BILL OF RIGHTS

(..continuation)
 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

 Constitutional Provision. Section 4, Article III

“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 EXPRESSION

 Importance of the Right.

 It is accorded the highest protection in the Bill of Rights since it is indispensable to the
preservation of liberty and democracy.

 Religious, political, academic, artistic, and commercial speeches are protected by the
constitutional guarantee.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

 Limitation.

 Freedom of expression is NOT ABSOLUTE.

 It must be exercised within the bounds of (LaMoGPP) law, morals, good customs,
public policy and public order, and with due regard for others’ rights.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment

 Freedom of speech and of the Press.

TWO ASPECTS:

a. Freedom from prior restraint; and

b. Freedom from subsequent punishment.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment

 Freedom from prior restraint - freedom from censorship or governmental

screening of what is politically, morally, socially, and artistically correct.

GENERAL RULE: Prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional.

EXCEPTION:
(a) Undue utterances in time of war;
(b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of military
information;
(c) Obscene publication; and
(d) Inciting to rebellion.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment

 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 restricting expression.

EXCEPTION:
(a) libel
(b)obscenity
(c) Criticism of official conduct
(d) school articles
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Speech

 Restrictions.

TWO KINDS:

1. Content-based restriction – restrictions is directed to the speech itself.

2. Content-neutral restriction – restriction is directed, not to the speech itself,
but to the incidents (such as time, place or manner)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

 Regulations on Mass Media:

1. Broadcast Media – lesser freedom (greater regulation)

2. Print Media

 Doctrine of Fair Comment - a discreditable imputation directed against a public

person in his public capacity, does not necessarily make one liable.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

 Commercial Speech - 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.

 BUT: If the government has a substantial interest to protect, even a truthful and
lawful commercial speech may be regulated.

 NOTE: Private speech is accorded more freedom and protection than commercial
speech.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY

 Freedom of Assembly refers to the right to hold a rally to voice out grievances against the government.

 Freedom is not subject to prior restraint.

 PERMIT REQUIREMENT: permit is required to hold a rally. However, permit is not a requirement for the
validity of the assembly or rally, because the right is not subject to prior restraint.
 the permit is a requirement for the use of the public place.
 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.

 Political rally during election is regulated by the Omnibus Election Code.

RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCATIONS

 Constitutional Provision. Section 8, Article III

“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.”
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCATIONS

 Who may exercise the right?

 Employed individuals (government or private sector)

 Unemployed individuals

 Right to form unions (government and private sector)

 RIGHT TO STRIKE NOT INCLUDED.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION

 Constitutional Provision. Section 7, Article III

“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.”
RIGHT TO INFORMATION

 Scope and limitation.

 The right guarantees access to official records for any lawful purpose.
EXCEPTION:
(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:

(a) Freedom to believe – absolute right; also includes right not to believe
(b) Freedom to act on one’s belief – Section 5, Article III

“…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.”
FREEDOM OF RELIGION

 Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III.

“no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.”
FREEDOM OF RELIGION

 Non-establishment clause – 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.

 prohibits, among others, prayers of a particular denomination to start a class in

public schools, financial subsidy of a parochial school, display of the ten
commandments in front of a courthouse, law prohibiting the teaching of
evolution, mandatory reading of the bible, and using the word “God” in the pledge
of allegiance.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
 EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITIONS:

(a) Tax exemption on property “actually, directly and exclusively used” for religious
purposes;
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools and expansion of educational facilities in
parochial schools for secular activities;
(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;
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary assigned to the armed
forces, penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium;
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which traditions are used to be purely religious
but have now acquired secular character; 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.
 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

 Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III.

 ““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.”
 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
Freedom of movement
TWO ASPECTS:

(a) Freedom to choose and change one’s domicile, and

(b) Freedom to travel within and outside the country.

 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
Freedom of movement

Limitations:

1. 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.
 LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
Freedom of movement
Right to return to One’s Country

 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.

 Right to return to one’s country is not among the rights

expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights but it is recognized
and protected in the Philippines.
 Non-impairment of contracts
Contract clause
 Constitutional Provision. Section 10, Article III.

 “No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be

passed.”
 Non-impairment of contracts
Contract clause
 Section 10, Article III is the so-called contract clause
which seeks to restrain substantial legislative impairment
of, or intrusion into, the obligations of contracts.

 It guarantees the integrity of contracts against undue

interference by the government.
 Non-impairment of contracts
Contract clause
Contracts covered by Section 10, Article III:

 Only VALID contracts, executed or executory.

 NOTE: The agreement of the parties, as long as it is VALID, is the law

between them.

 The will of the parties should prevail, and must be respected.

 Non-impairment of contracts
Contract clause

 Limitations: (Rules)

 1. As between freedom of contract and police power, POLICE

POWER PREVAILS.
- laws enacted in exercise of police power will prevail over
contracts.
- private rights and interests 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.
Non-impairment of contracts
Contract clause
2. 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.

3. Licenses are different from contracts.

- licenses are privileges given by the State to qualified entities that may
be withdrawn or relinquished when national interest require.
- like contracts, they yield to police power.
Legal assistance and free access to
courts
 Constitutional Provision. Section 11, Article III

 “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and

adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.”
Legal assistance and free access to
courts
 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.

 The right is placed in a separate provision to emphasize the

DESIRE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THE POOR.
Legal assistance and free access to
courts
 In consonance with Section 11, Article III, 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
Constitutional Provision. Section 12, Article III

 “ (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.”
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 The enumeration of rights in Section 12, Article III 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.
 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.
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 Section 12, Article III is usually referred to as the “Miranda Rights”
because it is an adoption of the rights provided in the American
case “Miranda v. Arizona.”

MAHINAY DOCTRINE
 In the case of People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455, the Supreme
Court updated the Miranda Rights with the Developments in
law that provided the rights of suspects under custodial
investigation in detail.
 Rights of persons under custodial
investigation

Therefore, a person under custodial investigation should be

informed of his/her rights as follows:
1. In a language known to and understood by him of the reason for
the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any;
Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a
language known to and understood by said person;
2. That he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he
makes may be used as evidence against him;
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
3. That he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an
independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
4. That if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be
provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his
behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested
or one acting in his behalf;
5. That no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
6. That, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most
expedient means – telephone, radio, letter or messenger – with his lawyer
(either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his
immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly
accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be
the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;
7. That he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the
same;
8. That the waiver must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel,
otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his
waiver and chooses to speak;
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
9. That he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that
he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such
indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet
commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;
10. That his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any
of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process,
regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered
some statements;
11. That any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation
of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in
part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 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, so that law enforcers should be
reminded of the sanctity of individual rights and the limitations on their
means of solving crimes.
 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.
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 Extrajudicial Confessions refers to a confession or admission of guilt made
outside the court.
 Relative to Section 12, it refers to a confession given during a custodial
investigation, which is not judicial in nature.
 Under the Mahinay Doctrine, 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.
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF AN EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION:
To be valid and admissible in evidence in court, an extrajudicial confession
must be:
a. Voluntary;
b. Made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel;
c. Express; and
d. In writing
Rights of persons under custodial
investigation
 INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION:

TWO KINDS:
a. Confession through coercion;
b. Confession without being informed of the person’s rights under the
Mahinay Doctrine

Both kinds are INVALID and cannot be admitted as evidence against the
confidant, the confession considered as a fruit of the poisonous tree.
RIGHT TO BAIL

 Constitutional Provision. Section 13, Article III

“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.”
RIGHT TO 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.

 Probational release through bail is corollary to the right to be

presumed innocent and a means of immediately obtaining liberty.
RIGHT TO BAIL

 When can a person invoke his Right to Bail?

 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.
RIGHT TO BAIL

 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.

 Instances when bail is a matter of right:

(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.
RIGHT TO BAIL

 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
RIGHT TO BAIL

(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.
RIGHT TO BAIL

 Right to bail is not suspended when the President suspends the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

 Bail and habeas corpus are remedies intended for the immediate
release of a detainee. Nonetheless, there are fundamental
differences between them so that the suspension of one does not
mean the suspension of the other.
RIGHT TO BAIL

RIGHT TO BAIL HABEAS CORPUS

There is an implicit There is an assumption that
recognition of the validity of the detention or arrest is
detention or arrest. illegal.
Purpose of bail is for the The purpose is for the
temporary release of the permanent release.
detainee.
RIGHT TO BAIL

 When right to bail may not be invoked.

1. If the offense for which the person is detained is punishable by

reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is strong.

2. Military may not invoke the right to bail. Allowing military members to
avail of the right would pose a great danger to national security.
Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

 Constitutional Provision. Section 15, Article III

“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.”
Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

 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.
Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

 SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

The privilege of habeas corpus is suspended in cases of

a. rebellion; or
b. Invasion

This is in order to meet the exigencies in such cases.

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

 Constitutional Provision. Section 16, Article III

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

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF

CASES
Section 14, Article III Section 16, Article III
Applies only in criminal Applies in all cases, whether
proceedings judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative.
Right to speedy disposition of
cases is broader than right to
speedy trial.
Right against self-incrimination

 Constitutional Provision. Section 17, Article III

“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”

 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.

 The right is founded on public policy and humanity. 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 self-incrimination

 The right is available in all government proceedings, whether

criminal or civil, and whether judicial or quasi-judicial or
administrative.
 It is likewise available in legislative investigations and impeachment
proceedings.
 The right may be invoked by all persons subject to judicial
examination or legislative investigation.
 It may be invoked by the accused in criminal cases, but also
defendants in civil cases, and witnesses in all kinds of proceedings.
Right against self-incrimination

 Right against self-incrimination is NOT SELF-EXECUTING.

 It must be properly invoked by objecting to an incriminating question.

 If no objection is raised, then the answer may be used as evidence against

the witness for the proper criminal charge.
Right against self-incrimination

 In criminal proceedings what is prohibited is physical or moral

compulsion (mechanical acts) 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.
Right against self-incrimination

 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.
Right against involuntary servitude

 Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article III

“(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.”
Right against involuntary servitude

 Par. 1 deals with the right not to be detained by reason solely of

political beliefs and aspirations.

- is essentially embodied in the freedom of expression but with

emphasis on the prohibition against incarceration of “political
prisoners.”
Right against involuntary servitude

 Par. 2 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.
Right against involuntary servitude

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

 Constitutional Provision. Section 19(1), Article III

“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.”
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL
PUNISHMENTS

 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.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL
PUNISHMENTS

 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.
 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.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL
PUNISHMENTS

 Dura lex sed lex - “even if the law is harsh, it is still the law.
 A penalty that is germane to purpose of the penal law is not cruel
and inhumane.
 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.
Death penalty

 Constitutional Provision. Section 19 (1) , Article III: 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 provision abolishes the death penalty, although with a reservation that
the Congress can subsequently pass a law imposing it for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes.
Death penalty

 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;
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally
Detained or Imprisoned
 Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2), Article III
“
“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.”
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally
Detained or Imprisoned
 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.
 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

 Constitutional Provision. Section 20, Article III

“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.”

Right against imprisonment for debt

 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.
 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.
 Right against imprisonment for debt

 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.
example: Community tax or residence 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.
 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

 Constitutional Provision. Section 21, Article III

“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.”
Right against double jeopardy

 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.
Right against double jeopardy

 EXAMPLE:
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.
Right against double jeopardy

 REQUISITES of Double Jeopardy:

(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.
Right against double jeopardy

 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.
Right against double jeopardy

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
 Constitutional Provision. Section 22, Article III

“ No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.”

Right against ex post facto law and bill
of attainder
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;
Right against ex post facto law and bill
of attainder
(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.
Right against ex post facto law and bill
of attainder
 The constitutional prohibition applies only in criminal cases.
 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.
 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.
Right against ex post facto law and bill
of attainder
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.”
TWO KINDS OF BILL OF ATTAINDER:
(a)the bill of attainder proper which involves the legislative imposition
of death penalty, and
(a)bill of pains and penalties which involves imposition of a lesser
penalty.
Right against ex post facto law and bill
of attainder
 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.
END