Violation of Constitutional Rights in the Midst of a Pandemic

I. Introduction

COVID-19 has been a time of strife for Filipinos not only in terms of loss of lives and livelihood but
also the loss of rights guaranteed by our Constitution. In this paper, the writers will discuss the Bayanihan
to Heal as One Act or RA 1146 and the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article III Section 1 of the
Constitution, and how this provision is not properly observed based on current events, i.e. during the
implementation of the strict quarantine procedures versus COVID-19.

To concretely illustrate our points, this paper will discuss the case of Rubia, a fishball vendor,
which will be contrasted with the mañanita of PNP Chief Debold Sinas; Koko Pimentel’s visit to Makati
Medical Center versus Mark Daniel Lopez’s visit to East Avenue Medical Center; and Ronnel Mas’s
warrantless arrest versus NBI’s invitation to Mocha Uson for investigation.

II. Maskless Fishball Vendor vs. PNP General’s Mañanita

In order to begin the discussion on violations with regard to the 1987 Constitution and the poor
implementation of the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, it is important to discuss reports regarding the
arrest of Rubia. On April 27, 2020, Rubia, a fishball vendor was selling fish ball in Quezon City when he
was suddenly approached by 4 authorities in the said local government unit. The officials questioned the
Rubia regarding his lack of a quarantine pass as well as a face mask. Upon being told of his arrest. Rubia
was reported to have resisted by refusing to accompany the authorities to their van. The authorities then
proceeded to drag the man towards their vehicle while repeatedly beating the man with their fists and a
wooden stick. He was later on brought to Kamuning Police Station where he was detained. Onlookers
were quick to point out the abuse of authority and use of unnecessary force in detaining Rubia 1. Quezon
City began its investigation into the incident but claimed, in a separate report 2, that the authorities
responsible for the arrest of Rubia used reasonable force in detaining the said individual. Head of the
Quezon City Task Force, Councilor Ludovica claimed that Rubia had violently reacted against the
authorities when he was questioned regarding his violation of the quarantine protocols. Rubia was said to
have hurled invectives against the law enforcement authorities and began kicking them when he was told
of the rules concerning the enhanced community quarantine rules. Ludovica even added that Rubia
tested positive for drugs upon testing him after his arrest. Ludovica reasoned that hitting Rubia with a
stick was reasonable in order to subdue the individual whilst kicking the authorities trying to detain him but
eye witnesses have claimed Rubia never reacted violently but merely refused to be arrested, questioning
only why he was being accosted by the authorities and urging him to accept his arrest.

The 1987 Constitution provides the constituents of the Philippines specific rights with regard to
processes involving the detention of an individual. According to the first part of Article 3 Section 1, no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It is a basic principle that
every person is entitled to proper respect regarding his right to life and liberty with regard to any
1Talabong, R., 2020. QC Officials Maul, Drag Fish Vendor For Not Wearing Face Mask. [online] Rappler. Available
at: <https://www.rappler.com/nation/259289-quezon-city-officials-maul-drag-fish-vendor-not-wearing-face-mask>
[Accessed 1 July 2020].
2 Chavez, C., 2020. Reasonable Force Used In Arrest Of Fish Vendor For ECQ Violation. [online] Manila Bulletin
News. Available at: <https://news.mb.com.ph/2020/04/29/reasonable-force-used-in-arrest-of-fish-vendor-for-ecq-
violation/> [Accessed 2 July 2020].
interaction between the government and its people. This applies as well to interactions between citizens
and the police force or any law enforcement agent. In fact, the PNP in its primer regarding the rights of
citizens on law enforcement3 puts emphasis on the 1987 Constitution’s Bill of Rights as one of its main
governing laws in conducting its law enforcement protocols specifically citing Article 3 Section 1. In the
same vein, the primer also recognizes Article 3 section 12 on its prohibition on the use of excessive force
when dealing with a person suspected of committing an offense. The primer goes on to mention that law
enforcement agents are prohibited from using or employing excessive force unless the suspect is said to
pose a serious and imminent threat which will potentially cause death or injury to other persons or the
agent himself. Relating this to the reports regarding the arrest of Rubia, the law enforcement agents have
clearly violated the 1987 Constitution. The police officers have failed to comply with the right of Rubia, in
relation to his life and liberty when the officers repeatedly used excessive force against him. Although
Rubia indeed violated the quarantine rules, the police officers did not have the authority to use a wooden
stick to beat the man into submission. Our Constitution recognizes the right of every individual to be free
from the use of torture, intimidation, and use of excessive force as clearly stated in Article 3 Section 12.
Many police officers have used RA 11469 as a basis to warrant the immediate arrest of citizens violating
rules regarding the quarantine but it is important to note that RA 11469 does not mention the lack of face
masks or a quarantine pass as a reason for the detainment of violations. In Baguio City, for example, the
Baguio City Police Office again cited RA 11469 as a reason for immediate detention of violators 4. Around
127 violators have been arrested on the wrong premise that RA 11469 allows such arrests. Even if RA
11469 would allow such arrest, the detention of Rubia would not have been condoned by said law
because under section 7 of such law, it states that the provisions of RA 11469 shall not be interpreted to
impair, modify, or restrict any provisions of the Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights 5.

Moving on to the second issue regarding the equal protection clause found under the second part
of Article 3 Section 1 of the Constitution, it states that “nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
of the laws”. The equal protection clause as a general rule rejects privilege treatment or discrimination of
the application of laws against certain individuals which are subject to it. Laws are made to apply equally
to all individuals falling within a specified class. As an exception to this rule, reasonable classification is
allowed as long as there is substantial distinction to warrant a different treatment. In order to properly
discuss how equal protection and treatment was violated with regard to Rubia, it is important to compare
it with the case of Debold Sinas, a PNP Chief. Sinas was also caught violating the protocols involving the
enhanced community quarantine by staging a birthday blowout on May 8 despite being fully aware of the
rules on mass gatherings6. While Rubia was forcefully dragged and beaten by law enforcement agents,
Sinas was instead formally charged before the Taguig City Prosecutor’s Office and was given a proper
investigation of his case. The PNP Chief was also allowed to receive a lighter penalty of suspension
instead of discharge in light of the complicated situation involving the pandemic. Comparing the two
cases, Rubia was indeed denied equal protection under our laws when his right to due process and
respect to his right to life and liberty were violated. Instead of being properly arrested, investigated, and

3 Pnp.gov.ph. 2020. Know Your Rights: A Citizen’S Primer On Law Enforcement. [online] Available at:
<http://www.pnp.gov.ph/images/Manuals_and_Guides/Know-Your-Rights.pdf> [Accessed 1 July 2020].
4 Lobien, P., 2020. ECQ Violators Warned Of Outright Arrest, Jail Term. [online] Pna.gov.ph. Available at:
<https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1100824> [Accessed 1 July 2020].
5 An Act Declaring The Existence Of A National Emergency Arising From The Coronavirus Disease 2019
(Covid-19) Situation And A National Policy In Connection Therewith, And Authorizing The President Of The
Republic Of The Philippines For A Limited Period And Subject To Restrictions, To Exercise Powers Necessary And
Proper To Carry Out The Declared National Policy And For Other Purposes
[Bayanihan to Heal as One Act], RA 11469, § 7 (2020).
6 CNN Philippines. 2020. Sinas, 18 Metro Manila Cops Charged For Birthday Feast. [online] Available at:
<https://www.cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/5/15/Sinas-Metro-Manila-police-charged-birthday-feast.html> [Accessed
1 July 2020].
charged for the violation of an offense, his arrest was done with excessive use of force. This is
tantamount to discrimination and denial of equal protection of laws on the part of Rubia. There is no
substantial distinction between Sinas and Rubia to warrant a different treatment. Although Sinas is a
public official, he is being made accountable for the violation of ECQ protocols as a citizen of the
Philippines which is the same situation as Rubia.

III. A Desperate Visit of a Senator to His Pregnant Wife and a Desperate Visit of a Son to His
Dying Mother

It was March 26, 2020, a few days after the administration declared a lockdown in several areas
of the country as a result of the increasing number of those who were infected by COVID-19, that Senator
Koko Pimentel, who tested positive of the virus that time, decided to go to a shopping chain in BGC
Taguig. This was confirmed by S&R, or the shopping chain where the senator decided to go, despite the
directive of the government itself that persons under investigation (PUI) should conduct a self-quarantine.
As a result of the senator’s visit, S&R employees who were in contact with the senator were placed in
quarantine at that time.7

However, what was even more alarming was that Pimentel's trip to S&R was already the second
confirmed instance when the senator broke his quarantine. Even before he got the test results for his
coronavirus test, he accompanied his wife Kathryna to the Makati Medical Center (MMC) on March 24
because she was scheduled to give birth on March 25. 8 MMC medical director Dr Saturnino Javier
released a strongly worded statement denouncing the "irresponsible and reckless" behavior of Pimentel,
who found out he tested positive for COVID-19 while he was at the hospital. "His admonition for everyone
to observe social distancing, enhanced community quarantine measures, washing of hands, and personal
hygiene are nothing but empty rhetoric because he himself violated all of those," Javier said.

Meanwhile, Mark Daniel Lopez, who posted the then viral post on Facebook, wrote the tragic
experience he had to go through during the first phase of the lockdown in the Philippines. According to
Mark, his mother died of acute hemorrhagic stroke and central herniation syndrome, which was caused
by “very high pressure within the skull,” on May 11 inside their house in Cavite province. He told the
netizens his struggle before he was able to go to East Avenue Medical Center during the lockdown, and
how he was not allowed to see his mother despite several pleas, knowing how his mother could pass
away anytime soon. A part of his post stated:

Sinusubukan ko pa rin makatawid ng border ng QC at Manila. Lumapit ako sa Brgy.

Pero hindi raw nila ako matutulungan. Tinuro nila ako sa police station. Nagmakaawa
ako sa police station na maihatid sa East ave. Sinabi ko na naghihingalo ang nanay
ko. Pero wala raw sila magagawa. Hindi raw nila yun sakop. Bawal daw.

Ilang beses ako lumabas para maghanap ng masasakyan at pabalik pabalik sa

presinto magmakaawa. May sundalo nakinig sa akin. Pero pagkatapos magtanong sa
pulis. Bawal din daw. Sabi ko kahit hanggang border lang. Kahit sa dulo. Lalakarin ko
na lang.

7S&R Confirms Koko Pimentel Shopped at BGC Store on March 16, available at
https://www.rappler.com/nation/255957-sr-bgc-confirms-koko-pimentel-visit-march-16-2020 (last accessed June 25,
2020).
8 Id.
 May pumayag na mobile. Dinala ako hanggang boundary. Hanggang Rotonda. Doon
ako nag abang dala ko ang mga gamit ko. Hanggang sa inabutan ako ng ulan.
Basang basa ako pero hindi ko alam ano gagawin ko. May dumating na sa sakyan ng
sundalo. Pinasakay ako hanggang magpalipat lipat ng police station. Hanggang may
pumayag na ihatid ako sa East ave.

Pagdating ko ng East Ave. Bawal pa rin makita si mama. Nasa COVID ward siya.
Mainit daw dun dahil bawal ang aircon. Umaasa lang kami sa balita ng mga nurse at
doctor at results ng covid test para mailipat na si mama ng ward dahil hindi pwedeng
irritable ang stroke victim.

Pinalipas namin ang magdamag sa bakuran ng East Ave. Hanggang dun lang daw
kami pwede. Kaniya kaniya kaming karton.9

Based on the administration’s response to Koko Pimentel’s violation of the directives

regarding self-quarantine especially if the person came into close contact with a person who is
infected, as opposed to the administration’s response, or the lack of it, to Mark Daniel Lopez’s plea
for assistance, this is when the concept of unequal application of the law should come in. According
to the Memorandum released by the Executive Secretary, dated March 16 2020 “A strict home
quarantine shall be observed in all households; movement shall be limited to accessing basic
necessities; provision for food and essential health services shall be regulated; and there will be
heightened presence of uniformed personnel to enforce quarantine procedures.” Yet, this provision
only applied to Mark Daniel Lopez, who--assuming arguendo is not entitled to any exception even if
he has a dying mother confined in a hospital in Quezon City--is left to suffer a heartache due to a
strict government directive. The unequal treatment towards the poor was highlighted even more
when Mark Daniel Lopez, out of desperation, asked help from a barangay in Quezon City, only to be
shooed away by the officials who were manning the barangay at that time. On the contrary, a
senator, who the citizens are supposed to emulate, them being public officials, and more importantly
being a carrier of an infectious disease in this case should have been more sensitive to the harmful
effects he might trigger to the people around him, was given an exception from the provision.

Although the Department of Justice may have issued a subpoena to the senator last April 14,
2020 for allegedly violating R.A. No. 11332, or the Mandatory Reporting of Notifiable Diseases Act,
yet, up to this day, we have not received any information regarding the case. 10 Whether the issuance
of subpoena was a mere afterthought as a response to the public clamor that the senator has
received due to his conduct, what is crystal clear is that Koko Pimentel received a more favorable
treatment by the administration due to his position even if the senator violated a law and a
quarantine protocol, while Mark Daniel Lopez, an ordinary citizen, was left with no choice but to
grieve by himself, and not even the chance to properly say goodbye to his own mother.

With this, we ask, is there really no one above the law?

9 Mahabang Gabi, Mark Daniel Lopez, available at https://www.facebook.com/mdlopezf/posts/10222789803242921

(last accessed May 17, 2020).
10DOJ Summons Koko Pimentel Over Quarantine Breach Complaint, available at
https://www.rappler.com/nation/257900-doj-summons-koko-pimentel-coronavirus-quarantine-breach-complaint (last
accessed June 25, 2020).
 IV. Teacher Arrested Without Warrant and a Pro-Admin Asec’s Invitation to NBI

On May 11, Ronnel Mas, a public school teacher was arrested for a tweet he posted 6 days
earlier (May 5). The tweet stated: “I will give P50 million reward kung sino makakapatay kay Duterte.” The
arrest was warrantless and on the basis that he committed the crime of “inciting to sedition.” Thankfully,
on June 25, the court granted his motion to quash on the basis that the accused was arrested illegally. 11
This is a clear case of the government stepping on the right to due process of its citizens. Art. III, Section
I, states that: “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.” Ronnel was imprisoned for 8 days and had to
post a 72,000 peso bail despite the fact that he was illegally arrested.

The court’s June 25 decision aptly stated that a warrantless arrest under Rule 113 of the Rules of
Civil procedure must be based on personal knowledge by the arresting officer that the person to be
arrested has probably committed the crime. Without this element of personal knowledge, a valid
warrantless arrest under the hot pursuit exception cannot take place. Moreover, an arrest in hot pursuit
must take place contemporaneously or when the offense has just been committed. In this case, it cannot
be denied that Ronnel was illegally arrested because two of these essential requisites are absent. First,
he was arrested 6 days from when he made the tweet, which meant there was already an appreciable
lapse of time from when the purported crime was committed and the moment of his arrest.

Secondly, the arresting officers could not have had “personal knowledge” that Ronnel Mas
committed the crime of inciting to sedition. The court ruled that for the hot pursuit exception to apply,
personal knowledge is required. Personal knowledge implies that while the arresting officers need not
witness the crime, they must have direct knowledge of the crime and the circumstances surrounding its
commission. It cannot be based on “intelligence information” that the accused committed a crime. Since
he was illegally arrested, there is no doubt that he was denied the right to life and liberty without due
process of law. He was also denied the right under Art. III, Section 2, which entitles every person to be
arrested (unless covered by recognized exceptions) to a warrant of arrest. Art III, Section 2 states:

“Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be 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.”

Ronnel was definitely entitled to one before he was arrested as he could not have been validly
arrested without a warrant given the fact that he was being arrested for a tweet. Unless a police officer
saw him posting the tweet in an internet cafe, or unless he was reported immediately after doing such an
act, there would be no excuse not to obtain a warrant of arrest. Even then, it would still be arguable that
there would be no probable cause to hold him guilty of the crime of inciting to sedition. Inciting to sedition

11https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2020/06/25/2023480/court-junks-inciting-sedition-charge-vs-teacher-ronnel-
mas
is a malum in se crime where intent is a material element. The officers would have no means to ascertain
whether or not Ronnel actually intended to incite people to commit the crime of sedition.

Moreover, the officers themselves would not be capable of ascertaining how the public would
view his tweets. It is safe to assume that a majority of individuals would take it as a joke meant to show
dissatisfaction with President Duterte’s government. In addition, the crime of inciting to sedition requires
that the incited individuals actually commit the crime, which undoubtedly did not happen. The several
elements of this crime make it difficult for a valid warrantless issue.

In addition, we cannot expect law enforcement officers to be as knowledgeable as lawyers with

the elements of this crime. It is not like murder, arson, theft, or rebellion, where law enforcement officers
can adequately satisfy the onus of probable cause by themselves. Inciting to sedition is a crime that is
vague when committed and difficult to prove. That being said, Ronnel was illegally arrested and deprived
of his rights to due process.What makes the situation even worse is that he was also forced to confess on
live television by a group of police officers. He cried, admitted to the crime, and begged forgiveness from
the President. This was without the presence of counsel. Sadly, this void extrajudicial confession was
used by the inquest prosecutor as justification for the warrantless arrest. While the prosecutor agreed that
the warrantless arrest was invalid, she argued that it was cured by the confession of Ronnel to the media.
The prosecution of Ronnel should have stopped at this point, but it nonetheless made it to the court
because of the strong armed tactics of the executive. This confession on live television clearly violates
Article III, Section 12 of the Bill of Rights which states:

“Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably
of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel...(3) Any
confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.”

He clearly made the confession without the presence of counsel and without it being in writing.
But as stated earlier, the prosecutor still chose to file the information with the court despite the
fact that Ronnel clearly made an invalid confession/admission.

On the other hand, government officials are let off the hook for clear violations of the law. As discussed
above, several officials have violated ECQ regulations without any form of reprimand. Some, like OWWA
Secretary Mocha Uson, have even propagated “fake news” regarding PPE donations. In these cases,
there are no penalties imposed even if they may be due. Their rights to due process become irrelevant in
these issues as they are not even prosecuted or held to be accountable for their actions. By condoning
this behavior, the government violates the express mandate of the Bill of Rights that no one shall be
denied equal protection of the laws.