PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: ARTICLE III (BILL OF RIGHTS)

The Philippines' foundational document, its Constitution, serves as more than just
legalese; it's a vibrant symbol of the people's cherished freedoms. Embedded within, like a
potent shield, lies Article III, the Bill of Rights. This crucial section ensures every Filipino's
inherent rights and liberties. Beyond mere legalities, it defines a critical power balance: the
individual versus the state. Here, unwavering rights like due process and free speech act as
fortresses, guarding against excessive government reach and establishing clear boundaries
between citizen and authority.

KEY THEMATIC ELEMENTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Individualism

The Philippines' foundational document, its Constitution, goes beyond legal declarations
to embody the philosophical concept of individualism. Woven into its very fabric lies the
unwavering belief in the inherent dignity and equal worth of each individual, transcending
differences in background or affiliation. This core principle finds resonance in several key
articles, notably Article II and Article III.

Equality before the law serves as another vital thread, ensuring that individuals are
treated fairly and impartially by the justice system. Article III, Section 1 declares that "No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws." This protects individual rights from arbitrary actions and
guarantees fair treatment under the law.

The Constitution further strengthens the fabric of individualism by upholding individual

freedoms. Article III, Section 5 safeguards the freedom of religion, recognizing the importance of
individual autonomy in matters of personal belief. This allows individuals to freely choose and
practice their faith, fostering a diverse and tolerant society. Additionally, the document protects
the right to participate in political processes, allowing individuals to express their political views,
vote, and engage in peaceful assemblies.
Limited Government

Democracies like the Philippines rely heavily on the concept of Limited Government,
which essentially means keeping the government's power in check to protect individual
freedoms. This principle is a core part of the Philippine Constitution and is most clearly seen in
its Bill of Rights (Article III). This section serves as a shield against the government
overstepping its bounds by outlining fundamental rights for all Filipinos.

One of the most important provisions in the Bill of Rights is the "Due Process Clause,"
which states that the government can't take away someone's "life, liberty, or property" unless
they follow specific legal procedures. This ensures the government respects individual rights
and can't just do whatever it wants. Due process itself has two parts: procedural and
substantive. Procedural due process deals with the steps the government must take before
infringing on someone's rights, like the right to a fair trial, being heard, and having an impartial
judge. Substantive due process, on the other hand, focuses on the specific rights themselves,
like privacy and freedom of movement.

Rule of Law

The core of a just society lies in the unwavering principle of the Rule of Law. This
concept dictates that everyone, from ordinary citizens to powerful officials, must operate within
the framework of fairly applied and enforced laws. In the Philippines, the Constitution serves as
the backbone of this principle, ensuring fairness, justice, and equality for all.

One of the main pillars supporting the Rule of Law is the concept of "equality before
the law" (Article III, Section 1). This declares that no individual, regardless of their background
or status, can be deprived of their basic rights – life, liberty, or property – without following
proper legal procedures. This ensures that the justice system treats everyone equally.

Beyond simply establishing equality, the Rule of Law also emphasizes the importance
of following established legal procedures. This is evident in the rights granted to individuals
accused of crimes, such as the right to a fair trial, legal representation, and the presumption of
innocence until proven guilty. These fundamental rights guarantee transparency and fairness
within the legal system.
KEY RIGHTS PROTECTED

Right to Life, Liberty, and Security

Deep within the Philippine Constitution lies a foundation for individual liberties known as
the Right to Life, Liberty, and Security (Article III, Section 1). This bedrock principle recognizes
the inherent value of every Filipino, safeguarding them from harm and ensuring their well-being.

At its core, the Right to Life safeguards the sacredness of human existence. It
protects individuals from acts that endanger or end their life, such as violence, torture, or cruel
treatment. This right goes beyond mere survival, encompassing access to basic necessities like
food, shelter, and healthcare - the essential building blocks of a good life.

The Right to Liberty empowers Filipinos with the tools to shape their identity and
express themselves freely. This includes the ability to move around freely, think for themselves,
choose their faith, and share their voice without fear. It stands as a shield against unfair
imprisonment and guarantees a fair trial if accused of a crime, protecting them from unjust
limitations.

Finally, the Right to Security weaves in a layer of protection from threats that jeopardize
their personal safety and well-being. Encompassing the right to a safe home, freedom from
violence, and the right to privacy, it creates a haven of security and shields individuals from
harm. In certain situations, for the greater good of society, limited restrictions may be necessary,
such as maintaining order, public health, or protecting the rights of others.

Right to Freedom of Speech, Expression, and Assembly

The Philippine Constitution, specifically in Articles III, Sections 4 and 8, safeguards the
basic rights to freedom of speech, expression, and assembly. These principles are vital for a
thriving democracy, promoting open communication, a variety of viewpoints, and engaged civic
involvement.

Firstly, the right to freedom of speech and expression (Section 4) ensures individuals the
freedom to express their thoughts, ideas, and viewpoints without restraint. This includes a wide
range of expression methods, from verbal and written communication to artistic and other media
forms. Moreover, press freedom is integral in keeping the public informed and holding the
government accountable. Secondly, the right to peaceful assembly (Section 4) allows individuals
to unite and collectively voice, advocate, and stand up for their convictions. This is a
cornerstone of democracy, facilitating public discussion and collective action on issues of public
interest. In the interest of public safety, order, health, and the protection of others' fundamental
rights, certain limitations may be imposed.

Right to Privacy

Although not directly stated, the Right to Privacy is enshrined within the Philippine
Constitution and is acknowledged by the Supreme Court as a crucial aspect of human dignity
and freedom. This fundamental right is expressed in several ways:

Firstly, the confidentiality of your communication and correspondence is protected

(Article III, Section 3(1)). This implies that unauthorized intrusions into your emails, letters, or
phone calls are forbidden, except when a court authorizes it or when public safety and order
necessitate it, in accordance with legal procedures. Secondly, your personal spaces and
possessions are protected from unwarranted searches and seizures (Article III, Section 2). This
guarantees that your sanctuary, whether it’s your home, belongings, or personal items, cannot
be violated without a valid reason.

Moreover, the right to manage information about oneself, known as informational

privacy, has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court, even though it’s not explicitly stated in
the Constitution. This gives you the power to decide what personal information is gathered,
utilized, and revealed.

Right to Religion

In the Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 5, there's a right called the Right to
Religion. This right is important because it protects people's freedom to have and express their
religious beliefs.

This right has two parts. The first part, Freedom of Belief, means people can believe in
any religion they want, or not believe in any religion at all. No one can force them to change
their beliefs. The second part, Freedom to Act on One's Beliefs, means people can practice their
religion in the way they want. They can worship, follow religious practices, and share their faith
with others. But this freedom has limits. For example, if someone's actions are harmful to public
safety, health, or other people's rights, then those actions can be restricted.

The Constitution also says that the government can't favor one religion over another.
This is called the separation of church and state. It helps to make sure that all religions can exist
together peacefully.

Right to Property

The Right to Property, protected by Article III, Section 9 of the Philippine Constitution, is
a fundamental human right and a key element of economic freedom and personal liberty. This
right is expressed in two ways. Firstly, Section 9 of Article III protects property rights by stating
that "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." This means
that the government cannot arbitrarily confiscate a person's property. If the government needs to
take private property for public use, a process known as "eminent domain," it must provide fair
compensation to the property owner.

Secondly, the Right to Property is also protected by the Due Process Clause in Section 1
of Article III. This clause states that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law," meaning the government must follow fair procedures if it seeks to
deprive a person of their property. This includes providing the property owner with notice and an
opportunity to be heard.

Right to Freedom of Travel

The Right to Freedom of Travel, also known as the Right to Liberty of Movement, is a
basic human right safeguarded by Article III, Section 6 of the Philippine Constitution. This right
upholds the personal freedom of every individual. It is articulated in two primary ways within the
context of the Philippine Constitution. The first is the Liberty of Movement, which grants
individuals the freedom to move and travel within the Philippines. It allows individuals to alter
their place of residence, select their living location, and decide their means of transportation.
The second is the Right to Leave and Return, which ensures individuals the freedom to exit the
Philippines and to come back. It prevents individuals from being arbitrarily stopped from leaving
the country or being denied re-entry upon their return.
Right to Due Process

The Right to Due Process, a fundamental principle safeguarded in Article III, Section 1 of
the Philippine Constitution, is a key element of justice that ensures equitable treatment in legal
proceedings. This right is manifested in two primary ways within the context of the Philippine
Constitution. Firstly, Procedural Due Process pertains to the procedures that the government is
obliged to follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. This includes the right
to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, and the right to an unbiased judge. For instance, if an
individual is charged with a crime, they have the right to be informed of the charges against
them, to have a swift and public trial, to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence, and to have legal counsel for their defense.

Secondly, Substantive Due Process relates to the rights themselves, such as the
right to privacy and the right to freedom of movement. It protects individuals from arbitrary and
unreasonable government actions. For example, a law that infringes on the right to privacy may
be deemed unconstitutional for violating substantive due process.

Right to Information

The Right to Information, a fundamental principle safeguarded in Article III, Section 7 of

the Philippine Constitution, is a crucial aspect of openness and accountability in governance.
This right is articulated in two primary ways within the Philippine Constitution. Firstly, Access to
Official Records, as outlined in Section 7 of 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." This clause ensures that citizens have the right to
access official records and documents related to public matters.

Secondly, Transparency in Government Research and Policy Development. The

same section also guarantees that citizens have the right to access government research data
used as the foundation for policy development. This encourages transparency and allows
citizens to understand and scrutinize the basis for government policies.
CHALLENGES AND LIMITATIONS IN PHILIPPINE BILL OF RIGHTS

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech is a basic right in the Philippines, recognized as a fundamental

element of democracy. It is the privilege of every individual to express their thoughts and ideas
without fear of censorship, punishment, or retaliation. The scope of freedom of speech in the
Philippines is extensive, covering all forms of expression, including verbal, written, and visual.
This includes the freedom of the press, the right to peaceful assembly and protest, and the right
to access information.

However, while freedom of speech is maintained in the Philippines, there are limitations
to this right, particularly when it comes to ensuring public safety and well-being. Speech that
incites hate, defamation, and violence are not protected by law. These limitations on freedom of
speech aim to protect the public from harm and prevent the spread of misinformation that could
lead to panic or unrest. It's important to note that the interpretation of what constitutes hate
speech or incitement to violence can vary, leading to potential conflicts between the government
and civil society groups.

The Philippine government recognizes the importance of freedom of speech and has
implemented laws to protect this right. The Philippine Bill of Rights, Press Freedom Law, and
Anti-Cybercrime Law all work together to safeguard freedom of expression. The government's
role in protecting freedom of speech is to ensure these laws are enforced and that they do not
infringe on individuals' rights to express themselves freely.

Media organizations and advocacy groups play a crucial role in promoting and
protecting freedom of speech in the Philippines. They monitor the government's actions and
ensure that the right to free expression is not violated.

Involuntary Servitude, Excessive Fines, and Cruel Punishment

The Philippine Constitution explicitly forbids involuntary servitude, excessive fines, and
cruel punishment. However, the practical application of these prohibitions can be complex due
to a variety of socio-economic factors. Involuntary servitude, as outlined in the Constitution,
refers to a state of forced and mandatory service. Despite this constitutional protection, the
enforcement is problematic due to problems like human trafficking and labor exploitation. The
Constitution also forbids excessive fines to ensure that penalties are proportionate to the crime
and do not result in undue hardship.

However, the determination of what is considered an "excessive" fine can be subjective

and may differ on a case-by-case basis. Cruel punishment is also forbidden by the Constitution,
which includes any form of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee. However, issues such as prison overcrowding, substandard penal
facilities, and the use of torture remain challenges in upholding this right.

Right to Bail and Double Jeopardy

The Philippine Constitution upholds the right to bail and safeguards against double
jeopardy. However, ensuring the equitable and just application of these rights can be a complex
task due to systemic issues in the judicial system. The right to bail is a constitutional assurance
that guarantees that a person accused of a crime has the right to be released from custody,
typically on payment of a bail bond, pending trial. However, the application of this right can be
difficult due to factors such as socio-economic disparities, which can make it challenging for
some individuals to afford bail. Additionally, there can be issues related to the judicial process
itself, such as delays in hearings, which can extend the detention of individuals who are unable
to post bail.

The right against double jeopardy is enshrined in Section 21, Article III of the 1987
Constitution. This right protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same offense.
However, there are challenges in its application due to factors such as the complexity of legal
proceedings, potential misinterpretation of laws, and procedural errors. For instance, if it
appears at any time before the judgment that a mistake has been made in charging the proper
offense, the court may dismiss the original complaint or information and order the filing of a new
one charging the proper offense, provided the defendant would not be placed thereby in double
jeopardy.

Transformative Constitutionalism

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines embodies the concept of "Transformative

Constitutionalism", a post-liberal model that surfaced during democratic transitions in the 1980s
and 1990s. This constitution not only foresees extensive, progressive socio-economic
transformation, but also integrates both social and economic rights along with open-ended
policy objectives.

However, this combined approach to distributive justice introduces a unique set of

interpretive challenges for the judiciary. In the years following the transition to democracy, the
Philippine Supreme Court's handling of these provisions was somewhat cursory and
undeveloped. While the court confirmed its jurisdiction over these provisions, it did not formulate
significant standards or principles concerning them.

These challenges were further intensified in the Philippines due to the textual ambiguity of
the 1987 Constitution and the relative scarcity of jurisprudential resources at the time. This
experience highlights the demanding nature of transformative constitutional texts on the
judiciary, particularly concerning social and economic rights. They propel the judiciary into
unfamiliar territories, while concurrently requiring judges to maintain a distinct boundary
between constitutional law and politics to uphold institutional legitimacy, including on matters of
distributive justice.

Liberty of Abode and Travel

The Liberty of Abode and Travel under Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Constitution of
the Philippines, is a component of the "liberty" that a citizen cannot be stripped of without due
process of law. This liberty encompasses the right to select one's dwelling, to depart from it at
will, and to journey wherever one desires. Nonetheless, this freedom can be curtailed by a
lawful court order. For example, in the case of Zacarias Villavicencio vs. Justo Lucban, the
Supreme Court declared the Mayor of Manila's act of expelling known prostitutes and relocating
them to Davao to eliminate vices and immoral activities propagated by these individuals as
unlawful.

The constitutionally protected "liberty" also includes the right to travel. However,
this right is not unrestricted. There are constitutional, statutory, and inherent restrictions that
govern the right to travel. Section 6 itself stipulates that the right to travel may be restricted only
in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be stipulated by law.
CONTROVERSIAL COURT CASES AND THEIR IMPACT ON THE PHILIPPINE BILL OF
RIGHTS

THE AMPATUAN CASE

Background of the Case

The Ampatuan case, also referred to as the Ampatuan Massacre, originated from a
political feud between the Ampatuan family, specifically Andal Ampatuan Sr. and Andal Jr., and
Esmael “Toto” Mangudadatu. Mangudadatu challenged the Ampatuans in the 2010
gubernatorial elections in the province of Maguindanao. The conflict intensified when
Mangudadatu's wife, sisters, and 32 media personnel were ambushed and murdered while on
their way to submit his candidacy papers on November 23, 2009. This massacre garnered
global attention as it was one of the most lethal assaults on journalists ever recorded.

Court’s Ruling

On December 19, 2019, the verdict on the Ampatuan Massacre case was pronounced by
Judge Jocelyn Solis-Reyes of Branch 221 of the Quezon City regional trial court. The court
declared three brothers from the Ampatuan family, namely Zaldy, Andal Jr., and Anwar Sr., along
with their nephews Anwar Jr. and Anwar Sajid, guilty on 57 charges of murder. Furthermore, 28
people were found guilty and given a 40-year sentence, while 15 others were sentenced to
between 6 and 10 years for their involvement in the crime. However, 55 individuals were
exonerated.

Implications of the Case

The implications of the Ampatuan case were profound:

1. Interpretation of the Bill of Rights. The court's decision highlighted the basic rights
protected in the Bill of Rights of the Philippine Constitution, such as the right to life,
the right to a just trial, and press freedom. It reiterated the significance of these rights
in maintaining justice and responsibility in society.
2. Establishment of Precedents. The case established important benchmarks,
especially in making influential people answerable for their deeds. It underscored the
risks encountered by journalists and the significance of freedom of the press. The
 guilty verdict for the Ampatuans and their co-conspirators for the mass killing, which
included journalists, set a powerful example for tackling political violence and
preserving press freedom.
3. Implications for Future Cases. The verdict could have an impact on future cases
with similar concerns, directing how courts understand and implement the Bill of
Rights in situations of political violence, freedom of the press, and the right to a fair
trial. It emphasizes the necessity of making offenders answerable and guaranteeing
justice for the victims.
4. Impact on Society. The case profoundly influenced society by stressing the
importance of maintaining the rule of law and confronting violence, especially during
elections. It also underscored the need for changes to safeguard journalists and
enhance press freedom in the Philippines, highlighting the judiciary's role in
protecting these rights.

THE HACIENDA LUISITA CASE

Background of the Case

The Hacienda Luisita case is centered around the infringement of the rights of farm
laborers to possess the land they were tilling. This is a breach of Article III, Section 1 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, which protects against the taking of property without due process of law
and guarantees equal protection under the law. The case originated from a 6,453-hectare sugar
plantation in Tarlac, Philippines, initially owned by the Spanish-owned Tabacalera and later
purchased by the Cojuangcos via the Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) in 1958. The
purchase was subject to the condition of redistributing the land to small-scale farmers, but the
failure to meet this obligation within the given grace period resulted in extended legal battles.

Court’s Ruling

The Philippine Supreme Court decreed that Hacienda Luisita should be reallocated and
the Cojuangco family should be remunerated at the land values prevalent in 1989. In 2011, the
Supreme Court mandated that the initial farmer-beneficiaries should become proprietors of the
land. In 2021, the Supreme Court adjudicated for a fair compensation to the Hacienda Luisita
Incorporated (HLI), owned by the Cojuangco family, for the distribution of its 4,915.75-hectare
sugar plantation in Tarlac to 6,296 farm worker-beneficiaries (FWBs).

Implications of the Case

The Hacienda Luisita case carries substantial implications for land ownership and
allocation, a persistent problem in many regions of the world, especially in the Philippines. The
court's verdict established a benchmark for the reallocation of land to the initial farmer-
beneficiaries, which could potentially impact future cases related to land conflicts. The ruling
underscored the necessity of protecting the rights of agricultural workers and ensuring equitable
compensation for landowners. However, the case also triggered a rise in violence and crime,
insecurity in employment, loss of means of living, militarization, and heightened police visibility.
It also led to infringements of human rights and land dispossession.

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH LAW CASE

Background of the Case

The case being discussed is the Imbong v. Ochoa case. This was a plea submitted to
the Supreme Court of the Philippines questioning the constitutional validity of the Responsible
Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012. The primary concern was the accessibility of
contraceptives for underage individuals, which was made dependent on parental consent. This
created substantial obstacles to access.

Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court collectively affirmed the constitutionality of Republic Act 10354,
also known as the reproductive health (RH) law but decided to nullify 8 provisions either partially
or entirely. The law mandates government health centers to distribute free condoms and birth
control pills, enforces the teaching of sex education in schools, necessitates family planning
training for public health workers, and legalizes medical care post-abortion. However, some
provisions were invalidated, including those that obligated private health facilities to refer
patients who are not in an emergency or life-threatening situation to another health facility.
 Implications of the Case

The court's decision had substantial consequences for the interpretation of the Bill of
Rights in the Philippines. It confirmed the constitutionality of the RH law, thereby endorsing the
state's obligation to offer reproductive health services. However, by invalidating certain
provisions, it also acknowledged the rights of private health facilities and the requirement for
parental consent for minors seeking contraceptives. This ruling established a benchmark for
future cases involving the equilibrium between individual rights and state duties in the realm of
reproductive health.

CURRENT DEBATES ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES IN THE PHILIPPINES

War on Drugs During Duterte Regime

During President Rodrigo Duterte’s term in the Philippines, extrajudicial killings,

especially in the context of his anti-drug campaign, have become a significant human rights
concern. Since his inauguration in 2016, a combination of police and vigilante actions has
resulted in the deaths of over 27,000 suspected drug dealers. The United Nations Human
Rights Council has described these killings as systematic, widespread, and ongoing, raising
serious questions about the violation of the Bill of Rights in the Philippine Constitution. The
government’s intensified anti-drug campaign policies have been criticized for infringing on at
least eight constitutional rights, including privacy, information, due process, presumption of
innocence, and protection against illegal search and self-incrimination.

Indigenous Peoples' Human Rights

In the Philippines, the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8371,
IPRA) is in place to acknowledge, endorse, and safeguard the rights of indigenous peoples and
their communities. This law aims to address historical injustices, implement constitutional
mandates, and comply with international standards. Despite these safeguards, indigenous
communities still face a multitude of human rights abuses and social disparities, including
discrimination, forced relocations, and even extrajudicial killings.

The implementation of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act has been criticized for its
ambiguity, which gives state agents a level of discretion that endangers human rights. This has
resulted in breaches of several rights enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. For instance, the
right to privacy can be infringed upon when lands are invaded without the indigenous
communities' free and prior informed consent. Other rights, such as the right to information, due
process, presumption of innocence, and protection against unlawful search and self-
incrimination, are also under threat.

Harassment of Journalists and Media Companies

In the Philippines, journalists and media companies have been facing significant
harassment for many years. This harassment often comes in the form of threats, vilification,
violence, and online harassment. The media industry has undergone major changes due to the
closure of a significant free-to-air TV network and substantial revenue drops caused by
extended COVID-19 lockdowns, leading to significant downsizing in the media sector.
Journalists who have criticized the government continue to be the target of attacks and online
harassment.

This situation is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights as outlined in the 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines. In particular, it violates Section 1, which guarantees that no
person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied equal protection under the law. The harassment and threats faced by
journalists infringe upon their liberty and deny them equal protection under the law. It also
violates Section 2, which ensures the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The threats and violence
faced by journalists infringe upon their right to security.

REFERENCES:

A.M. No. 10-11-5-SC, A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC and A.M. No. 10-11-7-SC. (n.d.).

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jun2011/am_10-11-5-sc_2011.html

G.R. No. 197291. (n.d.). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_197291_2013.html

Philippines. (n.d.). Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/philippines
Eightify. (2023, September 9). Philippine Constitution: Article 3 - Bill of Rights. Eightify Youtube

Summaries. https://eightify.app/summary/politics-and-government/philippine-

constitution-article-3-bill-of-rights

TagalogLang. (2021, December 12). Article III of 1987 Philippine Constitution. TAGALOG

LANG. https://www.tagaloglang.com/article-3-philippine-constitution/

Attorney, P. (2023, June 15). Understanding Freedom of Speech: A Basic Human Right in the

Philippines. Attorneys of the Philippines. https://www.attorney.org.ph/legal-news/443-

understanding-freedom-of-speech-a-basic-human-right-in-the-philippines

Respicio, A. H. (2023, December 15). Expression Law Philippines. RESPICIO & CO.

https://www.respicio.ph/articles/expression-law-philippines

Chopra, S. (2021). The Constitution of the Philippines and transformative constitutionalism.

Global Constitutionalism, 10(2), 307–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381721000174

Pjp. (2020, January 31). The right to travel is NOT absolute. Project Jurisprudence.

https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2020/01/the-right-to-travel-is-not-absolute.html

G.R. No. 204819. (n.d.). https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_204819_2014.html

Buan, L. (2019, April 26). Circulars in Duterte’s drug war violate constitutional rights – research.

RAPPLER. https://www.rappler.com/nation/229036-duterte-drug-war-circulars-violate-

human-rights/

Santos, A. P. (2020, July 9). Duterte and the climate of impunity in Philippines. dw.com.

https://www.dw.com/en/dutertes-four-years-in-power-extrajudicial-killings-rights-abuses-

and-terror/a-54082293

Hincks, J. (2018, September 28). ‘My only sin.’ Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte admits

extrajudicial killings occurred. TIME. https://time.com/5409425/philippines-duterte-

extrajudicial-killings-icc/
Human rights consequences of the “War on Drugs” in the Philippines. (2020, October 28).

Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/07/20/human-rights-

consequences-war-drugs-philippines

Human Rights Watch submission to the Universal Periodic Review of the Philippines. (2022,

April 6). Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/04/06/human-rights-

watch-submission-universal-periodic-review-philippines

Rowden, T. K. (2023b, September 12). Extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Human Rights

Measurement Initiative. https://humanrightsmeasurement.org/extrajudicial-killings-in-the-

philippines/

Taleon, J. R. (2021, December 17). Indigenous people’s rights under Philippine law - Aranas

Cruz Araneta Parker & Faustino Law Offices. Aranas Cruz Araneta Parker & Faustino

Law Offices. https://aranaslawph.com/indigenous-peoples-rights-under-philippine-law/

OHCHR. (n.d.). Philippines: UN expert calls for more sustained reforms to prevent threats and

killings of journalists and activists.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/02/philippines-un-expert-calls-more-

sustained-reforms-prevent-threats-and

Center, I. T. (n.d.). 1987 Philippine Constitution - the LawPhil Project.

https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html