CONCLUSION:

The Bill of Rights also protects human rights as much as property rights. Its sanctity is
clothed with authority, an authority to protect the people from unwanted and unfair
intrusion on the part of the government. In the absence of Bill of Rights, the corresponding
result would be tyranny and of similar result constituting to the abuse of power on the part
of the ruler.

One of the liberties accorded by the Bill of Rights is “Right Against Unreasonable Search
and Seizures”. Accordingly,

“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.”

In the absence of the Bill of Rights, it was illustrated in the case of Republic v
Sandiganbayan, the relevance of international treaties on human rights. Wherein, the
provision under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, fill the gaps in the event that violations on human rights are
committed. Accordingly:

“A revolutionary government is bound by no constitution. However, the revolutionary government

did not repudiate the Covenant or the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the Constitution.
After installing itself as a de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape
responsibility for the State’s good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international
law. During the interregnum when no constitution or bill of rights existed, directives and orders
issued by the government officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed the authority
granted them by the revolutionary government. The directives and orders should not have also
violated the Covenant or the Declaration.”

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is available to all persons be it a
citizen or an alien, an accused of a crime or not, and even artificial persons included. Such
right is personal and just like any other rights, it can be waived either implied or expressed
but such waive must be done by the person which right is being deprived.

Just as in public international law, everyone is entitled to these rights, without

discrimination. As defined by the United Nations (UN), human rights are universal and
inalienable, interdependent and indivisible, and equal and non-discriminatory.

Hence, the presence of these declarations and covenants reduces the worries and increases
the confidence of such defenseless individuals regardless of the absence of the liberties
provided under the fundamental law of the land. Although not necessarily complete, it
provides for an adequate protection to the majority in general.
Next will be the case of REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN.

We are here to share with you the relevance of those mentioned conventions and declarations
through which, in the absence of liberties provided by the fundamental law of the land, the
former will suffice and fill such gap.

Now that we have discussed the different Conventions that concern international human rights,
we will now discuss how international human rights are applied in the Philippines. In the case of
Republic v. Sandiganbayan

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

A search was conducted on March 3, 1986. During which the Philippines has no
Constitution. The Constabulary raiding team searched the house of Elizabeth Dimaano
by virtue of a search warrant and thereafter seized some items not included in the
warrant. Dimaano questioned the search for being violative of the Constitution.

Facts: Upon assumption of office, President Aquino issued Exec. Order No. 1 (EO No. 1) creating the
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) tasked to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the
Marcos Regime. PCGG Chairman Salonga created an AFP Graft Board (AFP Board) to investigate on the
reports of the unexplained wealth of military personnel.

On July 7, 1987, herein Major General Ramas and his mistress Elizabeth Dimaano became subjects of the
AFP Board investigation. They were reported to have large sums of money which were never declared in
their respective statements of accounts and liabilities. They were then confiscated during raids of the
companies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. The solicitor general filed a complaint on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines against Ramas and Dimaano alleging the acquisition of the wealth was
through the abuse of office and association with President Marcos before the Sandiganbayan. The
complaint however was dismissed by the Sandiganbayan on the grounds that there was an illegal seizure
of the items confiscated.

Can the accused invoke her right against unreasonable searches and seizures during the
interregnum?

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was operative during Aquino’s
assumption of power.

2. Whether or not the acquisition of the funds is an illegal seizure.

Ruling:

1. No, the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution was inoperative. The Court ruled that the EDSA
Revolution was done in defiance of the 1973 Constitution, hence there was a phenomenon called
interregnum. Being a revolutionary government, only the orders and directives of the seated
leader (i.e., Corazon Aquino) is the supreme law because the 1973 Constitution is deemed
inoperative after the success of the EDSA Revolution. In the case at bar, Aquino successfully
 assumed power and implemented EO No. 1. Therefore, the Bill of Rights was superseded by the
orders and directives of the Revolutionary Government of Aquino.

2. Yes, the acquisition is an illegal seizure. Despite the fact that the Bill of Rights was inoperative
during the regime of the revolutionary government, the Philippines remained to be a signatory to
international laws.

The Court specified these laws as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Covenant and Declaration) from which provisions of the
Bill of Rights are patterned from. As signatories to them, the Filipino people are always afforded
the rights they provide whether a de jure Bill of Rights was then inoperative. The court even
emphasized the fact that the revolutionary government of Aquino promulgated the Freedom
Constitution as a compliance to the two aforementioned international laws.

ARTICLE 3, 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.

The particular provisions in ICCPR are:

Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State “to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant.”

Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that “[n]o one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.”

The particular provision in UDHR is:

Article 17(2) that “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe
the rights of individuals under the Declaration.

HELD:

In the case at bar, there is no proof that a valid warrant was issued prior to the seizure of
properties of Ramas and Dimaano.

As provided as one of the requisites in order for there to be a VALID WARRANT:

Items to be seized, and places to be searched must be particularly described.

As admitted by petitioner’s witnesses Captain Sebastian, the Constabulary raiding team confiscated items not
included in the warrant. According to the search warrant, they are supposed to seize only for weapons. For the search and
seizure of five (5) baby armalite rifles M-16 and five (5) boxes of ammunition. However, they still believed that the attache
case also contained firearms, they forced open these containers, only to find out that they contained money and therefore
also seizing other items in these attache cases which are not particulary included in the warrant.

Therefore, there was illegal seizure against Ramas and Dimaano which violated their right to due
process guaranteed by the international laws under the Covenant and Declaration to which the
Philippines is a signatory to.
 Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding
document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of
the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the State. Thus, the
revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe the rights
of individuals under the Declaration.

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law to observe
the rights of individuals under the Declaration.

NOTE: The UDHR, a response to violation of human rights in a particular period in world history,
did not include the exclusionary right.

Exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this constitutional provision
originated from Stonehill v. Diokno. This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that
encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions.

Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures should be excluded as evidence – as the only
practical means of enforcing the constitutional mandate against unreasonable search and seizures.

CONCLUSION:

The Philippines is a party to the UN Charter, UDHR, the 2 Covenants: ICCPR and ICECR, and
to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There being said,

As provided, treaty commitments become part of domestic law, unless not self-executing, the
same must be attended to by the necessary steps in accordance with its Constitutional process
and with the provisions of present Covenants either legislative or executive measures. Aside
from those previously mentioned covenants, there are other Conventions on Human Rights such
as: 1) Genocide Convention, 2) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination and particularly against women, 3) Convention against Torture and other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 4) Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
5) Convention on Migrant Workers. Under customary human rights law, the same includes
prohibition on Torture, Genocide, Slavery, and Discrimination. These Human Rights Laws are
implemented by each country through municipal or regional courts. There are two (2) different
procedures which the Human Rights commission, a subsidiary organ of ECOSOC, applies for
responding to violations of human rights: a) Confidential consideration, and b) Public Debate
Procedure pursuant to ECOSOC Resolution 1503 and 1235.

International laws are part of the laws of the land. Observance thereof will promote peace and
unity among nations of the world. As no man is an island, no nation can survive without the
others. Respect for human rights is the basic foundation of world order. All states are united in
underscoring the sanctity of life and the rights of human beings.
There have been other conventions intended for the protection of human rights. Among these
are:

Genocide Convention
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Convention on Migrants Workers

The different regional conventions on human rights have their own procedure for
implementation.

It can also be said that some human rights principles have become customary law in the light of
state practice. Such as Torture, Genocide, Slavery, and Discrimination.