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.[1] These are awesome powers, which,
if left uncheck, may seriously restrict and jeopardize the freedom of individuals. Thus,
it is inbuilt in every democratic constitution to meticulously include provisions
guaranteeing the rights of the individuals and those restricting the powers of the
government. This is to prevent the tragedy that the government created by the people
will in turn be the instrument to enslave and abuse them.

4. The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an indispensable part of the Constitution. In fact,
it is one of the most important parts of the fundamental law since it aims at balancing
the power of the government and the various freedoms of the individual. As will be
seen below, the Bill of Rights provide for two things: first, restrictions directed
against the state, and, second, explicit identification and limitation of rights of the
individuals. On the one hand, the government exercises its tremendous powers, but its
powers are limited by the Constitution. On the other hand, the individuals are
guaranteed of their rights, but subject also to limitations in recognition of the powers
of the government. What balances the two (power and freedom) are the limitations
provided by the Constitution, which limitations are by nature compromises or
solutions to situations resulting from the overlapping or conflict of the two realms. For
example, while the government has the inherent authority to take and convert a
property for public use, and the people on the other have the right to hold their private
property, the Constitution, contemplating a case of overlap or conflict between the
two, compromises both by prescribing that the government gives just compensation to
the private owner who in turn must surrender his property.

Meaning of the Bill of Rights

1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights refers to
the declaration and enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights of a
person with the primary purpose of safeguarding the person from violations by the
government, as well as by individuals and group of individuals. It includes the
protection of the following rights:

(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by virtue of their citizenship,

such as freedom to contract, right to property, and marriage among others;

(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of the individual vis-
à-vis the administration of the government, such as right of suffrage right to hold
office, and right to petition for redress of wrong;

(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure the well-being and economic security
of an individual; and

(d) Rights of the accused which refer to protections given to the person of an accused

in any criminal case.

2. It must be noted that the restriction provided in the Bill of Rights is directed against
the government, so that it does not govern private relations. As far as the Constitution
is concerned, Article III can be invoked only against the government. Nonetheless,
with the inclusion of almost all the constitutional rights in Article 32 of the Civil
Code, the same may now be invoked in civil cases involving relations between private
persons. Thus, the definition above indicates that the bill of rights is a safeguard not
just against the abuses of the government but also of individuals or group of
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.[2] Life means something more than mere animal existence.[3]

(b) Liberty. It includes “negative” and “positive” freedom. Negative freedom means

freedom from, or absence of, physical constraints, while positive freedom means
freedom to exercise one’s faculties. Right to liberty therefore includes the two aspects
of freedom and it cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint or
servitude, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy his God-given faculties
in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful
calling, to pursue any vocation, and enter into contracts.[4]
(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing,
property is anything capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a
right, it refers to right to own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The
constitution uses property in the sense of right, and as such it includes, among others,
right to work, one’s employment, profession, trade, and other vested rights. It is
important to note however that privileges like licenses are not protected property; but
they may evolve in a protected right if much is invested in them as means of
livelihood. Public office is not also a property; but to the extent that security of tenure
cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a limited sense analogous to
property.[5]

5. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if one’s property right over
employment is taken away, the same will adversely affect one’s right to life since
quality of living is jeopardized. Consequently, in the absence of property and a good
quality of life, the ability to do what one wants is 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”[6] and its essence is that it is “a law which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”[7]

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:[8]

(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:[9]

(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.[10] 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.”[11] 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

classification does not violate the guarantee, provided that the classification has the
following requisites:[12]

(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,[13] 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[14] 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.”[15] Thus, personal determination does not mean that he must personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses.[16] 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.[17]

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,[18] a peace
officer or a private person may arrest a person even without a warrant under the
following instances:

(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. 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,[19] 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.

[20] 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.[22] 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:[24]

(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;[25]

(b) Obscenity which includes works (taken as a whole) appealing to prurient interest

or depicting sexual conduct as defined by law or lacking of serious literary, artistic,
political or scientific value;[26]

(c) Criticism of official conduct made with actual malice;[27] and

(d) School articles which materially disrupt class work or involves substantial

disorder or invasion of rights of others.[28]

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;[29]

(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.
[30]

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;
[31] 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.”[32]

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.[33]
2. But if the government has a substantial interest to protect, even a truthful and
lawful commercial speech may be regulated.[34]

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.[35] 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.[36]

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.[37] 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,
[38] financial subsidy of a parochial school,[39] 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

Test are 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 facie evidence 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 facie proof.

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.