HUMAN RIGHTS

and

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

HUMAN RIGHTS
Generally defined as those rights, which are
inherent in our nature, and without which,
we cannot live as human beings.
All persons are born free and equal in
dignity and rights without any distinction as
to race, color, sex, religion, origin, and social
status.
UN Charter

– States are obliged to re-affirm faith in

fundamental human rights, in the dignity and
worth of the human nature of a person and in
equal rights of men and women
• Article 2, Section 2 of the Philippine
Constitution

“The State values the dignity of every

human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.”
Rights which are ABSOLUTE and CANNOT BE
LIMITED

• Right to life
• Freedom from torture or cruel punishment
• Freedom from enslavement or servitude
• Protection from imprisonment from debt
• Freedom from ex post facto laws
• Right to recognition as a person before the law
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
 Covenants (affecting human rights) which
have been ratified by the Philippines

• Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

• Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination
• Convention on the Rights of a Child
• Slavery Convention
• Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
BILL OF RIGHTS
Article III
1987 Philippine Constitution
 Kinds of Rights

• Natural rights

• Constitutional rights
– Civil rights
– Political rights
– Socio-economic rights

• Statutory rights
What is the Bill of Rights?

What is its significance?

 Rights under Article III, 1987 Constitution
• Right to due process
• Right to equal protection
• Right against unreasonable searches
and seizures
• Right to privacy of communication and
correspondence
• Freedom expression
• Freedom of religion
• Liberty of abode and travel
• Right to information
• Right to form unions, associations or
organizations
• Right to payment of just compensation
• Non-impairment of obligations and
contracts
• Right to bail
• Freedom of access to the courts and
quasi-judicial bodies
• Miranda rights/rights under custodial
investigation
• Right afforded to a person accused of
an offense
• Privilege of habeas corpus
• Right to speedy trial
• Right against self-incrimination
• Right against involuntary servitude
• Political freedom
• Right against cruel and unusual
punishment and excessive fines
• Non-imprisonment for non-payment of
debt or poll tax
• Protection against double jeopardy
• Prohibition on the enactment of an ex
post facto law or a bill of attainder
Due process and Equal Protection

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.
• What is the meaning of “due process”?
• What are the aspects of due process?
• Substantive due process
• Procedural due process
• What is the meaning of equal protection?

• When is there valid classification?

Facts: Due to the escalating news of a brewing coup
purportedly involving military personnel, the PMC
Commandant ordered a blanket restriction on contact
visits. X, a military officer, and 30 others detained at the
PMC Brig for their participation in the Sheraton incident,
questioned the restriction.

Question: Is the restriction valid?

Answer: Yes. Restrictions on contact visits is related

to the maintenance of security. Contact visits make it
possible for detained persons to hold hostage the visitors
and brig personnel hostage as it leaves the brig
vulnerable to visitors smuggling weapons and other
contraband. In the light of the attendant circumstances,
the blanket restriction on contact visits outweigh the
sentiments of the detainees.
Fact: CPT TISOY is the SJA of NISF who is
often tapped to lecture NITI students on Human
Rights. CPT GWAPO, another JAGS officer was
also tapped by NITI to lecture on Human Rights.
CPT TISOY was paid 500 every time he lectures
but CPT GWAPO was given 750.

Question: Is the practice proper?

Answer: No. It violates the right to equal

protection. There is no substantial distinction
which would put CPT TISOY in a different
class/group than CPT GWAPO.
 Right against
unreasonable searches and seizures

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 whatever 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.
• Purpose of the prohibition

• Who may invoke this right?

Citizens
Aliens
Juridical entities
 Search warrant and warrant of arrest

• What is a search warrant? A warrant of

arrest?

• What are the requisites for issuance of a

warrant?
• Probable cause
• Personal determination by the judge
• Particularity of description
• Are all warrantless search and seizure
unreasonable?
– Presumption of unreasonableness

• Are there instances where a warrantless

search and seizure may be declared
valid?
Valid warrantless searches and seizures
• Consent or waiver
• Search incidental to a lawful arrest
• Plain view
• Checkpoints
• Terry search or the Stop and Frisk
• Customs searches, health inspections, etc.
• Exigent circumstances
 Warrantless arrests

• In flagrante delicto arrests

• Hot pursuit arrests

• Arrest of an escaped prisoner or detainee

Fact: ADMIRAL MATAPANG was visiting the
house of CAPT MATIBAY when suddenly, police
operatives barged in and announced to CAPT
MATAPANG that they are going to conduct a
search for high-powered weapons allegedly in
the possession of said naval captain. ADMIRAL
MATAPANG was, at the time, using the head.
The search has begun when the good
admiral came out. Upon being apprised of the
situation, the ADMIRAL told the police to get out
of the house for they cannot conduct the search
without a valid warrant.
Question: Is the admiral correct?

Answer: No. The right against unreasonable

searches and seizures is PERSONAL and may be invoked
only by the person who right was violated. Although the
search was without warrant, it was incumbent upon
CAPT MATAPANG to invoke his right against the
unreasonable search. His non-objection thereto
constitute a waiver of his rights.
Since the right to object does not belong to the
admiral, he cannot invoke the right against unreasonable
search and seizure in behalf of CAPT MATAPANG.
• Facts: P/Supt was eating dinner at Manang
Biday’s carinderia when he noticed a man, Mr
Tambay, “looking from side to side” and was
holding something inside his T-shirt. He
approached the Mr Tambay and upon
introducing himself as a police officer, proceeded
to search the latter. He discovered that Mr
Tambay was hiding a block of C4 and a packet
of shabu. He then proceeded to arrest Mr
Tambay.

• Question: Is the arrest valid? What about the

introduction of the C4 and the packet of shabu
as evidence?
• Answer: No. The arrest was made without warrant.
Looking “from side to side” does not constitute
probable cause to effect a warrantless search
and seizure and consequently, arrest upon
discovering the C4 and shabu.

The discovery and seizure of the explosive

was made illegally and thus, inadmissible in
evidence against Mr Tambay. It is a fruit of a
poisonous tree which cannot give rise to legality.
 Right to Privacy of Communication
and Correspondence

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.
 Upon classified information that Commander
Tiktik, a known MILF leader was planning to
stage a major attack on the convoy of Marines
and American GIs conducting a joint military
exercise, the NISF proceeded to tap and record
his telephone conversations. In one of these
telephone conversations, the NISF discovered
that Commander Tiktik is in cahoots with ex-
GEN PALABOY to commit rebellion against the
government.
Based on such information, both subjects
were arrested and charged with conspiracy to
commit rebellion. Proper?
Answer: No. The information which led to
the arrest of the two subjects was acquired in violation
of the Anti-Wiretapping Law. The privacy of
communication may be interfered with only upon lawful
order of the court or when public safety requires
otherwise as provided by law.

In the above case, no lawful order granting the

authority to conduct wiretapping on the telephone
conversations of Commander Tiktik. Thus, the NISF has
no authority to conduct the same.

The recorded conversations were inadmissible in any

court and in any proceeding and thus cannot be used as
evidence to convict the accused.
 Freedom of expression

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.
• Is the right absolute?

• Unprotected speeches

• Libel
• Obscenity

• May public officials and public figures

sue for libel?
 Censorship
• Is censorship valid?

• What are the kinds of censorship?

• Prior restraint
• Subsequent punishment

• Clear and present danger rule

• Dangerous tendency rule

 Freedom of religion
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.
• Non-establishment clause

• Free exercise clause

Liberty of abode and the right to
travel
Section 6. 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.
 Access to public information
Section 7. 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.
• Who enjoys the right to access to public
information?

• What documents and information are

excepted from this rule?
 Right to form associations

Section 8. 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.”
Rights of a person under investigation
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 vitiates
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 and similar practices, and their
families.
• What are the so-called Miranda rights?
• What is the effect of violation of any of
these rights?
• At what point in time may he rights be
invoked by the individual?

Waiver of the right of silence and to counsel

– when is it valid?
 Right to bail
Section 13. All persons, except those persons
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.
• What is the meaning and purpose of bail?

• Are there persons who may not invoke the

right to bail?
• Facts: Atong was accused of rape with
homicide and was arrested on the
strength of the information filed by the
City Prosecutor. Immediately, he applied
for bail. The judge denied his application
outright.

• Question: Is the denial of bail proper?

• Answer: No. The right to bail is available
even to offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua. Only when the evidence of guilt is
strong may bail be denied. The judge should
not have outrightly denied the application but
should have conducted a hearing to determine
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.
Only after such determination can the judge
deny the petition for bail.
 Rights of the accused
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 and 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.
• What are the rights of the accused in criminal cases?
• due process
• presumption of innocence
• to be heard by himself and counsel
– what rights are included in the right to be
heard?
• to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation
• to speedy, impartial and public trial
• to confrontation with witnesses
• to compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence

• Are there cases wherein guilt of the accused is

presumed?

• Trial in absentia – when valid

Fact: CDR X was charged for violation of AW
96 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a
Gentleman) for allegedly slapping the face of a
trainee. He was acquitted for lack of evidence
beyond reasonable doubt but he was convicted
for violation of AW 97 (Conduct Prejudicial…)
because at the trial, it was established that he is
perpetually drunk.

Question: Is the conviction proper?

Answer: No. CDR X was not afforded due
process. He was not informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation
against him. He was convicted for an
offense not contained in the charge sheet.
For having failed to properly inform the
accused of the charge for which he was
convicted, the decision convicting the
accused is void.
 Privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus

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.
• What is a writ of habeas corpus?

• What is the effect of the suspension of the

privilege of the writ?

• Does the suspension of the privilege of

the writ operate to suspend the operation
of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code
(i.e., delay in the delivery of detained
persons to judicial authorities)?
Right against self-incrimination

Section 17. No person shall be

compelled to be a witness against
himself.
• What is the scope of the guarantee?

• What is testimonial compulsion? Does it

refer to oral testimonies only?
 Facts: Sofronia was accused of falsification of
a private documents and forgery by her erstwhile
best friend, Pelagria. During the trial of the
case, Sofronia was forced to write random
statements. Upon comparison by the NBI, it was
determined that the writing in falsified document
is the same with the random statements written
by Sofronia, evidence that they were written by
the same person. Based on the evidence, she
was convicted.

Question: Was the conviction proper?

Right against double jeopardy
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.
• What is ”double jeopardy”?
• Elements

• How does first jeopardy attach?

• May a person be punished for two separate
offenses for the same act?

• When?

• What is a supervening event?

• What are its effects?
Facts: Jorge shot Joselito on 1 June
2007 and inflicted wounds in his
abdominal area. On 15 June, while
Joselito was in the hospital, Jorge was
arraigned for Serious Physical Injuries. He
pleaded guilty and was thus convicted.
On 16 June, Joselito died. The prosecutor
filed an information for Homicide.

Question: Is there double jeopardy?

Answer: There was no double jeopardy.
The death of Joselito was a supervening
fact not in existence at the time of the
first charge and there was no possibility
for the accused to be convicted of
Homicide at the time when he pleaded
guilty to Serious Physical Injuries since at
the time, Joselito was still alive.
Facts: Jorge shot Joselito on 1 June 2007 and
inflicted wounds in his abdominal area and was
admitted at V Luna. On 10 June, Joselito died
because of tetanus. On 15 June, Jorge pleaded
guilty to Serious Physical Injuries. On 30 June,
the prosecutor filed an information for
Homicide.

Question: Is the filing of the charge proper?

Answer: No. The supervening fact was not

caused by the act of the accused. Joselito
death was caused by tetanus and not by the
gunshot wound inflicted by Jorge.
Right against enactment of ex post
facto law or bill of attainder

Section 22. No ex post facto law or

bill of attainder shall be enacted.
• What is an ex post facto law?

• What is a bill of attainder

 STATE AUTHORITY
vs
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM