Section 16.

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies

If you will compare this with the provision on section 14, the rights of a person under criminal prosecution, that
is the right to a speedy impartial and public trial. Now here, this is a speedy disposition cases. Take note that in
a criminal case if the counsel for the accused invokes the right to a speedy trial and then asked for the dismissal
of the case, the dismissal of the case is a dismissal on the merits. It is tantamount to an acquittal. Therefore the
rule on double jeopardy will set in. (kapag matagal na yung kaso, hindi dumadating yung piskal, testigo ng
piskal laban sa acusado, pwede kayong mag move na i-dismiss yung kaso ng client niyo on the ground to the
right to a speedy trial, pag ‘yun na dismiss, its equivalent to an acquittal because that is a constitutional right.)

Now, with respect to section 16, this is a more generic provision with deals with cases not only before courts of
justice, but also before quasi-judicial or administrative bodies and it includes to all parties whether you are the
complainant or you are the respondent. Just like the right to a speedy trial, it is only violated only when the
proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays and as enunciated in the landmark case of
Likaros v Sandiganbayan, the factors to be considered whetehr this right is violated are the length of the delay,
the reason for the delay, the assertion or the failure of the party to assert his right and the prejudice caused by
the delay. That is why no, in the sandiganbayan if the case has been pending in the office of the ombudsman for
quite some time, they move for the dismissal of the case on the ground of the violation of the right to a speedy
disposition of cases.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Remember that this applies only to testimonial compulsion with the exception of handwriting. What is prohibited is exacting a
testimony from the lips of a person against his will. That is why if you are the accused, you can decide not to be presented as a
witness in court. But once you are presented as a witness, then you will have to subject yourself to a cross-examination
otherwise whatever you’ve said during the direct examination will be considered as hearsay. However, the moment that the
counsel for the adverse party asked you something that would tend to illicit an incriminating answer then you can invoke your
right against self-incrimination. However, this can be invoked not at the very moment that you are already in the witness
stand, but at the time that the incriminating question is asked. The right against self-incrimination is available not only in
criminal prosecutions but also in all other government proceeding including administrative, civil investigations.

As a rule, this may invoke only when the question calls for an incriminating answer is being asked. In Ali v Castro, the Kernel is
not against all compulsion but only testimonial compulsion. Therefore, substance emitted form the body of the accused may
be received as an evidence. Ex: semen in cases of rape; hair sample; DNA; finger printing; photos; - there is no testimonial
compulsion there. If you will be asked to reenact, there is no testimonial compulsion there. There are some instances where
you will be asked to re-enact.