FINAL EXAMINATION (LEGAL PHILOSOPHY)

Resurrection, Grazl Jireh Galdo

2301114115

I.
A. Article III (BILL OF RIGHTS) Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides that No
person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. It prevents the all-powerful State
from forcing an accused to testify against himself or to give out testimony that may convict
him. It would also be unjust to force people to choose between betraying their inclination to
protect themselves (committing perjury by lying) or inviting contempt of court by refusing to
say anything. In the case of US vs. Navarro, the supreme court ruled that “It was established
on the grounds of public policy and humanity—of policy, because if the party were required
to testify, it would place the witness under the strongest temptation to commit the crime of
perjury, and of humanity, because it would prevent the extorting of confessions by duress.”

B. As societal dynamics evolve and legal systems adapt to new challenges, there is a growing
awareness of the need to protect vulnerable populations, such as marginalized communities or
individuals with limited legal knowledge. The right against self-incrimination serves as a
protective measure, preventing exploitation or abuse of individuals who may not fully
understand the legal consequences of their statements. Philosophically, the presumption of
innocence is a cornerstone of many legal systems. The right against self-incrimination
contributes to this presumption by placing the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt rather
than relying on admissions made by the accused. This aligns with the philosophical idea that
individuals are to be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

C. The right against self-incrimination typically pertains to testimonial evidence rather than
physical or object evidence. This means individuals have the right to remain silent and not
provide statements that could be self-incriminating. It does not necessarily extend to physical
or object evidence. Physical evidence, such as documents, objects, or substances, may be
collected by law enforcement through legal means, such as search warrants or consent, and it
can be introduced in court. In the case of People vs. Malimit, appellant asseverates that the
admission as evidence of Malaki's wallet together with its contents, viz., (1) Malaki's
residence certificate; (2) his identification card; and (3) bunch of keys, violates his right
against self-incrimination. The court ruled that the right against self-incrimination guaranteed
under our fundamental law finds no application in the case. This right, as put by Mr. Justice
Holmes in Holt vs. United States, ". . . is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral
compulsion, to extort communications from him . . ." It is simply a prohibition against legal
process to extract from the [accused]'s own lips, against his will, admission of his guilt. It
does not apply to the instant case where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an
incriminating statement but object evidence.
It’s important to note that the admissibility of evidence can vary based on jurisdiction, legal
principles, and the specific circumstances of a case. Courts may evaluate the legality of how
evidence was obtained and whether it aligns with constitutional protections and legal
standards.

D. The right against self-incrimination is a legal principle that generally applies to

individuals, including natural persons. This right is based on the recognition of the inherent
dignity and autonomy of individuals, and it is designed to protect them from being compelled
to provide testimony or evidence that may incriminate themselves in a criminal proceeding. It
is deeply rooted in concepts of human rights and individual liberties. It acknowledges the
potential for abuse of power by the state or other authorities and seeks to ensure a fair and
just legal process. The idea is that individuals should not be forced to act as witnesses against
themselves, as this would violate their personal autonomy and dignity. In most legal systems,
the right against self-incrimination is framed in terms of protecting the rights of individuals,
and the term "person" is generally understood to refer to natural persons, i.e., human beings.
While legal entities such as corporations or organizations may have certain legal rights, the
right against self-incrimination is typically not extended to them in the same way it is to
natural persons. Behind limiting this right to natural persons is often tied to the unique
characteristics of human beings, including their consciousness, moral agency, and the
potential for vulnerability in legal proceedings. Extending the right to entities that lack these
human attributes may be seen as inappropriate or incompatible with the underlying principles
and purposes of the right against self-incrimination.

II.
A. In the case of Tecson v. Comelec, in respect to Section 1, Paragraph 2, Article IV, The
Constitution, where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as taking after the citizenship
of its mother, it did so for the benefit the child. It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the
illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the assumption that the mother had custody,
would exercise parental authority and had the duty to support her illegitimate child. It was to
help the child, not to prejudice or discriminate against him. The fact of the matter— perhaps
the most significant consideration—is that the 1935 Constitution, the fundamental law
prevailing on the day, month and year of birth of respondent FPJ, can never be more explicit
than it is. Providing neither conditions nor distinctions, the Constitution states that among the
citizens of the Philippines are “those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.” There
utterly is no cogent justification to prescribe conditions or distinctions where there clearly are
none provided. The ascertainment of the meaning of the provision of the Constitution begins
with the language of the document itself. The words of the Constitution should as much as
possible be understood in the sense they have in common use and given their ordinary
meaning. The reason for this is because the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer’s document
but essentially that of the people, in whose consciousness is should even be present as an
important condition for the rule of law to prevail. Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution is
very clear. As the provision does not distinguish between a legitimate child and an
illegitimate child of a Filipino father, we should not make a distinction.