BILL OF RIGHTS
directed against the state, and, second, explicit
PRELIMINARIES
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. 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
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
individuals.
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
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 juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process
and equal protection cover the right 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. Life means something more than mere animal
existence.
(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.
(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. 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 impeded.
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” and its
essence is that it is “a law which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.”
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of
the government is arbitrary, oppressive, whimsical, or
unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts
of executive and legislative department.
3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has
two aspects: procedural and substantive. Basically, the
procedural aspect involves the method or manner by
which the law is enforced, while the substantive aspect
involves the law itself which must be fair, reasonable,
and just.
4. Procedural due process requires, essentially,
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. It
contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural
due process are:
(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with
jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant or the property which is the subject of the
proceeding;
(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard
(requirement on notice and hearing); and
(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies,
the Court also provides requirements of procedural due
process in administrative proceedings. These
requirements, also known as “seven cardinal primary
rights,” are:
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present
evidence in support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by
evidence;
(d) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial
evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(e) The evidence must have been presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and known
to the parties affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely
on its own independent
consideration of evidence, and not rely on the
recommendation of a subordinate; 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.
5. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. What matters in
procedural due process are notice and an opportunity
to be heard.
(a) Notice. This is an essential element of procedural
due process, most especially in judicial proceedings,
because without notice the court will not acquire
jurisdiction and its judgment will not bind the
defendant. The purpose of the notice is to inform the
defendant of the nature and character of the case filed
against him, and more importantly, to give him a fair
opportunity to prepare his defense. Nevertheless, the
notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.
(b) Opportunity to be Heard. It must be emphasized
that what is required is not “actual” hearing but a real
“opportunity” to be heard. If, for instance, a person fails
to actually appear in a hearing even though he was
given the chance to do so, a decision rendered by the
court is not in violation of due process. Moreover, strict
observance of the rule is not necessary, especially in
administrative cases. In fact, in administrative
proceedings, notice and hearing may be dispensed with
for public need or for practical reasons. It is also
sufficient that subsequent hearing is held if the same
was not previously satisfied.
6. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is
valid, fair, reasonable, and just. For the law to be fair
and reasonable it must have a valid objective which is
pursued in a lawful manner. The objective of the
government is valid when it pertains to the interest of
the general public, as distinguished from those of a
particular class. The manner of pursuing the objective is
lawful if the means employed are reasonably necessary
and not unduly oppressive.
7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or
law that is vague is void because it violates the rights to
due process. 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. Such kind of
statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to
accord persons proper understanding or fair notice, and
because the government is given unbridled freedom to
carry out its provision. For this doctrine to be operative,
however, the statute must be utterly vague. Thus, if a
law, for example, could be interpreted and applied in
various ways, it is void because of vagueness. Corollary
to this is the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a
statute that is “overly broad” is void. This is because it
prevents a person from exercising his constitutional
rights, as it fails to give an adequate warning or
boundary between what is constitutionally permissive
and not. If a law, for instance, prohibits a bystander
from doing any “annoying act” to passersby, the law is
void because “annoying act” could mean anything to a
passerby and as such, overly broad.
Equal Protection
1. Meaning. 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.” It means that “all persons or things
similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to
rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.” The
guarantee does not provide absolute equality of rights
or indiscriminate operation on persons. Persons or
things that are differently situated may thus be treated
differently. Equality only applies among equals. What is
prohibited by the guarantee is the discriminatory
legislation which treats differently or favors others
when both are similarly situated.
2. Purpose. 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.
3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is the rule
that reasonable classificationdoes not violate the
guarantee, provided that the classification has the
following requisites:
(a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and
(d) It must apply equally to all members of the class.
4. Example. In one case, Section 66 of the Omnibus
Election Code was challenged for being
unconstitutional, as it is violative of the equal
protection clause. The provision distinguishes between
an elective official and an appointive official in the filing
of theire certificate of candidacy. While elective officials
are not deemed resigned upon the filing their
certificates, appointive officials are. The Supreme Court
held that the law is constitutional and not violative of
equal protection since the classification is valid. The
Court argues that elective office is different from
appointive office, in that the mandate of the former is
from the people, while that of the latter is from the
appointing authority. The term of the elective officials
are likewise longer than that of the appointive officials.
Thus, the classification is adjudged reasonable and
valid.
5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the
protection extends to both citizens and aliens,
discrimination against aliens may be held valid under
certain circumstances. For example, citizens by virtue of
their membership to the political community possess
complete civil and political rights, while aliens do not
have complete political rights. The former can vote
during elections, run for public office, own real
property, while aliens cannot.
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the
court, it said to be subject to “judicial review.” There
are three standards followed by the court in judicial
review, 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. In here the courts do not seriously inquire into
the substantiality of the interest and possibility of
alternative means to achieve the objectives;
(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. This standard is used if the classification
involves important but not fundamental interests; and
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required
to show the presence of a compelling government
interest, rather than a mere substantial interest, and
the absence of a less restrictive means for achieving the
interest. Upon showing of these requirements, the
limitation of a fundamental constitutional right is
justified. This standard is used if the law classifies
persons and limits others of their exercise of
fundamental rights.
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 2, Article III states
that people have the inviolable right to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose, 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, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
2. Scope. The protection extends to all persons, aliens
or citizens, natural or juridical. It is a personal right
which may be invoked or waived by the person directly
affected against unreasonable arrests or searches by
the government and its agencies. It cannot, however, be
invoked against private individuals.
Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant
1. Generally, the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures requires that before a person is arrested or
a personal property seized, it must be supported by a
valid warrant of arrest or a search warrant. The
exceptions are in cases of valid warrantless arrests and
searches.
2. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court,
issued in the name of the Philippines, authorizing a
peace officer to arrest a person, and put him under the
custody of the court.
3. A search warrant is a written order of the court,
authorizing or directing a peace officer to search a
specific location, house, or other premises for a
personal property allegedly used in a crime or may be
utilized as a tool to prove a crime.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
1. Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is
reasonable when it is covered by a valid warrant, it is
thus important to know the requisites a valid warrant.
The Court enumerates the requisites as follows:
(a) It must be based upon a probable cause. 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;
(b) The probable cause must be determined personally
by the judge. 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,” or, if the same is insufficient, “require
additional evidence to aid him in arriving at a conclusion
as to the existence of probable cause.” Thus, personal
determination does not mean that he must personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. He may
rely on reports and evidence submitted to him, on the
basis of which he determines the existence of probable
cause and orders the issuance of warrant. What is
prohibited is to rely solely on the recommendation of
the prosecutors without doing any determination on his
own;
(c) The determination must be made after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witness he may produce; and
(d) It must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized. The
property subject to search includes those used in the
commission of the offense, stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or used or
intended to be used in the commission of the offense.
2. General warrants are those that do not particularly
describe the place to be searched or the persons or
things to be seized. They are unconstitutional because
the sanctity of the domicile and privacy of
communication and correspondence of individuals are
placed at the mercy, caprice, and passion of peace
officers.
Warrantless Arrest
1. When Warrantless Arrest Valid. Arrest without
warrant is strictly construed as an exception to the
general rule requiring warrant. Under the Rules of
Court, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a
person even without a warrant under the following
instances:
(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact just been
committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. 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, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
2. 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. This is permitted
under the rules under limited circumstances, and it is
called citizen arrest.
3. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an offense is
committed “in the presence” of the arresting officer or
civilian. For example, if a person pushes illegal drugs in
the presence of a police officer, the latter can arrest the
pusher even without a warrant of arrest because an
offense is actually being committed in his presence. The
same principle underlies the “buy-bust” or
“entrapment” operations conducted by police officers
in catching law offenders. In one case, the Court held
that rebellion is a continuing offense, 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.
4. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the
arresting officer or civilian if the warrantless arrest is
performed outside the above rules.
Warrantless Searches
A search is valid even without a warrant, under the
following instances:
(a) Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. When a valid
arrest precedes the search or contemporaneous with it,
and the search is limited to the immediate vicinity of
the place of arrest, for purposes of securing dangerous
objects and effects of the crime;
(b) Consented search. When the right has been
voluntarily waived by person who has a right, aware of
such right, and has an actual intention to relinquish
such right;
(c) Plainview search. When prohibited articles are
within the sight of an officer who has the right to be in a
position to that view;
(d) Visual search at checkpoints. When the search at
stationary checkpoints is pre-announced, and limited to
a visual search only;
(e) Terry search. When a police officer, in interest of
effective crime prevention, performs a “stop-and-frisk”
or patting of outer clothing for dangerous weapons,
after observing a suspicious conduct on the part of a
citizen;
(f) Search of moving vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts for
violation of laws;
(g) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building regulations;
and
(h) Search in airports and other populous places.
Administrative Searches and Arrests
1. In cases of deportation, where the State expels an
undesirable alien from its territory, court intervention
and proceedings are not required. Nonetheless, the
alien’s constitutional rights are still preserved because
they are given fair trial and administrative due process.
2. Important to note is that no probable cause is
required in deportation proceedings.It is the
Commissioner of Immigration or any officer designated
by him, not the judge, who issues the administrative
warrant, after determination by the Board of
Commissioners of the existence of a ground for
deportation.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy
1. Constitutional Provisions. The right to privacy is
scattered throughout the Bill of Rights.[21] The right
against unreasonable searches and seizures, in Section
2, is an expression of this right, inasmuch as it is based
on the sacred right to be secure in the privacy of one’s
person, house, paper, and effects. Due process of law,
in Section 1, also provides the same privacy security by
protecting an individual’s life, liberty, and property
against undue interference by the government. 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. The right to form unions or associations
under Section 8, and the right against self-incrimination
under Section 17 are also privacy rights which need
protection against undue intrusion by the government.
2. Nonetheless, the word “privacy” is expressly provided
in Section 3(1), Article III, which states that “the privacy
of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or
when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.” Privacy of communication and
correspondence is also an expression of the right to
privacy.
3. Statutory Reinforcements. To reinforce these
constitutional provisions, the Congress has passed laws
that recognize and protect the zones of privacy of an
individual. These laws include: (a) The Civil Code of the
Philippines; (b) The Revised Penal Code; (c) Anti-Wire
Tapping Act; (d) The Secrecy of Bank Deposits; and (e)
Intellectual Property Code.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
1. Subject of the Right. Invasion of communication and
correspondence is one kind of search. However the
subject of search is not a tangible object but
an intangible one, such as telephone calls, text
messages, letters, and the like. These forms of
communication and correspondence may be intruded
into by means of wiretapping or other means of
electronic eavesdropping. What the constitution
prohibits is government intrusion, by means of
wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping, into the
privacy of communication without a lawful court order
or when public safety and order does not demand.
2. Rule. As a rule, the government cannot intrude into
the privacy of communication and correspondence. The
exceptions are: (a) when the court allows the intrusion,
and (b) when public safety and order so demands.
Anti-Wire Tapping Act
1. R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as a
reinforcement of privacy of communication, is a law
which prohibits a person not authorized by all the
parties to any private communication, to wire tap or use
any devise to secretly overhear, intercept, record, or
communicate the content of the said communication to
any person.
2. Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted
in civil or criminal proceedings involving specified
offenses principally affecting national security, and only
with previous authorization by the court which must
comply with the requirements of a warrant. The
authority is effective only for sixty days.
Writ of Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any
person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security
is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home, and correspondence of the
aggrieved party.
Exclusionary Rule
1. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence
unlawfully obtained is inadmissible as evidence before
the courts. This is based on Section 3(2), 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 for any purpose in any
proceeding. The same rule is applied to any evidence
taken in violate of R.A. 4200.
2. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine. The name of the doctrine metaphorically
describes what happens to an “evidence” (fruit) taken
through “unlawful means” (poisonous tree). The
evidence-fruit is discarded because it may infect or
destroy the integrity of the case and forfeit the purpose
of the law.
3. For example, 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, the
evidence obtained even if material in the case cannot
be admitted in court. Or if police officers wiretap a
conversation without court authorization, the recorded
conversation shall be excluded as an evidence in court.
Thus, the evidences are said to be fruits of a poisonous
tree.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meaning and Scope
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 4, Article III provides
that “no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.” The right
underscores tolerance to different views and thoughts.
2. Aspects of the Right. Freedom of expression has four
aspects, to wit: (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of
expression; (c) freedom of the press; and (d) freedom of
assembly. Nonetheless, the scope of the protection
extends to right to form associations or societies not
contrary to law, right to access to information on
matters of public concern, and freedom of religion.
These are all crucial to the advancement of beliefs and
ideas and the establishment of an “uninhibited, robust
and wide-open debate in the free market of ideas.”[23]
3. Importance of the Right. Freedom of expression is
accorded the highest protection in the Bill of Rights
since it is indispensable to the preservation of liberty
and democracy. Thus, religious, political, academic,
artistic, and commercial speeches are protected by the
constitutional guarantee.
4. Limitation. The right is not absolute. It must be
exercised within the bounds of law, morals, public
policy and public order, and with due regard for others’
rights. Thus, obscene, libelous, and slanderous speeches
are not protected by the guarantee. So are seditious
and fighting words that advocate imminent lawless
conduct.
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent
Punishment
1. Freedom of speech and of the press has two aspects:
(a) freedom from prior restraint, and (b) freedom from
subsequent punishment.
2. On the one hand, freedom from prior restraint means
freedom from censorship or governmental screening of
what is politically, morally, socially, and artistically
correct. In here, persons and the media are freed from
total suppression or restriction by the government of
what could be disseminated, and prevents the
government from being a subjective arbiter of what is
acceptable and not. Although the system of prior
restraint is presumed unconstitutional, it is allowed
under the following instances:
(a) Undue utterances in time of war;
(b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of
military information;
(c) Obscene publication; and
(d) Inciting to rebellion.
3. On the other hand, freedom from subsequent
punishment refers to the assurance that citizens can
speak and air out their opinions without fear of
vengeance by the government. Subsequent
chastisement has the effect of unduly curtailing
expression, and thus freedom therefrom is essential to
the freedom of speech and the press. The State,
however, can validly impose subsequent punishment
under the following instances:
(a) Libel which is the most common form of subsequent
punishment, refers to a public and malicious imputation
of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act or
omission, status tending to cause dishonor, discredit or
contempt of a natural or juridical person, or blacken the
memory of one who is dead;
(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,
artistic, political or scientific value;
(c) Criticism of official conduct made with
actual malice; and
(d) School articles which materially disrupt class work or
involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of
others.
Tests to Determine When Right Maybe Suppressed
There are six tests or rules to determine when the
freedom may be suppressed. 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, even if it
did not materialize, the State is justified of restricting
the right. This rule has already been abandoned;
(2) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a more
libertarian rule, provides that the finding out of
substantive evil is not enough to suppress the right.
Rather the substantive evil must have clear and present
danger type depending on the specific circumstances of
the case. This rule is consistent with the principle of
“maximum tolerance” and is often applied by the Court
in freedom of expression cases;
(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when
there is conflict between a regulation and freedom of
speech, the court has the duty to determine which of
the two demands greater protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant
to supplant the clear and present danger test,
determines whether the gravity of the evil, less its
improbability to happen, can justify the suppression of
the right in order to avoid the danger;
(e) O’Brien Test which provides that when “speech” and
“non-speech” elements are combined in the same
course of conduct, a sufficiently important government
interest that warrants the regulation of the “non-
speech” element can also justify incidental limitations
on the speech element; and
(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words
are uttered and the likely result of the utterance, that
is, whether or not they will directly incite or produce
imminent lawless action.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
1. Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may impose two
kinds of restrictions on speech under a system of prior
restraint: content-based restriction and content-neutral
restriction. The restriction is content-based when
restriction is directed to the speech itself, while the
restriction is content-neutral when it is directed, not to
the speech itself, but to the incidents (such as time,
place, or manner) of the speech. An example of a
content-based restriction is when the government
prohibits speeches against the President, in which case
the restriction is on the speech itself. An example of a
content-neutral restriction is when the government
regulates the manner of posting campaign
advertisements, in which case the restriction is on the
manner the right is made.
2. Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. If the
governmental restriction is content-based, the
applicable rule or test is the clear and present danger
test. 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. If the restriction is content-neutral,
the applicable rule is only an intermediate approach,
inasmuch as the restraint is only regulatory and does
not attack the speech directly.
3. Example. In one case, 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. As such, the applicable test is the clear and
present danger test.
Regulations on Mass Media
Mass media may be broadcast media (e.g. television
and radio) or print media (e.g. newspaper). The two
have a substantial difference in that broadcast media
has a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of
Filipinos. Thus, freedom of television and radio
broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the freedom
accorded to the print media; greater regulation is
imposed over broadcast media because of its greater
tendency to invade the privacy of everyone than print
media.
Doctrine of Fair Comment
1. Meaning. Under the doctrine of fair comment, a
discreditable imputation directed against a public
person in his public capacity, does not necessarily make
one liable. Although generally every discreditable
imputation publicly made is deemed false and malicious
because every man is presumed innocent until proven
guilty, nevertheless, if the imputation directed against a
person in his public is based on “established facts,”
even if the inferred opinion is wrong, the comments as
justified. As long as the opinion might reasonably
inferred from the facts, it is not actionable. In order to
that such discreditable imputation to a public official
may be actionable, it must either be a “false allegation”
or a “baseless comment.”
2. Example. If a case of theft was filed against a
barangay official, and someone commented that he
maliciously stole things from the local residents, the
doctrine of fair comment is applicable, inasmuch as the
opinion was based on such fact. In here, the comment is
justified.
Commercial Speech
1. Meaning. Commercial speech is one that proposes a
commercial transaction done in behalf of a company or
individual for purposes of profit. It is a protected speech
for as long as it is not false or misleading and does not
propose an illegal transaction.
2. But if the government has a substantial interest to
protect, even a truthful and lawful commercial speech
may be regulated.
3. Private speech is accorded more freedom and
protection than commercial speech.
Freedom of Assembly
1. Meaning. Freedom of assembly refers to the right to
hold a rally to voice out grievances against the
government.
2. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a rule,
freedom of assembly is not subject to prior restraint or
prior issuance of permit by government authorities.
Nevertheless, it must be exercised in such a way that
will not to prejudice public welfare. Freedom of
assembly is reinforced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 880,
otherwise known as the Public Assembly Acts of 1985,
which basically provides the requirements and
procedure for holding rallies. It also implements the
observance of “maximum tolerance” towards
participants of rallies consistent with the clear and
present danger test.
3. Permit Requirement. Under the said law, permit is
required to hold a rally. It must be emphasized,
however, that the permit is not a requirement for the
validity of the assembly or rally, because the right is not
subject to prior restraint. Rather, the permit is a
requirement for the use of the public place.
4. When Permit not Required. Permit is not required if
the rally is held in a private place, in a campus of a state
college or university, or in a freedom park, in which case
only coordination with the police is required. If the
application for permit is not acted upon by the mayor
within two working days, then the same is deemed
granted.
5. Political rally during election is regulated by the
Omnibus Election Code, not by BP 880.
Right to Form Associations
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 8, Article III provides
that “the right of the people, including those employed
in the public and private sectors, to form unions,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged.”
2. Who may Exercise the Right. 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. It likewise embraces the right to form
unions both in the government and private sector. The
right of civil servants to unionize is expressly provided in
Section 2(5), Article IX-B: “The right to self-organization
shall not be denied to government employees.” The
right of labor in general to unionize is likewise provided
in Section 3, Article XIII: “[The State] shall guarantee the
rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance
with law.”
3. Right to Strike not Included. The right to form
associations or to self-organization does not include the
right to strike. Thus, public school teachers do not enjoy
the right to strike even if they are given the
constitutional right of association. The terms and
conditions of employment in the Government, including
in any political subdivision or instrumentality thereof
and government owned and controlled corporations
with original charters, are governed by law and the
employees therein shall not strike for purposes of
securing changes.
Right to Information
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 7, Article III provides
that “the right of the people to information on matters
of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law.”
2. Scope and Limitation. The right guarantees access to
official records for any lawful purpose. However, access
may be denied by the government if the information
sought involves: (a) National security matters, military
and diplomatic secrets; (b) Trade or industrial secrets;
(c) Criminal matters; and (d) Other confidential
information (such as inter-government exchanges prior
to consultation of treaties and executive agreement,
and privilege speech).
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
1. Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a) the freedom
to believe, and (b) the freedom to act on one’s belief.
The first aspect is in the realm of the mind, and as such
it is absolute, since the State cannot control the mind of
the citizen. Thus, every person has the absolute right to
believe (or not to believe) in anything whatsoever
without any possible external restriction by the
government. The aspect refers to the externalization of
belief as it is now brought out from the bosom of
internal belief. Since it may affect peace, morals, public
policy, and order, the government may interfere or
regulate such aspect of the right.
2. The second aspect is expressed in Section 5, Article
III, thus “… The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test
shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.”
Non-establishment Clause
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III provides
that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
2. Explanation. The non-establishment clause holds that
the State cannot set up a church or pass laws aiding one
religion, all religion, or preferring one over another, or
force a person to believe or disbelieve in any religion.In
order words, it prohibits the State from establishing an
official religion. It discourages excessive government
involvement with religion and manifest support to any
one religious denomination. Manifestly, the clause is
rooted in the principle of separation of church and
state.
3. Particular Prohibitions. In particular, the non-
establishment clause prohibits, among others, prayers
of a particular denomination to start a class in public
schools,financial subsidy of a parochial school, display
of the ten commandments in front of a
courthouse,[40] law prohibiting the teaching of
evolution,[41] mandatory reading of the bible,[42] and
using the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance.[43]
4. Exceptions to the Prohibition. The clause, however,
permits the following:
(a) Tax exemption on property “actually, directly and
exclusively used” for religious purposes;[44]
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools[45] and
expansion of educational facilities in parochial schools
for secular activities;[46]
(c) Religious instruction in public schools, elementary
and high school, at the option of parents or guardians
expressed in writing, within regular class hours by
designated instructors, and without additional costs to
the government;[47]
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister,
or dignitary assigned to the armed forces, penal
institution or government orphanage or
leprosarium;[48]
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which
traditions are used to be purely religious but have now
acquired secular character;[49] and
(f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as the venue of
a significant religious event, in that the benefit to
religious sect is incidental to the promotion of the
Philippines as a tourist destination.[50]
Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act Violates
Freedom of Religion
1. Different tests are used to determine if there are
governmental violations of non-establishment clause
and free exercise clause. On the on hand, Lemon Test is
used to determine whether an act of the government
violates the non-establishment clause. Under this test, a
law or a governmental act does not violate the clause
when it has a secular purpose, does not promote or
favor any set of religious beliefs, and does not get the
government too entangled with religion.[51]
2. On the other hand, Compelling State Interest
Test and Clear and Present Danger Testare used to
determine whether there is violation of free-exercise
clause. 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. Under this test, 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.
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.
3, Example. In one case,[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). The expulsion violates the right of
children to education. Using the clear and present
danger test, 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. Times have changed. Freedom of religion is
now recognized as a preferred right.
Religious Solicitations
Under Presidential Decree No. 1564, also known as
the Solicitation Law, permit is required before
solicitations for “charitable and public welfare
purposes” may be carried out. The purpose of the law is
to protect the public from fraudulent solicitations.
Nonetheless, permit is no longer required if the
solicitation is for “religious purposes.” Fraud is much
less in religion. If the law is extended to religion, then it
becomes unconstitutional; it constitutes restriction on
freedom of religion as resources necessary for
maintenance are deprived of churches.
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, conscience, and/or religion. He
may be granted exemption from military service or from
saluting the flag if he establishes that his objection is
“sincere,” based on “religious training and belief,” and
not arbitrary.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Freedom of Movement
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 6, 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. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the interest of
national security, public safety, or public health, as may
be provided by law.”
2. Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of movement has
two aspects: (a) Freedom to choose and change one’s
domicile, and (b) Freedom to travel within and outside
the country. A person’s place of abode or domicile is his
permanent residence.
Limitations
1. Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has
limitations. Liberty of abode may be impaired or
restricted when there is a “lawful court order.”
2. The right to travel may also be restricted in interest
of national security, public safety, or public health, or
when a person is on bail, or under a watch-list and hold
departure order.
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, it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the
Philippines. It is a generally accepted principle of
international law, and as such it is part of the law of the
land, pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation. It is
different from the right to travel and is guaranteed
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.[55]
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Contract Clause
1. Section 10, Article III provides that “no law impairing
the obligation of contracts shall be passed.” This is the
so-called contract clause, which seeks to restrain
substantial legislative impairment of, or intrusion into,
the obligations of contracts. What the clause
guarantees is the integrity of contracts against undue
interference by the government.
2. For example, if a lawyer enters into a contract with a
client by which the latter will pay 5% of the value of the
monetary claim, a subsequent law which deprives the
lawyer of the said value is arbitrary and unreasonable
since it is destructive of the inviolability of contracts,
and therefore invalid as lacking of due process.[56]
Contracts Affected
1. Only valid contracts, either executed or executory,
are covered by the guarantee.
2. The agreement of the parties, as long as it is valid, is
the law between them. Their will should prevail, and
this must be respected by the legislature and not
tampered with by subsequent laws. Well-established is
the policy that the subject of contractual agreements is
“imbued with paramount public interest.”
Kind of Impairment Covered
1. For the clause to be operative, the impairment
caused by law must be substantial. Substantial
impairment happens when the law changes the terms
of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or
mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or
dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its
satisfaction something different from that provided in
its terms.[57] In other words, the act of impairment is
anything that diminishes the value of the contract.[58]
2. The cause of the impairment must be legislative in
nature. The obligation of contract must be impaired by
a statute, ordinance, or any legislative act for it to come
within the meaning of the constitutional
provision.[59] An administrative order or court decision
is not included in the scope of the constitutional
guarantee.
3. In one case,[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. The impairment must be legislative
in character. SEC’s approval of the plan is not a
legislative act but an administrative act. Thus, there is
not impairment of the freedom to contract.
Limitations
1. As between freedom of contract and police
power, police power prevails. Thus, laws enacted in
exercise of police power will prevail over contracts.
After all, private rights and interest in contracts must
yield to the common good. Every contract affecting
public welfare is presumed to include the provisions of
existing laws and a reservation of police power.
2. The supremacy of police power is felt most clearly in
labor contracts and agricultural tenancy contracts. For
instance, 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, since it is a legitimate
exercise of police power.[61] In another case, a law
(R.A. No. 34) changed the crop-sharing system between
the landlord and tenants from 50-50 to 55-45 in favor of
the tenants. The Court held that the law is valid.
Consistent with the policy of social justice, the law
favored the tenants as well as the general welfare of
the people in exchange of contractual rights.
3. The power of taxation and power of eminent domain,
inasmuch as they are also sovereign powers of the
state, can validly impair obligations of contracts.
4. Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses are
franchises or privileges given by the State to qualified
entities that may be withdrawn or relinquished when
national interests so require. However, like contracts,
they yield to police power.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 11, 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.”
2. Protection for the Poor. Free access is a right covered
by the due process clause, because a person, regardless
of his status in life, must be given an opportunity to
defend himself in the proper court or tribunal.
Nonetheless, the right is placed in a separate provision
to emphasize the desire for constitutional protection of
the poor.[62]
3. Litigation in Forma Pauperis. In consonance with this
constitutional provision, the Rules of Court provide for
litigation in forma pauperis in which paupers and
indigents, who have only their labor to support
themselves, are given free legal services and access to
courts.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION
Miranda Rights
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 12, Article III
enumerates the rights of a person under custodial
investigation for the commission of an offense, to wit:
(a) Right to remain silent, right to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice, right
to free legal services if he cannot afford one, and
the right to informed of these rights. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel;
(b) Right against the use of torture, force, violence,
threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
his free will. Prohibition against secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention;
(c) Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this provision or the right against self-
incrimination as evidence against him; and
(d) Sanctions against violators and compensation for
rehabilitation of victims.
2. Why called Miranda Rights. 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. Arizona.”[63]
Purpose of the Right
The provision emphasizes on the duty of law
enforcement officers to treat properly and humanely
those under investigation. It recognizes the fact that the
environment in custodial investigations is
psychologically if not physically coercive in
nature,[64] so that law enforcers should be reminded of
the sanctity of individual rights and the limitations on
their means of solving crimes. In fact, as far as the
present provision is concerned, the “presumption of
regularity” of official acts and the behavior of police or
prosecution is not observed if the person under
investigation was not informed.[65]
Custodial Investigation
1. This enumeration of rights above may be invoked
during custodial investigations. Custodial investigation
refers to any questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody. 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. However, during this stage, no
complaint or criminal case has been filed yet. As such,
the person suspected to have committed a crime is not
yet an accused, since no case was instituted against
him.
2. During custodial investigations, suspects are
identified by way of show-ups, mug shots, and line ups.
Show-ups are done by bringing the lone suspect face-to-
face with the witness for identification. Mug shots are
performed by showing photographs to witnesses to
identify the suspect. And in line ups, the witness
identifies the suspect from a group of persons.
Extrajudicial Confession
1. Meaning. Extrajudicial consfession refers to a
confession or admission of guilt made outside (extra)
the court (judicial). It is a critical area of study in
Constitutional Law. With respect to the present
provision, it refers to a confession given during a
custodial investigation, which is not judicial in nature.
Under the Miranda Rights, 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.
However, the waiver or confession must be valid to be
admissible as evidence against him.
2. Requisites for Validity. For an extrajudicial confession
to be valid and admissible as evidence in court, it must
be: (a) voluntary; (b) made in the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel; (c) express; and
(d) in writing.
3. Involuntary Confession. There are two kinds of
involuntary confession: (a) confession through
coercion;[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, the confession considered as a fruit of a
poisonous tree. Extrajudicial confessions must be given
voluntarily. However, there is a distinction between the
two. On the one hand, 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,
so that the complainant-suspect should prove that
there is torture to invalidate his confession. On the
other hand, a confession given without being informed
of the Miranda rights is presumed involuntarily given, so
that the law enforces must prove its regularity.[68]
4. Assistance of Counsel. An extrajudicial confession
made in the absence of a counsel, or even in his
presence but without adequate assistance, is also
invalid and inadmissible. The rule requires that the
assisting counsel must
be independent and competent. For this matter, a fiscal
or a public prosecutor, who represents the interest of
the State, cannot assist the suspect or person under
investigation. His interest is adverse to the latter. Thus,
even if competent, he cannot be
an independent counsel for the suspect.
5. A counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office is
qualified to assist a person in executing an extrajudicial
confession, his interest not adverse to the latter.
6. An extrajudicial confession to a mayor, even if
uncounselled, may be admissible.[69]While a mayor has
power of supervision over the police, an admission to
him, not in the capacity of a law enforcer, is deemed
freely given. The uncounselled admission to him does
not violate the right to legal assistance and therefore
the confession is admissible as evidence against the
confidant. In addition, extrajudicial confession to a
media man who is acting as a news reporter and not
under the supervision of the police, is admissible.
7. Because of the inherent danger of using information
from broadcast media, extreme caution must be taken
in further admitting similar evidence or confession.
There is presumption of voluntariness in confessions
which media describes as freely given. They must be
strictly scrutinized.
RIGHT TO BAIL
Meaning of Right
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 13, Article III
provides that “all persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required.”
2. Meaning of Bail. Bail refers to the security given for
the temporary release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
appearance before any court as may be required. For
instance, 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.
3. Purpose of Bail. Probational release through bail is
corollary to the right to be presumed innocent and a
means of immediately obtaining liberty.[70] During the
duration of release, the accused is given the chance to
prepare his defense,[71] and thus level the playing field
for the parties. Worth emphasizing is the reason why
those charge with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua and against whom evidence of guilt is strong,
are not allowed to bail. Under such circumstances,
there is improbability of appearance, and bail merely
becomes an instrument of evading the law.
Standards for Fixing Amount of Bail
1. The law does not prescribe for a fix amount of bail.
What it requires is that the amount should
be reasonable and not excessive otherwise the right is
rendered useless. Under the Rules of Court, the amount
is reasonable if the judge bases it primarily, but not
exclusively, on the following guidelines:[72]
(a) Financial ability of the accused;
(b) Nature and circumstances of offense;
(c) Penalty for offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of evidence against him;
(g) Probability of his appearance at trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
(i) The fact that he is a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
When Right May be Invoked
1. General Rule. The right to bail may be invoked from
the moment of detention or arrest. Even if no formal
charges have been filed yet, for as long as there is
already an arrest, the right may already be availed of.
2. Bail as a Matter of Right. 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. Technically, the instances when bail is a
matter of right are: (a) Before or after conviction by the
MTC; and (b) Before conviction of the RTC of an offense
not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
3. Bail as a Matter of Discretion. 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, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment;
(b) Pending appeal subject to the consent of the
bondsman; and
(c) After conviction, pending appeal when the court
imposed a penalty of imprisonment for more than six
years but not more than twenty years, and it is not
shown that the accused repeated a crime, an escapee,
committed an offense while under the custody of the
probational release, or had the tendency of flight or to
commit another offense.
3. Right not Suspended. 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. While bail and habeas
corpus are remedies intended for the immediate
release of a detainee, there are fundamental
differences between them so that the suspension of
one does not mean the suspension of the other. Firstly,
in bail, there is an implicit recognition of the validity of
detention or arrest, while in habeas corpus, there is an
assumption that the detention or arrest is illegal. And
secondly, the prayer in bail is for the temporary release
of the detainee, whereas in habeas corpus, the prayer is
for permanent release.
When the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended, the
remedy of immediate release cannot be availed of
(although filing is still allowed). Under the current rules,
if the detainee files a bail for his temporary release,
then it moots the purpose of habeas corpus, because it
destroys the assumption of illegality of the arrest or
detention.
4. 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. What the court must do in such cases is
to increase the amount of bail.
5. Bail is now available in extradition[73] cases,
consistent with the developments in international law
which now treats an individual as a subject or party.[74]
When Right May not be Invoked
1. 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.
2. Important also to note is that the military may not
invoke the right to bail.[75]Among other reasons,
allowing military members to bail would pose a great
danger to national security. They are allowed to use
firearms and they are paid using government money.
Their sheer number and unique structure, as well as the
military mentality that they carry, 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. Allowing
them to bail could mean resumption of widespread
commission of heinous activities.
Mandatory Hearing
When the offense charged is punishable by reclusion
perpetua, before rendering a judgment, due process
demands that the court must conduct a mandatory
hearing to determine if evidence of guilt is strong. This
is one of the instances when bail is a matter of
discretion. 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,
then the judge commits an error because he cannot
repose solely on the prosecutor his decision. Even if
there is no objection, there must be a hearing.[76]
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Criminal Cases
1. Section 14, Article III deals with the rights of the
accused. It contemplates a scenario where a case has
already been filed against a person, in contrast to
custodial investigations where a case may not have
been filed yet. The case filed is a criminal case, in which
the parties are the “People of the Philippines” and the
“accused.” The People of the Philippines is the
complainant, while the accused is the person formally
charged of a crime or offense punishable by law.
2. 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. It highlights the relation
of the individual and the state, with the state having the
right to inflict punishment to an offender once his guilt
is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The real offended party or victim in a criminal case is
the State or the People of the Philippines, and not the
private complainant. 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. Violation of the law poses danger
not just to a private person, but to the people as a
whole, and is a threat to the sovereignty of the State.
4. The accused, who is the person charged in a criminal
case, is pitted against the State. With all its machineries,
manpower, and almost unlimited sources of money, the
State is placed in an advantaged position. To level
therefore the playing field, the Constitution provides for
numerous rights of the accused and of persons under
investigation. Justice demands that they should be
given a fighting chance against the most power
institution, which is the State.
Criminal Due Process
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(1), Article III
provides that “no person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of law.”
2. The provision refers to due process in criminal cases.
As to its procedural aspect, criminal due process
requires that: (a) The accused is brought into a court of
competent jurisdiction; (b) He is notified of the case; (c)
He is given the opportunity to be heard; and (d) There is
a valid judgment deliberated and rendered by the
court.[77] As to its substantive aspect, the criminal
cases must be based on a penal law.
3. The right to appeal is not a constitutional right. It is a
statutory right granted by the legislature. But when it is
expressly granted by law, then it comes within the
scope of due process.
4. Criminal due process
requires impartiality or objectivity on the part of the
court. Although a separate right to impartial trial is
granted in Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Bill of Rights,
it refers only to the right of the accused during trial.
Impartiality in criminal due process (Section 14,
paragraph 1) is broader since it extends to preliminary
investigations conducted before the filing criminal cases
in court. One of the instances wherein impartiality is
compromised is the so-called trial by publicity. When
preliminary investigations are held for purposes of
determining whether an information or a case should
be filed against the respondent, the investigating
prosecutor should not be swayed by the circumstances
of pervasive and prejudicial publicity. 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.[78]
5. A military court has its own unique set of
procedures consistent with the nature and purpose of
the military. Because of its distinct features, a military
court cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during
martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly
committed by them as long as civilian courts are still
open and functioning.[79] Due process therefore
demands that civilians can only be tried for an offense
in civilian courts and not in military courts, unless no
civilian court is available.
Rights of the Accused during Trial
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(2), Article III
enumerates rights of the accused in all criminal
prosecutions, to wit:
(a) Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved;
(b) Right to be heard by himself and counsel;
(c) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him;
(d) Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial;
(e) Right to meet the witnesses face to face; and
(f) Right to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence
in his behalf.
2. Criminal Prosecution. These are rights of the accused
“in criminal prosecutions.” Under the Rules, criminal
proceedings start from arraignment up to the rendition
of final judgment by the court. 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. The proceeding continues until a
final judgment is entered by the court. The judgment is
final when there is nothing for the court to do but to
execute it. Thus, during this duration the accused can
invoke the said rights under the proper circumstances.
Right to be Presumed Innocent
1. Meaning. The right refers to the constitutional
guarantee that the accused should be treated as if
innocent until he is proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
2. Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process.
Basically, the rights in Section 14(2) are elaborations of
criminal due process. The right to presumption of
innocence, for instance, is based on the fundamental
procedural rule that the court must hear first before it
condemns. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the
accused, then procedural due process is violated. In
fact, the accused is already in a disadvantaged position
since he is pitted against the State. Presumption of guilt
renders the rights of the accused nugatory. To protect
therefore individual rights, in particular one’s liberty, it
should be the State that proves the guilt of accused,
and not that the accused proves his innocence. It is the
prosecution (State) who has the burden of overcoming
the presumption of innocence. It should rely on its own
merits and not on the weakness of the defense.
2. When Presumption is Overcome. The presumption of
innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Under the rules of evidence, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is the highest quantum of evidence.
Such proof requires that the court is morally certain
that the accused is guilty of the crime, so that if there is
reasonable doubt that lurks in the mind of the judge,
the accused must be acquitted. When the defense
creates reasonable doubt, the presumption of
innocence remains. 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.[80]
3. Why Right is Granted. 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, than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be
innocent.”[81]
4. Presumption of Guilt. The law and rules, however,
allow that presumption of innocence may be overcome
by another presumption through prima
facie evidence. Prima facie evidence means an evidence
deemed sufficient unless contradicted. The is based on
logic and human experience. When the prosecution, for
instance, establishes that the stolen object is in the
possession of the accused, it creates a prima
facieevidence that the accused committed the crime of
theft. The presumption of innocence is overturned, and
the evidence creates a prima facie proof of the guilt of
the accused. This does not, however, mean that the
presumption of innocence is finally overcome. 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
facieproof.
Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
1. Right to be Heard. The right to be heard is the heart
of criminal due process. Basically, it refers to all the
mechanisms afforded to the accused during the criminal
proceedings. It is a safeguard against prejudicial and
partial judgments by the courts, as well as a guarantee
that the accused be given an opportunity to participate
during trial in defense of himself.
2. Related Rights. 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;
(b) the right to be assisted by counsel; and (c) the right
to compulsory process to compel the attendance of
witnesses in his behalf.[82]
3. Ratio of Right to Counsel. 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, and a
non-lawyer, in spite of his education in life, may not be
aware of the intricacies of law and procedure. Depriving
a person of such right constitutes violation of due
process.
4. Related Right. 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
counsel representing the accused must be independent
and competent. A counsel who has a divided interest
between the prosecution (State) and the defense
(accused) is disqualified on the ground of lack of
independence and conflict of interest.
Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation
1. Right to be informed is again an essential aspect of
procedural due process. 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.
2. 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.
Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
1. Right to speedy trial is based on the maxim
that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Unreasonable
delays may result to a prolonged suffering of an
innocent accused or an evasion of justice by a truly
guilty person. It offends not just the accused but also
the State, inasmuch as what is at stake is the speedy,
inexpensive, and orderly administration of justice.
Undue postponements not only depletes the funds of
the defense but also of prosecution. Thus, if the
prosecution unreasonably delays the criminal
proceedings because of too many postponements and
unjustifiable absences, the accused may be acquitted on
the ground of violation of right to speedy trial. This does
not, however, mean that the court cannot grant
reasonable postponements. What is prohibited is
oppressive and vexatious postponements.
2. 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. For instance, a judge who is hostile
to the accused based on his comments and utterances,
or who is substantially swayed by the prejudicial
publicity of the case, is a partial judge and must be
inhibited from the case.
3. Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be
conducted in such a way that the public may know what
transpires during the trial. It is not necessary that the
entire public can witness the proceedings; it is enough
that the relatives and friends of the interested parties
are accommodated in the trial venue. In fact, 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.
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face-to-Face
The right to confrontation enables the accused to test
the credibility of the witnesses. The right is reinforced
under the rules of criminal procedure by the so-
called cross-examination. Cross-examination is
conducted after the presentation and direct
examination of witnesses by the opposing side. Both
parties are allowed to test the veracity of the
testimonies presented by the other.
Right to Compulsory Process
1. Reason for the Right. 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. It is often the case that the party with the
weightier evidence wins. In criminal proceedings, the
accused needs only to create reasonable doubt on the
mind of the court to be acquitted. Nevertheless,
evidence is difficult to find because of people’s anxiety
in testifying in court as well as their dislike for
burdensome court processes. In recognition therefore
of this fact, the law and the rules give the accused the
right to avail of compulsory means for attendance of
witnesses and production of needed document or
things.
2. Kinds of Compulsory Processes. When the person
sought to testify is uncooperative or just afraid of court-
related actions, the remedy of subpoena ad
testificandum may be availed to compel the person to
testify. When relevant documents are needed but the
holder thereof refuses to produce them, the remedy
of subpoena duces tecum may be availed of to compel
the production of the same.[83] These remedies are
also available to the prosecution.
Right to be Present
1. Meaning and Purpose of the Right. As a rule, the
accused has the right to be present at all stages of trial,
from arraignment to rendition of judgment, in order
that he may be informed of what transpires in every
stage of the proceedings, to guard himself from
technical blunders, and ultimately, to fully defend
himself from the accusation against him. Thus, it is
again an incident of criminal due process.
2. Waiver of Right. Right to be present, inasmuch as it is
a right, may be waived by the accused. For as long as it
does not prejudice others, rights may be waived by its
possessor. An example of a valid waiver of the right to
be present is the so-called trial in absentia. Even in the
absence of the accused, trial may still proceed (trial in
absentia) if after his arraignment and notification of the
date of the hearing, he still unjustifiably failed to
appear. The effect of the waiver is that the accused will
no longer have the right to present evidence and
confront the witnesses.
3. When Right not Waivable. It must be noted that the
presence of the accused becomes a duty, and therefore
not waivable, in the following: (a) During arraignment
and plea;[84] (b) When he is to be identified;[85] (c)
During the promulgation of judgment, except when it is
for a light offense.[86] In all these instances, the
accused must appear because his non-appearance may
either prejudice his rights or that of the State.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 15, Article III states
that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it.” This is a reiteration
of Section 18, Article VII. What is constitutionally
guaranteed is the right of a person detained by another
to test or challenge, through habeas corpus, the validity
of his detention when the authority of the detaining
person or agency is at issue.
2. 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, with the day and cause
of his capture and detention, to do, to submit to, and to
receive whatever court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf. When a person is illegally
confined or detained, or when his liberty is illegally
restrained, he has the constitutional right to file a
petition of habeas corpus. Should the court find out
that the person is illegally confined or detained, he shall
be immediately released from detention.
3. When Privilege Suspended. The privilege of habeas
corpus is suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion.
This is in order to meet the exigencies in such cases.
4. Writ of Amparo. Aside from the writ of habeas
corpus, the writ of amparo is another available remedy
to any person whose right to life, liberty, and security
has been violated or threatened to be violated by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. This
remedy is especially available in cases of enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial killings.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Section 16, Article III states that “all persons shall have
the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” Unlike
the right to speedy trial which applies only in criminal
proceedings, the right to speedy disposition of cases
may be invoked in all cases, whether judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative. Thus, right to speedy
disposition of cases is broader than right to speedy trial.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Meaning of Right against Self-Incrimination
Section 17, Article III provides that “no person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.” This
constitutional guarantee is better known as right
against self-incrimination. The right allows a person not
to answer an incriminating question. An incriminating
question is one that if answered renders a person liable
for an offense. However, it is only when the
incriminating question is put to a witness stand that the
right may be invoked.
When Right Available
1. The right is available in all government proceedings,
whether criminal or civil, and whether judicial or quasi-
judicial or administrative. It is even available in
legislative investigations and impeachment
proceedings. In addition, the right may be invoked by all
persons subject to judicial examination and legislative
investigation. Thus it may be invoked not just by the
accused in criminal cases, but also defendants in civil
cases, and witnesses in all kinds of proceedings.
2. The right, nonetheless, is not self-executing. It is not
automatically operational once an incriminating
question is asked. It must be properly invoked by
objecting to an incriminating question. For example,
when a witness is subjected to direct examination by
the opposing party, and the opposing counsel asked
“was there an instance that you cheated on your wife?,”
the right may be invoked by a timely objection to the
incriminating question. If no objection is raised, then
the answer may be used as evidence against the
witness for the proper criminal charge.
3. Although all persons subject to judicial, quasi-judicial,
administrative, and legislative investigations can invoke
the right under proper circumstances, special utilization
of the right is given to the accused. A witness can invoke
the right only when the question tends to be self-
incriminating, but an accused can invoke the same in
two ways. First is by refusing to testify altogether during
trial. And the second is, when he chooses to testify, by
refusing to answer questions that tend to incriminate
him for another offense.
4. In criminal proceedings what is prohibited is physical
or moral compulsion to extort communication from the
accused. Subjecting the body of the accused when
material to solve the case is allowed and not violative of
the right. In one case, the Court held that writing is not
a pure mechanical act but requires the use of the
intellect. Thus, an accused cannot be compelled to write
or sign and use the same as evidence against him.
5. 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. 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. This means that they will no longer
be prosecuted for the crime for which they are
testifying. Since they have to unravel everything, even
their guilt, in exchange of immunity, the right against
self-incrimination could no longer be invoked.
Basis of the Right
1. The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is
similar to the other rights of the accused. From the very
start, the accused is already in an adverse position
pitted against the entire machinery of the State. If
evidence will still be taken from the lips of the accused,
it would even tilt the scales heavily in favor of the State.
2. The right is founded on public
policy and humanity.[87] Public policy demands that a
person be spared from answering incriminating
questions because requiring him would likely lead to
the crime of perjury, which is basically lying to the court
after having promised to tell the truth and nothing but
the whole truth. Humanity prevents extorting
confession by duress.
RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article III
provides that no person should be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations, nor should
involuntary servitude in any form exist, except as a
punishment for a crime. The first part of the provision
deals with the right not to be detained by reason solely
of political beliefs and aspirations. This is essentially
embodied in the freedom of expression but with
emphasis on the prohibition against incarceration of
“political prisoners.” The second part deals with the
right against involuntary servitude. Involuntary
servitude refers to the compulsory service of another or
simply modern day slavery. The right is based on the
egalitarian principle of democracy which prescribes
equality of everyone in law, and on humanity which
prevents degradation of human dignity through
enforced labor.
2. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a
commodity under the complete power of the master.
This has never been practiced in the Philippines, but has
its remnants in modern forms of enforced labor and
peonage. Enforced labor happens when a person is
unlawfully compelled to work against his will; it is
involuntary and to a certain extent resembles slavery.
When a person, because of poverty or lack of money,
works for another in payment of his debt, the same is
prohibited by the present guarantee even if the service
is rendered voluntarily. This voluntary service in
payment of debt is called peonage. While it appears
voluntary, peonage is prohibited because the person is
forced to work by the circumstances of his
indebtedness, although not by his creditor.
2. Exceptions. Involuntary servitude may be allowed
under the following instances: (a) as punishment for
crime; (b) in the case of personal, military or civil service
in defense of the State; and (c) in compliance to a
return to work order issued by the Department of Labor
and Employment.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL
PUNISHMENTS
Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(1), Article III
states that “excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted…”
2. A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and
beyond the limits prescribed by law. The amount of the
fine is said to be unreasonable if the court does not take
into consideration certain standards, such as the nature
of the offense, and the circumstances of the person
punished by fine. The imposed fine may never go
beyond the statutory prescription, otherwise it is
unlawfully excessive.
3. A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the
conscience of mankind and it involves prolonged
suffering and agony to the person punished. For a
penalty to violate the constitutional guarantee, it must
be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be degrading to
human dignity, and it must be unreasonably
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
shock the senses of the community.[88] The mere
severity of a penalty does not make the punishment
cruel or inhumane, for as long as it is within the limits
provided by law. As one maxim states, “even if the law
is harsh, it is still the law (dura lex sed lex).” A penalty
that is germane to purpose of the penal law is not cruel
and inhumane.
4. Lastly, a penalty must be acceptable to the
contemporary society. Ancient forms of punishment,
such as pillory, disembowelment, and crucifixion, which
are already considered barbarous practices, are cruel
and inhumane. If a person, for instance, is paraded
around town naked with a tag on his neck saying “I am a
thief; do not imitate me,” the form of punishment is
cruel and inhuman; it is barbarous and so ancient that it
is no longer acceptable to the present-day society.
Death Penalty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2) also states
that “… neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.” The present provision abolishes death
penalty, although with a reservation that the Congress
can subsequently pass a law imposing it for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes.
2. Death Penalty not Cruel. The constitutional provision
on death penalty or capital punishment does not
explicitly mention that it is cruel and inhumane. In fact,
the Constitution allows the Congress to impose death
penalty for the right reasons. 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.
Death penalty may only be imposed by Congress in the
commission of heinous crimes and for compelling
reasons. Heinous crimes are crimes which are so
flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the conscience
of civilized persons, such as genocide, rape with
homicide, murder, rebellion, and treason, especially
when committed against the innocent and helpless.
With compelling reasons, Congress may impose death
penalty since it is proportionate to the atrocities
committed;
(b) This form of penalty still has currency in the
contemporary time. Death by lethal injection is
prevalently practiced by many countries for the
punishment of heinous offenses; 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. In truth, it
only induces the person to sleep through a lethal
substance injected in the bloodstream which thereafter
painlessly put the person to death.
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or
Imprisoned
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2), Article III
provides that “the employment of physical,
psychological, 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.”
2. Purpose of the Right. This constitutional guarantee
recognizes the inalienability of human dignity. Even
when a person is imprisoned or detained, and even if he
commits heinous crimes, he is still a person entitled to
proper treatment and protection. Paraphrasing it, the
Constitution provides that even if a person is
imprisoned or detained, he must be protected against
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment, and is
entitled to the use of standard or adequate penal
facilities under humane conditions.
RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 20, Article III
provides that “no person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax.”
2. A debt, as covered by the constitutional guarantee,
refers to a contractual obligation by a debtor to pay
money to the creditor. If by reason of poverty or lack of
money a person cannot pay his debt, he cannot be
imprisoned by reason thereof. 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. Nevertheless, although
the debtor cannot be imprisoned, his property may be
taken or attached by the court, and then sold at public
auction in payment of his debt to the creditor.
3. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee.
What is punished in estafa is not the non-payment of
debt but the deceit accompanying the act of non-
payment.
4. Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of
imprisonment. A poll tax is a tax of a fixed amount
imposed on individuals residing within a specified
territory, whether citizens or not, without regard to
their property or the occupation in which they may be
engaged.[89] Community tax or residence tax is an
example of poll tax. As far as poll tax is concerned, non-
payment is not punished by the government in
consideration of the plight of the poor who cannot even
afford to pay it. Poverty could never be a reason for a
person’s imprisonment. It must be emphasized,
however, that as regards other forms of taxes, non-
payment may be a cause of imprisonment. Failure to
pay income taxes is considered a crime (tax evasion),
and punishable under the law by imprisonment.
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Meaning of Double Jeopardy
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 21, 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, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
the same act.” This is more famously known as the right
against double jeopardy.
2. Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at
the risk of conviction for the same act or offense. The
right against double jeopardy therefore means that a
person can only be indicted or charge once by a
competent court for an offense. When a person, for
instance, has been charged of homicide and the court
acquitted him of the case, he can no longer be
prosecuted for the same offense or act. He can now
invoke his right against double jeopardy.
3. There are two types of double jeopardy. The first
happens when a person is put twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense, and the second
happens when an act is punishable by a law and an
ordinance at the same time, in which case the
conviction or acquittal in either one of them constitute
as bar to another prosecution for the same act.
3. The requisites of double jeopardy are:[90]
(a) A valid complaint or information;
(b) Filed before a competent court;
(c) To which the defendant has pleaded; and
(d) The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted
or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent.
When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed
1. Before double jeopardy could be claimed, there must
be a first jeopardy. The first jeopardy attaches only: (a)
upon good indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c)
after arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been
entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the consent of the accused. A case
is said to be terminated without the consent of the
accused when there is acquittal or a final decision
convicting him.
2. To substantiate therefore the claim for double
jeopardy, the following must be proven:
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first
jeopardy;
(b) The first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and
(c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense,
or the second offense includes or is necessarily included
in the offense charged in the first information, or is an
attempt to commit the same or is a frustration thereof.
RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF
ATTAINDER
Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 22, Article III
provides that “no ex post facto law or bill of attainder
shall be enacted.”
2. 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, and punishes
such an act;
(b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
when committed;
(c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when
committed;
(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon less or different testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense;
(e) Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
in effect imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
(f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.[91]
3. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. The constitutional
prohibition applies only in criminal cases.[92] One of the
characteristics of criminal law is prospectivity in which
only crimes committed after the enactment of a penal
are punishable. It cannot retroact and punish acts which
were not yet criminalized before its passage. The basic
rule is that before an act may be considered an offense
or crime, it must first be defined as a crime and a
penalty must be imposed for it under a law passed by
the legislative body. An act therefore is not a crime if
there is no law punishing it. In the same vein, a person
does not commit a crime, no matter how apparently
illegal it is, if there is no law defining and punishing it. 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.

Meaning of Bill of Attainder

1. Definition. A bill of attainder is “a legislative act which

inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence is the
substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination
of guilt.”[93]

2. Two Kinds of Bill of Attainder: (a) the bill of attainder

proper which involves the legislative imposition of
death penalty, and (b) bill of pains and penalties which
involves imposition of a lesser penalty.

3. Reason for Prohibition. The prohibition against bill of

attainder is an implementation of the principle of
separation of powers. The legislature cannot bypass the
judiciary by enacting a law that punishes an act without
need of judicial proceedings. The legislative department
should be confined to its law-making function; it cannot
encroach the authority of the courts by prescribing a
law that directly adjudges guilt without judicial
determination.

4. Example. In one case, the Court held that the Anti-

Subversion Law (R.A. 1700) is not a bill of
attainder.[94] The law declared the Communist Party of
the Philippines (CPP) a clear and present danger to
Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in
such organization. It is not a bill of attainder because it
does not define a crime, but only lays a basis for the
legislative determination that membership in CPP and
any other organization having the same purposes is a
crime. It does not automatically secure judgment by
mere membership. In operation, the law does not
render unnecessary judicial proceedings. The guilt of
the individual members of subversive groups must still
be judicially established.