consideration of the plight of the poor who cannot even afford to pay it. and even if he commits heinous crimes. Section 19(2). Article III provides that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. Constitutional Provision. it only induces the person to sleep through a lethal substance injected in the bloodstream which thereafter painlessly put the person to death. non-payment may be a cause of imprisonment. and punishable under the law by imprisonment. or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. It must be emphasized.” 2. psychological. whether citizens or not. Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or Imprisoned 1. Even when a person is imprisoned or detained. refers to a contractual obligation by a debtor to pay money to the creditor. With compelling reasons. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee. although the debtor cannot be imprisoned. as covered by the constitutional guarantee. Constitutional Provision. and is entitled to the use of standard or adequate penal facilities under humane conditions. (b) This form of penalty still has currency in the contemporary time. Poverty could never be a reason for a person’s imprisonment. 4. he must be protected against physical. the Constitution provides that even if a person is imprisoned or detained. What is punished in estafa is not the nonpayment of debt but the deceit accompanying the act of non-payment. As far as poll tax is concerned. however. Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of imprisonment. The creditor only has himself to blame if he voluntarily agreed to lend money to someone who apparently cannot pay or whom he thought could pay but did not. without regard to their property or the occupation in which they may be engaged. he cannot be imprisoned by reason thereof. his property may be taken or attached by the court. and then sold at public auction in payment of his debt to the creditor. Congress may impose death penalty since it is proportionate to the atrocities committed.

and (c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense. Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at the risk of conviction for the same act or offense. 2. A case is said to be terminated without the consent of the accused when there is acquittal or a final decision convicting him. and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused. The first happens when a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The first jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon good indictment. or is an attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof. Before double jeopardy could be claimed. (c) after arraignment. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. 3. (b) before a competent court. for instance. there must be a first jeopardy. and the second happens when an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance at the same time. He can now invoke his right against double jeopardy. has been charged of homicide and the court acquitted him of the case.” This is more famously known as the right against double jeopardy. To substantiate therefore the claim for double jeopardy. (b) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated. The right against double jeopardy therefore means that a person can only be indicted or charge once by a competent court for an offense. . There are two types of double jeopardy. or the second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information. Constitutional Provision. (d) when a valid plea has been entered.RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY Meaning of Double Jeopardy 1. 3. in which case the conviction or acquittal in either one of them constitute as bar to another prosecution for the same act. (c) To which the defendant has pleaded. Section 21. When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed 1. When a person. the following must be proven: (a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first jeopardy. The requisites of double jeopardy are:[90] (a) A valid complaint or information. (b) Filed before a competent court. 2. Article III states that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. he can no longer be prosecuted for the same offense or act. and (d) The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Article III provides that “no ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. The legislative department should be confined to its law-making function. It is for this reason that an ex post facto law is not allowed because it criminalizes what was not yet a crime during its commission. In the same vein. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal.”[93] 2. and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense. if there is no law defining and punishing it. Two Kinds of Bill of Attainder: (a) the bill of attainder proper which involves the legislative imposition of death penalty. or makes it greater than it was. or a proclamation of amnesty. A bill of attainder is “a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. (b) Aggravates a crime. and punishes such an act. Section 22. when committed. and (b) bill of pains and penalties which involves imposition of a lesser penalty. The basic rule is that before an act may be considered an offense or crime. It cannot retroact and punish acts which were not yet criminalized before its passage. Meaning of Bill of Attainder 1. it cannot encroach the authority of the courts by prescribing a law that directly adjudges guilt without judicial determination.RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law 1.” 2. a person does not commit a crime. Constitutional Provision. and (f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. (c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed.[92] One of the characteristics of criminal law is prospectivity in which only crimes committed after the enactment of a penal are punishable. The legislature cannot bypass the judiciary by enacting a law that punishes an act without need of judicial proceedings. Definition. Reason for Prohibition. The prohibition against bill of attainder is an implementation of the principle of separation of powers. An ex post facto law is one which: (a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law which was innocent when done. The constitutional prohibition applies only in criminal cases. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. An act therefore is not a crime if there is no law punishing it.[91] 3. in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. 3. Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. no matter how apparently illegal it is. (e) Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only. . it must first be defined as a crime and a penalty must be imposed for it under a law passed by the legislative body. (d) Alters the legal rules of evidence.

S. 341 U. 90 Phil. [6] Felix Frankfurter.R. In operation. Bell & Co. 20 SCRA 526 [21] The constitutional provisions dealing with the right to privacy are Secs. No.4. Vico.S.A. U. the Court held that the Anti-Subversion Law (R. Director of Lands. 127930. p. 40 Phil 136. Emphasis provided [7] Lopez v. Board of Accountancy. 1. 3. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court. Diokno. 250 U. p. G. January 31. [3] De Leon. It does not automatically secure judgment by mere membership. Diokno. 217 [23] Abraham v.S. 167 SCRA 393 (1998) [17] See Stonehill v..[94] The law declared the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) a clear and present danger to Philippine security. L-20387. 1993).A. 697 [25] Article 353. Sullivan.. 20 SCRA 383. 130. Mr. [2] See Bernas. 69 Phil. It is not a bill of attainder because it does not define a crime. 376 US 254 [28] Miriam College Foundation v. 68 Phil. 1990 [16] See Soliven v. Achacoso. 413 U. Revised Penal Code [26] See Miller v. 116. 83 (1951) [12] People v. p. 101.R. 616 (1919) [24] See Near v. [1] Bernas. 37 Phil. 20 SCRA 383 [18] Sec. People v. 921 (1918) [9] Ang Tibay v. [4] See Smith. p. v. and thus prohibited membership in such organization. Bagatsing. 15 (1973) [27] New York Times v. Natividad. 110. G. Minesota. but only lays a basis for the legislative determination that membership in CPP and any other organization having the same purposes is a crime. December 15. [22] Bernas.S. Cayat. California. . 2000 [29] Dennis v. L-65366 (November 9. 5. C. March 14. p. 81510. Rule 113 [19] See Umil v. No. 2. [5] See Morfe v. Ramos. COMELEC [14] Stonehill v. 212 SCRA 457. 1700) is not a bill of attainder. [20] Morano v. Makasiar.R. [15] Salazar v. Damaso.S. 494 [30] See Reyes v. G. 1991). 47 Phil 23 (1924) [8] Banco Espanol Filipino v.R. 635 (1940) [10] Bernas. the law does not render unnecessary judicial proceedings. 81567 (October 3. and 17 of Article III. 6. Palanca. No. [11] Tolentino v.S. 1968. G. No. In one case. Court of Industrial Relations. Example. The guilt of the individual members of subversive groups must still be judicially established. 238 U. Mutuc.. U. 12 (1939) [13] Quinto v. 8.

.R. December 23. 219 SCRA 256. Kurtzman. Constitution [48] Ibid. Art. 143 [57] Clemons v. 64 Phil 201 [51] Lemon v. 219 SCRA 256 [55] See Marcos v. 00-16423 (9th Cir. Article VI of the 1987 Constitution [45] Ibid. Secretary of Education. 301 SCRA 1. Ruiz. 15. 448. ADB Holdings. [32] See Borjal v. 403 US 602 [40] Glassroth v. G. p. Pittsburgh Press Co. Manglapus. Reyes. 175 SCRA 686 [37] Everson v. 1998). US. 88211. 447 US 557. 95445. CA. DILG Secretary. 27. 440 US 1. v. Article XIV [46] Tilton v. Sec. Art. VI [49] Graces v. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [54] Ebralinag v. CA. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu. 172192. p. 132922 (April 21. 29(2). 837 [62] See Bernas. Human Relations Commission. 464 [63] 384 US 436 (1966) [64] Bernas. 1989 [56] People v. Moore. 98 Phil. 1991 [36] SSS Employees Association v. v. 403 US 698. 30 US 1 [38] Abington School District v. G. 374 US 203 [39] Lemon v. 1989 & Oct. 335 F. 403 US 672 [47] Sec.[31] Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines v. 374 US 203 [43] Newdow v. 403 US 602 [52] See Ebralinag v. Richardson. 2003 [60] See China Banking Corporation v. 104 SCRA 510 [50] Alipay v. 100 Phil. COMELEC. Public Service Commission of NY. Schemp.R. 42 Phil. v. 2003) [44] Sec. [35] Manila Public School Teachers Association v. US. No. G. G. No. 1935 [59] See Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association v. Estenzo. No. 393 US 97 [42] Abington School District v.R.R. 413 US 376. Rogers. Board of Education. August 6. Kurtzman. [53] Cassius Clay v. Sec.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 702 [58] Manila Trading Company. 3(3). 28(3). XIV. . [33] Friedman v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu. Schemp. No. Arkansas. 4(2). 2008 [61] Asia Bed Factory v. G. National Bed and Kapok Industries Worker’s Union.R.. 2003) [41] Epperson v. [34] Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. June 10. See also Article 18. No. Sept. Nolting. Zeta. 143076. No.

[90] Rule 117. [94] Ibid. [87] U.. Manoji. [71] Ibid. De Villa. Navarro. No.S. 34. 486. [79] Olaguer v. G. the Rules of Court also provide for other modes of discovery. III [67] Sec. [77] US v. 172834. [92] In re Kay Villegas Kami. Ferrer. p. Rule 116. 32 SCRA 115. 2000). [80] Mupas v. [93] People v. [89] De Leon. p. Military Commission No. [69] People v. 200 SCRA 80. 2. Wolfe. [74] See Government of Hong Kong v. Rule 114 [73] Procedure of returning an extraditee to the requesting state. Military Commission No. Obrero. 68 Phil. [75] See Comendador v. 134504 (March 17. Romana-Cruz. February 6. Handout No.R. 145 SCRA 597 [66] Sec.[65] See People v. 42. [81] People v.R. 150 SCRA 165. 6. [72] Sec. 1997). 12(2). Rule 120. 35 SCRA 428. [86] Sec. 1. No.R. Andang. 23 SCRA 249. 3 Phil 63. 122142 (May 17. Rule of Court. [70] Bernas. Tolentino. 002. 6. No. 96. 471. [91] Mekin v. G. III [68] See People v. 74. 2007). GR 116437 (March 3. 18 Phil 154. Sec. 12 (1). [82] Bernas. [84] Sec. People v. 48 SCRA 382. Art. v. 196.R. G. . [88] Green Notes. [85] Aquino v. People. p. Art. [78] Martelino v. 2008. Judge Olalia. 153675 (April 19. G. Grant. 514 [83] Aside from these remedies. Alejandro. Political Law. Obsania. Rules of Court. 7. 63 SCRA 546. Sta. p. Inc. [76] See Narciso v. No. 2000). 2 Phil.