With respect to the power of taxation, it is the Constitution itself that
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW delegated the power to local governments, and the delegation may be found in
Outline
March-April, 2017
May 1, 2018
March 2021
Edwin Rey Sandoval
Professor of Law
The INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE
These are the police power, the power of eminent domain, and the power
of taxation. These are inherent to the State, co-terminus with the State. Once
the State comes into being, they become operative. Hence, there is no need of
any grant of these powers to the State.
As inherent powers, these are to be exercised by the legislature , i.e., the
Congress, in the case of the Philippines. However, these powers may be
delegated by the Congress to the President, to administrative agencies, to local
governments. With respect to the power of eminent domain, this may even be
delegated to quasi-public corporations (private corporations performing public
functions or rendering some kind of public service, like the MERALCO, the PLDT,
etc.)
Local governments cannot possibly have inherent powers, unlike the State
itself, since they are mere creatures of the legislature. Whatever power that they
may validly exercise are those that have been delegated to them, or those that
can be implied from the delegated powers.
Sec. 5, Art. X of the Constitution, subject only to such limitations as Congress
may prescribe, consistent with the policy on local autonomy.
With respect to the police power, it is Congress that delegated the power
to local governments, and the delegation may be found in their respective
charters, as well as in Sec. 16 (The General Welfare Clause) of the Local
Government Code of 1991 (R.A. Act No. 7160).
With respect to the power of eminent domain, it is also Congress that
delegated the power to local governments, and the delegation may also be found
in their respective charters as well as in Sec. 19 (Eminent Domain of R.A. Act No.
7160).
In the case of Municipality of Paranaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation , the SC
clarified that under Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code, for a local
government unit to validly exercise the power of eminent domain, what is
required is an ordinance; a mere resolution of the Sanggunian is not enough.
The Police Power
This is the most pervasive, the least limitable among the powers of the
State as it affects not only property and property rights, but even liberty and life,
for the promotion of the general welfare.
Any human activity may be subject to the police power to promote the
general well-being of the community, i.e., promote public health, public safety,
public morals, public order, public welfare.
See: Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters Association,
Inc.
Requisites for a Valid Exercise of Police Power
1. Lawful purpose, i.e., the interest of the public in general, as
distinguished from the interest of a particular group;
2. Lawful means – the means employed must be reasonable, i.e., it is not
oppressive, capricious, whimsical, confiscatory, arbitrary, and
unreasonable.
These two must go hand-in-hand. In a democratic and republican regime,
the end to be achieved does not justify the means employed.
See:
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Phils., 283 SCRA
31, Dec. 12, 1997 (Romero)
City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005
The Power of Eminent Domain
This involves taking of private property by the State for public use.
Requisites for the Proper Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain
1. There must be “taking” of private property;
2. The property must be converted to public use;
3. There must be payment of just compensation in accordance with Sec. 9
of the Bill of Rights; and
4. There must be observance of due process.
Distinguished from Police Power with the Respect to the Element of “Taking.”
In police power, all kinds of property, including government property, may
be taken, but the property will have to be destroyed as it is noxious or harmful to
the public, or poses a risk to the public. In this case, no payment of just
compensation is required, as the compensation that the owner will have is that
intangible altruistic feeling that somehow he was able to contribute to the
common good.
In eminent domain, the property to be taken must be private property,
and the property will be converted to public use or purpose. For that matter,
there must be payment of just compensation as mandated by to Sec. 9 of the Bill
of Rights.
Meaning of “Taking” in the Constitutional Sense
“Taking,” in the constitutional sense, involves not merely the actual
physical dispossession of the property owner of his property; it may include
impairment of the use of his property for the original purpose for which it was
intended. (See: U.S. v. Cosby)
The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) involves
both an exercise by the State of Police Power and the Power of Eminent Domain
The provisions of the law (CARL) limiting ownership of private agricultural
lands is an exercise of police power for the promotion of social justice and the
general welfare. On the other hand, since the area in excess of the retention
limit provided by law will have to be taken from the owners to be distributed
among intended farmer-beneficiaries, what is involved is an exercise by the State
of the power of eminent domain and, therefore, the landowner is entitled to be
paid just compensation. (See: Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines
v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
The Power of Taxation
The Lifeblood Doctrine
Taxes are the lifeblood of the nation for without taxes the government
cannot function.
Interpretation of Tax Laws and Tax Exemptions
Tax laws are strictly construed against the government and liberally
interpreted in favor of the taxpayers as taxes are burdens or impositions on the
people.
On the other hand, tax exemptions are liberally interpreted in favor of the
government and strictly construed against the taxpayer because of the lifeblood
doctrine. For that matter, one who claims tax exemption has the burden of
proving that he is entitled to such exemption.
Taxes Distinguished from Licenses
Taxes are imposed pursuant to the power of taxation in order to raise
revenues for the government, whereas licenses are imposed pursuant to the
police power, the purposes of which is regulatory.
The amount of tax to be imposed may be unlimited, whereas the amount
imposed to regulate is to cover only the cost the regulation.
Taxes may not be subject to off-setting or compensation
Taxes may not be subject to off-setting or compensation in view of the
lifeblood doctrine, as the government and the taxpayer are not mutual debtor or
creditor of each other.
The BILL OF RIGHTS
General Considerations
The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are the Civil and Political
Rights. They are limitations on the powers of the State, limitations on the
powers of government.
There is no constitutional right to appeal.
Appeal is not a constitutional right; it is not found in the Bill of Rights. It is
merely statutory, such that if there is no law that grants one the right to appeal,
he may not appeal.
Is there a constitutional right to privacy?
The SC answered this question in the affirmative in Ople v. Torres (GR No.
127685, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141 [Puno]). After all, the essence of privacy is
the right to be let alone. It is expressly provided in Section 3 (The Right to
Privacy of communication and Correspondence) of the Bill of Rights. Other facets
of privacy right are found in other sections of the Bill of Rights, i.e., Sections 1
(The Right to Due Process of Law and the Right to the Equal Protection of the
Law), 2 (The Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures), 6 (The Right to
Liberty of Abode, Liberty of Changing the Same Abode, and the Right to Travel),
8 (Freedom of Association, which includes Freedom Not to Associate) and 17
(The Right against Self-incrimination).
How the Bill of Rights is structured
 The first eleven (11) sections (Sections 1 – 11) of the Bill of Rights pertain
to the civil and political rights in general, while the remaining eleven (11) sections
(Sections 12 – 22) focus on the rights of an accused.
For a proper understanding of the rights of an accused, correlation with
the Rules on Criminal Procedure (in the Rules of Court) is essential. After all, the
rights of an accused in the Bill of Rights are the substantive rights, while those in
the Rules of Criminal Procedure are the remedies to enforce the former.
Provisions of the Bill of Rights governed by the exclusionary rule on
evidence
There are four (4) provisions of the Bill of Rights governed by the
exclusionary rule on evidence such that any evidence obtained in violation of any
of the four will not be admissible for any purpose in any proceeding, it being
incompetent evidence. These are:
- Section 2 (The Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures)
- Section 3 (The Right to Privacy of Communication and
Correspondence)
- Section 12 (The Custodial Investigation Rights)
- Section 17 (The Right against Self-incrimination)
Presumption
Any act of government that is alleged to have infringed upon or impaired a
constitutional right such as freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right
to privacy or any other fundamental freedom comes to the Court with a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality, so that the burden lies on the part of the
government to justify such act (1) by showing some compelling State interest
and (2) that the measure is narrowly drawn to preclude abuses, i.e., the measure
is not overbroad, it does suffer from the vice of vagueness, it is not
unreasonable.
Section 1. 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.
Comment:
If what is involved is an act of government or government agents that
appear to be whimsical, capricious, oppressive, unreasonable, confiscatory,
arbitrary, etc., the proper right to invoke is the right to due process of law.
If what is involved is an act appears to be discriminatory, the proper right
to invoke is the right to the equal protection of the laws. The equal protection
clause is a guarantee against any kind of discrimination or discriminatory
conduct.
The Due Process Clause
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines.
City of Manila v. Laguio
Two (2) Aspects of Due Process
- Procedural – refers to the method or manner by which the law is
enforced, the essence of which are the twin requirements of notice and
hearing, or opportunity to be heard.
- Substantive – requires that the law itself is fair, reasonable and just -
not merely the procedure by which the law is enforced.

The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine and Due Process (See: Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (Third Div.), GR No. 148560, Nov. 19, 2001, En Banc [Bellosillo])
Due Process and Extradition
An extradition proceeding is sui generis and is not similar to a
criminal proceeding which will call into operation all the rights of an
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. (Secretary of Justice v. Hon.
Ralph Lantion [Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration], GR No.
139465, Oct. 17, 2000, En Banc [Puno])
Administrative Due Process
Seven (7) Cardinal or Primary Rights in an Administrative Proceeding (Ang
Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations)
Case to read: Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Exporters and Growers
Association, Inc., et al., GR No. 189185, Aug. 16, 2016, En Banc (Bersamin)
The Equal Protection Clause
The equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality; what it
merely guarantees is equality among equals. As formulated, it means that
persons or things similarly situated as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
should be treated similarly; conversely, if they are not similarly situated, they are
not to be treated similarly.
For this reason, not all classifications are invalid under the equal protection
clause. There may be a valid classification for as long the following requisites are
present:
1. The classification must be based on substantial distinction;
2. It must be germane to the purposes of the law;
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4. It should apply equally to all members of the same class.
See: Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Exporters and Growers
Association, Inc., et al., GR No. 189185, Aug. 16, 2016, En Banc (Bersamin)
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 so
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.
General Rule: For a search or an arrest to be valid, there must be a search
warrant or warrant of arrest.
Only a judge may issue a search warrant or a warrant of arrest.
Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest
1. There must be probable cause;
2. To be determined personally by the judge;
3. After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce; and
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized or arrested.
 The search warrant or warrant of arrest may only be issued in connection
with a specific offense. A general warrant may not do because a general warrant
partakes of the nature of a “fishing expedition” for evidence by the State
(Stonehill v. Diokno)
Duration of Search Warrant or Warrant of Arrest
A search warrant has a limited duration (within ten days after issuance); a
warrant of arrest has no duration (the only requirement is that the warrant officer
must make a report thereon to the court after ten days).
Determination of Probable Cause is a Judicial Function
The determination of probable cause for the purpose of issuing a search
warrant or warrant of arrest is a judicial function. For this reason, a judge is not
bound by the finding of probable cause by the prosecutor; he is mandated by the
Constitution to determine probable cause personally . He cannot abdicate the
performance of such function in favor of the prosecutor. (See: Abdula v. Guiani,
326 SCRA 1, Feb. 18, 2000, 3rd Div., [Gonzaga-Reyes])
Instances of valid warrantless searches
- Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest (Section 13, Rule 126, Rules of
Court) (See: Nolasco v. Cruz-Pano)
- Consented Search (See: Aniag, Jr. v. COMELEC)
- Plain View Search (People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668, Jan. 22, 1999, En
Banc [Puno, J.])
- Search of a Moving Vehicle
- Customs Searches
- Stop-and-Frisk Search (Terry Search) (Manalili v. CA; Malacat v. CA)
- Searches at Checkpoints (See: Valmonte v. De Villa)
For searches at checkpoint to be valid, the requisites are:
First, the checkpoint must be preannounced;
Second, it must be stationary (a “roving checkpoint” is not allowed);
and
Third, the search at checkpoint must be limited only to visual
search. An intrusive search is not allowed.
- Warrantless Searches at Airports (See: People v. Leila Johnson, G.R.
No. 138881, Dec. 18, 2000, 2nd Div. [Mendoza]; People v. Susan
Canton)
- Administrative Searches
Mandatory drug testing may be considered a form of an
administrative search and, therefore, not subject to the strict probable
cause requirement. (See: SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board)
Instance of valid warrantless arrests (Sections 5, Rule 113, Rules of
Court)
- In Flagrante Delicto Arrest (“Caught in the act”)
- Arrest in Hot Pursuit
 - Arrest of an Escapee
Section 3. (1) 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.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
RA No. 4200 (The Anti Wiretapping Act)
Cases to read:
Alejano v. Cabuay (The right to privacy of communication and
correspondence of pre-trial detainees)
Ople v. Torres (GR No. 127685, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141 [Puno])
(Right to Privacy)
Section 4. 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.
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedom of Expression (in particular)
- Freedom of the Press (See: Chavez v. Gonzales, GR. No. 168338, Feb.
15, 2008, En Banc [Puno])
- Freedom of Assembly
o BP Blg. 880 (The Public Assembly Act)
See : BAYAN V. Ermita, 169838, April 25, 2006, En Banc
[Azcuna])
The extent of the Protection
Freedom of expression includes not only freedom from censorship or prior
restraint, but also freedom from subsequent punishment.
The protection includes even “freedom for the thought we hate.” It is in
this context that the so-called “heckler’s veto” must be understood.
Limitation that may be validly imposed
The “clear and present danger” test is the test to be employed to justify
such limitation to freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms, like
freedom of religion. This test superseded the so-called “dangerous tendency
rule” which had long been rendered obsolete.
Another test to consider is the “balancing of interest” approach. This test
is usually employed by the Court if the competing interests involved in a case are
equally desirable to society, so that given a set of facts and circumstances, which
of the two competing interests should be upheld by the Court.
Content-based Restrictions and Content-neutral Regulations
- See: Osmena v. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447, March 31, 1998 {Mendoza,
V.V.)
- BP Blg. 880 is merely a content-neutral regulation . (See: BAYAN V.
Ermita, 169838, April 25, 2006, En Banc [Azcuna])
 In content-based restrictions on free speech, the restriction is directed
against the speech itself, or the contents of the speech; whereas in content-
neutral restrictions, the restriction is directed merely on the incidents of the
speech like the manner, the time and the place of the speech.
Content-based restrictions are censorial in character and constitute prior
restraint on free speech and, therefore, come to the Court with a heavy
presumption of unconstitutionality. Thus, the burden lies on the part of
government to justify such restriction by pointing out some compelling state
interest and that the measure is narrowly drawn to preclude abuses.
Freedom of Expression and Libel
The Doctrine of Fair Comment
Borjal v. CA, 301 SCRA 1, Jan. 14, 1999, 2nd Div (Bellosillo)
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460, Sept. 15, 1999, En
Banc (Mendoza)
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. 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.
Related Constitutional Provisions:
- Section 6, Article II. The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.
- Section 29 (2), Article VI
- Section 3 (3), Article XIV (Teaching of religion in public elementary
and secondary during regular class hours)
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
- Freedom to believe – absolute
- Freedom to Act on One’s Belief – may be subject to State regulation
once the belief is externalized and it will now affect public peace, public
morals, public safety and public welfare.
The Separation of Church and State Doctrine
What are purely ecclesiastical affairs of the Church which may not be
validly interfered with by the State following this doctrine? (See: Pastor Dionisio
V. Austria v. NLRC)
The Non-establishment Clause
When it comes to religious differences, the State should remain neutral;
government should not support any particular religion by defending it against an
attack by another religion . (Iglesia Ni Cristo v. CA, 259 SCRA 529, July 26, 1996
[Puno])
Government must not use religious standards in its decisions and actions.
(Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC)
.
The Free Exercise Clause
Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA
256, 269-273, March 1, 1993, En Banc (Grino-Aquino)
 - Does the right to travel (outside the country) include the right to return
Centeno v. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197, Sept. 1, 1994 (Regalado) to one’s country? (See: Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 [1989])

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of

The “No Religious Test” Clause
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
The Benevolent Accommodation Policy
decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
The Conscientious Objectors
limitations as may be provided by law.
See: The Diocese of Bacolod et al. v. COMELEC, GR No. 205728, Jan. 21,
2015, En Banc (Leonen) on the power of the COMELEC to limit expressions made - Recognized Exceptions to this Right (See: Chavez v. PCGG, 299
by the citizens – who are not candidates or political parties – during elections. SCRA 744, Dec. 9, 1998 [Panganiban])

Freedom of Information
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within
the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in
order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except
the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies
in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
may be provided by law.

In American caselaw, this provision is often referred to as “freedom of - See: Jacinto v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 657, Nov. 14, 1997, En
locomotion.” Banc (Panganiban)

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use

The Three (3) Rights involved in Section 6:
without just compensation.
1. The right to liberty of abode;
This provision is a limitation on the power of eminent domain of the State
2. The right to liberty of changing the same abode; and
so that if the State would like to take away private property and convert it to
3. The right to travel.
public use, the State must pay just compensation and observe due process.
The right to travel involves the right to travel within the country and the
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
right to travel outside the country.
passed.
 This is commonly referred to as the non-impairment clause. Take note
however, that this non-impairment clause always yields to the police power of the
State - and even to the power of taxation and the power of eminent domain - for
as long as the subject matter of the contract is imbued with paramount public
interest. Into every contract is deemed written the police power of the State.
Also, the police power may not be bargained away through the medium of a
contract, or even that of a treaty.
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by
reason of poverty.
Section 12. (1) 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.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation
of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
This is a set of rights popularly referred to as the Miranda rights (derived
from the American case of Miranda v. Arizona). At this stage (custodial
investigation), the person is not yet an accused as there is yet no case filed
against him. He is merely a suspect.
The rights included therein are:
- The right to be informed that the suspect has the right to remain
silent; that any statement he may give may be used in evidence
against him.
- He will have to be informed that he has the right to have an
independent and competent counsel preferably of his own choice.
- He will have to be informed that if he cannot afford the services of
counsel, he will have to be provided with one.
- He will have to be informed that these rights may be waived by him
but the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel.
RA No 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or
Under Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining,
and Investigating Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations thereof)
This is a special penal law enacted pursuant to Section 12, par. 4,
Article III above cited.
The Two (2) Kinds of Involuntary or Coerced Confessions under Section
12, and the Presumptions (See: People v. Obrero, 332 SCRA 190, May 17,
2000, 2nd Div. [V.M. Mendoza])
 Admissibility of uncounselled confessions given before a mayor, and before
media men. (People v. Andan, 269 SCRA 95, March 3, 1997)
Admissibility of Video-taped Media Confessions (See: People v. Endino,
353 SCRA 307, Feb. 20, 2001, 2nd Div., [Bellosillo])
Section 13. 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 allowed.
The right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of an
accused in a criminal proceeding.
The main purpose of bail is to ensure the presence of the accused during
trial of the criminal case, or that the accused will not abscond during the
pendency of the case.
When is Bail a Matter of Right?
When is it a Matter of Discretion?
- Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), G.R. No. 213847, Aug. 18,
2015 (Bersamin)
- Joselito V. Narciso v. Flor Marie Sta. Romana-Cruz, G.R. No. 134504,
March 17, 2000, 3rd Div. (Panganiban)
A condition imposed by the judge that before an accused may be allowed
to post bail he must be arraigned first was declared unconstitutional because it
will violate two (2) important rights of an accused, i.e., the right not to be put on
trial except upon a valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him in
court, and the right to bail; itself. (Lavides v. CA, 324 SCRA 321, Feb. 1, 2000,
2nd Div. [Mendoza])
The Right to Bail and Extradition
- (See: Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Judge
Olalia, GR No. 153675, April 19, 2007, En Banc [Sandoval-Gutierrez])
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
- The right to be presumed innocent
- The right to be heard by himself and counsel
- The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him
- The right to speedy trial
- The right to impartial trial
- The right to public trial
- The right to meet the witnesses face-to-face
- The right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
and production of evidence on his behalf
Trial in Absentia
The provision on trial in absentia is found in the last sentence of
this provision. It is clear from the provision that there can be no trial in
absentia if the accused has not yet been arraigned.
Section 15. 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.
- The Writ of Amparo
- The Wirt of Habeas Data
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
This is a right that is available to all persons in all kinds of
proceeding, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, unlike the right to a
speedy trial which is available only to an accused in a criminal case and,
therefore, only the accused may invoke such.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Under the above-quoted provisions, what is actually proscribed is the use
of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused-
appellant and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.
For instance, substance emitted from the body of the accused may be received as
evidence in prosecution for acts of lasciviousness (US v. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145
[1912]) and morphine forced out of the mouth of the accused may also be used
as evidence against him (US v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]).
Consequently, although accused-appellant insists that hair samples were forcibly
taken from him and submitted to the NBI for forensic examination, the hair
samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the
use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired
from the accused under duress. (People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, 399-
401, Dec. 9, 1999, En Banc [Per Curiam])
This right may be invoked not only in a criminal case, but even in
administrative proceedings that partake of a criminal nature
In Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners (28 SCRA 344 [1969]), we
held that the right against self-incrimination under Section 17, Article III of
the 1987 Constitution which is ordinarily available only in criminal
prosecutions, extends to administrative proceedings which possess a
criminal or penal aspect, such as an administrative investigation of a
licensed physician who is charged with immorality, which could result in
his loss of the privilege to practice medicine if found guilty. The Court,
citing the earlier case of Cabal v. Kapunan (6 SCRA 1059 [1962]), pointed
out that the revocation of one’s license as a medical practitioner, is an
even greater deprivation than forfeiture of property. (Secretary of
Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, 184, Jan. 18, 2000, En Banc
[Melo])
This may even be invoked during inquiries in aid of legislation in the
Congress, and even in impeachment proceedings.
It has been held that “a congressional committee’s right to inquire
is ‘subject to all relevant limitations placed by the Constitution on
governmental action,’ including ‘the relevant limitations of the Bill of
Rights.
 One of the basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution to an
individual is the right against self-incrimination . This right construed as
the right to remain completely silent may be availed of by the accused in a
criminal case; but it may be invoked by other witnesses only as questions
are asked of them.
Moreover, this right of the accused is extended to respondents in
administrative investigations but only if they partake of the nature of a
criminal proceeding or analogous to a criminal proceeding. In Galman v.
Pamaran, the Court reiterated the doctrine in Cabal v. Kapunan to
illustrate the right of witnesses to invoke the right against self-
incrimination not only in criminal proceedings but also in all other types of
suit. (Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA
767, Nov. 20, 1991, En Banc [Padilla])
Immunity Statutes
If an accused is given some kind of immunity by the State in exchange for
his testimony against his co-accused in a criminal case, he may no longer validly
invoke his right against self-incrimination. That is the very purpose of an
immunity statute.
The two (2) types of immunity statutes
Our immunity statutes are of American origin. In the United States,
there are two types of statutory immunity granted to a witness. They are
the transactional immunity and the use-and-derivative-use immunity.
Transactional immunity is broader in the scope of its protection. By its
grant, a witness can no longer be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever
arising out of the act or transaction . In contrast, by the grant of use-and-
derivative-use immunity, a witness is only assured that his or her particular
testimony and evidence derived from it will not be used against him or her
in a subsequent prosecution. (Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA
783, 797-798, April 26, 1994, En Banc [Puno])
Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted.
Exceptions
Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. 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.
(2) 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.
Mere extinguishment of life alone does not constitute cruel, degrading,
inhuman punishment. To be such, it must involve prolonged agony and
suffering; it refers more to the nature of the punishment to be inflicted upon a
convict, i.e., that which is shocking to the conscience of mankind under
contemporary standards. (See: Leo Echegaray v. Court of Appeals)
The power to re-impose the death penalty for certain heinous crimes is
vested in the Congress; not in the President. After all, the power to define crimes
and impose penalties is legislative in nature.
 Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of a poll tax.
The word “debt” in this provision refers to an obligation arising from
contract.
Section 21. 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.
In American caselaw, this right is sometimes referred to as “ res judicata
dressed in prison grey.”
The Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy
1. Double jeopardy for the same offense (First sentence, Section 21 of the
Bill of Rights)
2. Double jeopardy for the same act (Second sentence of the same
section)
See: People v. Quijada, 259 SCRA 191, July 24, 1996
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, the following must be proven:
(1) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second; (2) the first jeopardy
must have been validly terminated; (3) 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.
Legal jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon a valid 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 express
consent of the accused. (Cuison v. CA, 289 SCRA 159, April 15, 1998
[Panganiban])
Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.
What is an Ex-post Facto Law?
It is a penal law that is given retroactive effect although not favorable to
an accused. (See: Panfilo M. Lacson v. The Executive Secretary, et. al., G.R. No.
128096, Jan. 20, 1999 [Martinez])
The provision against ex post facto law applies only to criminal or penal
law. It will not apply to an extradition treaty, which is not a criminal or penal
law. (Wright v. CA)
What is a Bill of Attainder?
[T]he Court, in People v. Ferrer, defined a bill of attainder as a
legislative act which inflicts punishment on individuals or members of a
particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to a bill of attainder are a
specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals, the imposition
of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and the lack of judicial trial. This last
element, the total lack of court intervention in the finding of guilt and the
determination of the actual penalty to be imposed, is the most essential .
(Misolas v. Panga, 181 SCRA 648, Jan. 30, 1990, En Banc [Cortes, I.])