I.

Nature and Definition of Human Rights

While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the
primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.
8 Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as
well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat
of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as
the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing
space to survive," permitting government regulation only
"with narrow specificity." 9
Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription;
but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are
extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights
is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and
ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of
officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and
of oligarchs - political, economic or otherwise.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as
they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our
civil and political institutions; 10 and such priority "gives
these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting
dubious intrusions." 11
The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is
underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational
relation between the means employed by the law and its
object or purpose that the law is neither arbitrary nor
discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a
law which restricts or impairs property rights. 12 On the
other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human
rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence

of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil

which the State has the right to prevent. So it has been
stressed in the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in
Gonzales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the writer of the
opinion in Imbong vs. Ferrer. 13 It should be added that Mr.
Justice Barredo in Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra, like Justices
Douglas, Black and Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs. Sullivan,
14 believes that the freedoms of speech and of the press
as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress
of grievances are absolute when directed against public
officials or "when exercised in relation to our right to
choose the men and women by whom we shall be
governed," 15 even as Mr. Justice Castro relies on the
balancing-of-interests test. 16 Chief Justice Vinson is partial
to the improbable danger rule formulated by Chief Judge
Learned Hand, viz. whether the gravity of the evil,
discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of
free expression as is necessary to avoid the danger. 17
(Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil.
Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-31195, June 05, 1973)
II. Status of Human Rights in the Philippines
III. Theories of Sources of Human Rights
1. Religious/Theological Approach
o A basis of human rights theory stemming from
a law higher than the state and whose source
is the Supreme Being.
Human rights are not concessions
granted by human institutions or states,
or any international organization as
they are God-given rights.

Central to the doctrines of all religions is the

concept of dignity of man as a consequence of
human rights.
o The divine source gives human beings a high
value of worth.
o The belief of a universal common creation
means a common humanity and consequently
universal, basic and fundamental rights. And
since rights come from a divine source, they
are inalienable and cannot be denied by
mortal beings.
o Criticism: Some religions impose so many
restrictions on individual freedom; some
religions even tolerate slavery, discrimination
against women, and imposition of the death
penalty
2. Natural Law Theory
o Originated from the Stoics and elaborated by
Greek philosophers and later by ancient
Roman law jurists.
o Perceives that the conduct of men must
always conform to the law of nature.
o Natural law embodies those elementary
principles of justice which were right reason,
i.e., in accordance with nature, unalterable,
eternal.
o Philosophers:
Thomas Aquinas considered natural
law as the law of right reason in
accordance with the law of God,
o

commonly known as the scholastic

natural law
Hugo
Grotius

the
natural
characteristics of human beings are the
social impulse to live peacefully and in
harmony
with
others
whatever
conformed to the nature of men as
natural human beings was right and
just; whatever is disturbing to social
harmony is wrong and unjust
John Locke envisioned human beings
in a state of nature, where they enjoyed
life, liberty and property which are
deemed natural rights
o Became the basis of the natural rights of man
against oppressive rulers
o Nuremberg Trials rationale for finding the
Nazis guilty: the crimes committed were
offenses against humanity and there is no
need of a law penalizing the acts
3. Positivist Theory/Legal Positivism
o All rights and authority come from the state
and what officials have promulgated.
o The only law is what is commanded by the
sovereign.
o The source of human rights is to be found only
in the enactment of a law with sanctions
attached.
o A right is enjoyed only if it is recognized and
protected by legislation promulgated by the
state.

4. Historical Theory
o Advocates that human rights are not
deliberate creation or the effort of man but
they have already existed through the
common consciousness of the people of what
is right and just.
o Human
rights
exist
through
gradual,
spontaneous and evolutionary process without
any arbitrary will of any authority.
5. Theory of Marxism
o Emphasizes the interest of society over an
individual mans interest. Individual freedom is
recognized only after the interest of society is
served.
o Concerned with economic and social rights
over civil or political rights of community.
o Referred to as parental with the political
body providing the guidance in value choice.
But the true choice is the government set by
the state
6. Functional/Sociological Approach
o Human rights exist as a means of social
control, to serve the social interests of society.
o Lays emphasis of obtaining a just equilibrium
of multifarious interests among prevailing
moral sentiments and the social and economic
conditions of the time and place.
7. Utilitarian Theory
o Seeks to define the notion of rights in terms of
tendencies to promote specified ends such as
common good.

Every human decision was motivated by some

calculation of pleasure and pain. The goal is to
promote the greatest happiness of the
greatest number.
o Everyone is counted equally, but not treated
equally.
o Requires the government to maximize the
total net sum of citizens.
o An individual cannot be more important than
the entire group. A man cannot simply live
alone in disregard of his impulse to society.
o The composite society of which the individual
is a unit has on its own wants, claims and
demands. An act is good only when it takes
into consideration the interests of the society
and tends to augment the happiness of the
entire community.
8. Theory Based on Dignity of Man/Policy Science
Approach
o Human rights means sharing values of all
identified policies upon which human rights
depend on.
o The most important values are respect, power,
knowledge, health, and security.
o The ultimate goal of this theory is a world
community where there is democratic sharing
and distribution of values.
o All available resources are utilized to the
maximum and the protection of human dignity
is recognized.
9. Theories of Justice
o

Each person possesses inviolability founded

on justice.
o The rights secured for justice are not subject
to political bargaining or to social interests.
o Each person has equal rights to the whole
system of liberties. There is no justice in a
community where there are social and
economic inequalities.
o The general conception of justice is one of
fairness and those social primary goods such
as opportunity, income and wealth and selfrespect are to be distributed equally.
10.Theory Based on Equality and Respect of Human
Dignity
o The recognition of individual rights in the
enjoyment of the basic freedoms such as
freedom of speech, religion, assembly, fair
trial and access to courts.
o

Governments must treat all their citizens equally. For this

purpose, the government must intervene in order to
advance general welfare
IV. Characteristics of Human Rights
1. Universal
Applies irrespective of ones origin, status, or
condition or place where one lives
Rights can be enforced without national
border
2. Indivisible
Not capable of being divided

Cannot be denied even when other rights

have already been enjoyed
3. Interdependent
The fulfillment or exercise of one cannot be
had without the realization of the other
V. Obligations of State
a. Obligation to Respect
b. Obligation to Protect
c. Obligation to Fulfill
-

Article 1 (3), UN Charter:

To achieve international cooperation in solving
international problems of an economic, social,
cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting
and encouraging respect for human rights and for
fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion
Article 55, 56 UN Charter
Article 55. With a view to the creation of conditions
of stability and well-being which are necessary for
peaceful and friendly relations among nations based
on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, the UN shall promote
a. Higher standards of living, full employment,
and conditions of economic and social
progress and development
b. Solutions of international economic, social,
health,
and
related
problems;
and
international
cultural
and
educational
cooperation and

c. Universal respect for, and observance of,

human rights and fundamental freedoms for
all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion
Article 56. All members pledge themselves to take
joint and separate action in co-operation with the
organization for the achievement of the purposes set
forth in Article 55
Article 2 (1)(2)(3), International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights
Article 2
1. Each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to respect and to ensure to all
individuals within its territory and subject to its
jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present
Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as
race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or
other opinion, national or social origin, property,
birth or other status
2. Where not already provided for by existing
legislative or other measures, each State Party to
the present Covenant undertakes to take the
necessary steps, in accordance with its
constitutional processes and with the provisions
of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or
other measures as may be necessary to give
effect to the rights recognized in the present
Covenant
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes:

a. To ensure that any person whose

rights
or
freedoms
as
herein
recognized are violated shall have an
effective remedy, notwithstanding
that the violation has been committed
by persons acting in an official
capacity
b. To ensure that any person claiming
such a remedy shall have his right
there to determine by competent
judicial, administrative or legislative
authorities, or by any other competent
authority provided for by the legal
system of the State, and to develop
the possibilities of judicial remedy
c. To ensure that the competent
authorities
shall
enforce
such
remedies when grantted
Article II. Sec 11, 1987 Constitution
The State values the dignity of every human person
and guarantees full respect for human rights
Stonehill vs. Diokno

that the right to privacy [embodied in the Fourth

Amendment] is enforceable against the States, and that
the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy
by state officers is, therefore constitutional in origin, we
can no longer permit that right to remain an empty
promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner
and to like effect as other basic rights secured by the

Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be

revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the
name of law enforceable itself, chooses to suspend its
enjoinment. Our decision, founded on reason and truth,
gives to the individual no more than that which the
Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no
less than that to which honest law enforcement is
entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so
necessary in the true administration of justice."
(Emphasis ours.)||| (Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L19550, June 19, 1967)
-

Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing

importance and imposing upon the state a solemn
obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance
the second, the day would not be too far when all else
would be lost not only for the present generation, but
also for those to come generations which stand to
inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of
sustaining life. The right to a balanced and healthful
ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain
from impairing the environmen||| (Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,
G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

Oposa vs. Factoran

While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is

to be found under the Declaration of Principles and
State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does
not follow that it is less important than any of the civil
and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a
right belongs to a different category of rights altogether
for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and
self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the
petitioners the advancement of which may even be
said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a
matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be
written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist
from the inception of humankind. If they are now
explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is
because of the well-founded fear of its framers that
unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology
and to health are mandated as state policies by the

V. Legal Basis of Human Rights

a. Generally accepted principles of International Law
- Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons
A foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal
charges have been formally made ore judicial order issued,
may not indefinitely be kept in detention. He also has the
right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as
applied to human beings, as proclaimed in the "Universal
Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the General
Assembly of the United Nations, which the Philippines is a
member. The theory on which the court is given power to
act is that the warrant for his deportation, which was not

executed, is functus officio and the alien is being held

without any authority of law (U.S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed. Sup.,
201). The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal
elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged
detention, the remedy in that case being to impose
conditions in the order of release and exact bail in a
reasonable amount with sufficient sureties.||| (Mejoff v.
Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-4254, September 26, 1951)
-Kuroda vs. Jalandoni
Issue: The petitioner contends that the Philippines is not a
signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on
Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and,
therefore, petitioner is charged of 'crimes' not based on
law, national and international|||
Supreme Court Answer: The rules and regulations of the
Hague and Geneva Conventions form part of and are
wholly based on the generally accepted principles of
international law. In fact, these rules and principles were
accepted by the two belligerent nations, the United States
and Japan, who were signatories to the two Conventions.
Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of
our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the
conventions embodying them, for our Constitution has
been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is
not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of
international law as contained in treaties to which our
government may have been or shall be a signatory|||

(Shigenori Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26,

1949)
-Govt. of Hong Kong vs. Olaila
Issue: Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that
there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law
providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the
right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.
In his comment on the petition, private respondent
maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill
of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that
extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged
deprivation of one's liberty.
Supreme Court Answer: this Court cannot ignore the
following trends in international law: (1) the growing
importance of the individual person in public international
law who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global
recognition; (2) the higher value now being given to human
rights in the international sphere; (3) the corresponding
duty of countries to observe these universal human rights
in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (4) the duty of this
Court to balance the rights of the individual under our
fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition,
on the other.
The modern trend in public international law is the
primacy placed on the worth of the individual person
and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the
recognition that the individual person may properly be a

subject of
vulnerable
are limited
the second

international law is now taking root. The

doctrine that the subjects of international law
only to states was dramatically eroded towards
half of the past century.

are under obligation to make available to every person

under detention such remedies which safeguard their
fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the
right to be admitted to bail.

.on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General

Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other
fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. While
not a treaty, the principles contained in the said
Declaration are now recognized as customarily
binding upon the members of the international
community. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 2 this
Court, in granting bail to a prospective deportee,
held that under the Constitution, 3 the principles set
forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the
land. In 1966, the UN General Assembly also adopted the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
the Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the
rights enshrined therein are the rights of every person to
life, liberty, and due process.

First, we note that the exercise of the State's power to

deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited
to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative
proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, 4
have likewise been detained.

The Philippines, along with the other members of the family

of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental human
rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every
person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article
II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the
dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the
responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of
every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that
those detained or arrested can participate in the
proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without
delay on the legality of the detention and order their
release if justified. In other words, the Philippine authorities

Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to

close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine
jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to
bail to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted
to bail persons who are not involved in criminal
proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed in this
jurisdiction to persons in detention during the
pendency of administrative proceedings, taking into
cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under
international conventions to uphold human rights.
HDAaIc
In Mejoff v. Director of Prisons 6 and Chirskoff v.
Commission of Immigration, 7 this Court ruled that foreign
nationals against whom no formal criminal charges have
been filed may be released on bail pending the finality of
an order of deportation. As previously stated, the Court in
Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human
Rights in sustaining the detainee's right to bail.
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no
justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition
cases. Likewise, considering that
the
Universal

Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation

cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in
extradition cases. After all, both are administrative
proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person
detained is not in issue.
Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for
bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the
various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning
respect for the promotion and protection of human rights.
Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of
human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that
the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired.
Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The
Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the
removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object
of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to
enable the requesting state or government to hold him in
connection with any criminal investigation directed against
him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under
the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or
government." aSATHE
Extradition has thus been characterized as the right of a
foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender
of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial
jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to
surrender him to the demanding state. 8 It is not a criminal
proceeding. 9 Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal,
an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it
is not punishment for a crime, even though such
punishment may follow extradition. 10 It is sui generis,
tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between

different nations. 11 It is not a trial to determine the

guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. 12 Nor
is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely
administrative in character. 13 Its object is to prevent
the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and
to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the
purpose of trial or punishment. 14
But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is
characterized by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of
liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the
means employed to attain the purpose of extradition
is also "the machinery of criminal law." This is shown
by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition
Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and
temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best
serve the interest of justice." We further note that Section
20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask
for the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending
receipt of the request for extradition;" and that
release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest
and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is
received subsequently."
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly
administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A
potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a
prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer
to the demanding state following the proceedings.
"Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the
process of extradition, but the length of time of the
detention should be reasonable.

Records show that private respondent was arrested on

September 23, 1999, and remained incarcerated until
December 20, 2001, when the trial court ordered his
admission to bail. In other words, he had been
detained for over two (2) years without having been
convicted of any crime. By any standard, such an
extended period of detention is a serious deprivation of his
fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged
deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court
to grant him bail.
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of
bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision
prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right
to due process under the Constitution.

Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these

obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats
the purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily
mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the
Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee's rights to
life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights
are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by
international conventions, to which the Philippines is a
party. We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his
right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for
the grant is satisfactorily met.

The applicable standard of due process, however, should

not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the
latter, the standard of due process is premised on the
presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganan
correctly points out, it is from this major premise that the
ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises.
Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the
premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the
"temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the
potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that
such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. 15 Given the
foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus
probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and
should be granted bail.

An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard

of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be
the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor
the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil
cases. While administrative in character, the standard of
substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot
likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is
to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our
jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then
Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,
proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and
convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail
in extradition cases. According to him, this standard
should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but
higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential
extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence"
that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders
and processes of the extradition court. cITCAa

The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda

demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under
the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong

In this case, there is no showing that private respondent

presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk.
Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial

court to determine whether private respondent may be

granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence.
(Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v.
Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)
b. International Bill of Rights
c. International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and International Covenant on d. Economic,
Social, and Cultural Rights
e. Treaties and other Convention
f. 1987 Philippine Constitution Preamble Article II
and Article III
VII. Classification of Human Rights
a. First generation of rights (civil and political rights)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles
1, 6-27)
Simon vs CHR
Supreme Court Ruling: The Commission on Human
Rights was not meant by the fundamental law to be
another court or quasi-judicial agency in this
country, or duplicate much less take over the
functions of the latter. The most that may be
conceded to the Commission in the way of
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e.,
receive evidence and make findings of fact as

regards claimed human rights violations involving

civil and political rights||| (Simon, Jr. v. Commission
on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05,
1994)
The Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on
its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of
human rights violations involving civil and political
rights" (Sec. 1). The term "civil rights," has been
defined as referring - "(to) those (rights) that belong
to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider
sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected
with the organization or administration of
government. They include the rights of property,
marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of
contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are
rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his
citizenship in a state or community. Such term may
also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of
being enforced or redressed in a civil action." Also
quite often mentioned are the guarantees against
involuntary servitude, religious persecution,
unreasonable searches and seizures, and
imprisonment for debt.||| (Simon, Jr. v. Commission
on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05,
1994)
The order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari
stores and carenderia of the private respondents can
fall within the compartment of "human rights
violations involving civil and political rights" intended
by the Constitution||| (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on
Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994)

Civil Rights

of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of

petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to
citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.
(Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No.
100150, January 05, 1994)

The term "civil rights," 31 has been defined as

referring
"(t)o those (rights) that belong to
every citizen of the state or country, or, in
wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are
not connected with the organization or
administration of government. They include
the rights of property, marriage, equal
protection of the laws, freedom of contract,
etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are
rights appertaining to a person by virtue of
his citizenship in a state or community. Such
term may also refer, in its general sense, to
rights capable of being enforced or
redressed in a civil action."

I.

RIGHT TO LIFE
Legal Basis
Article 6 ICCPR
1.

2.

Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against

involuntary
servitude,
religious
persecution,
unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment
for debt. 32

Political Rights
Political rights, 33 on the other hand, are said to refer to
the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of government, the right

3.

Every human being has the inherent right

to life. This right shall be protected by law.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his
life.
In countries which have not abolished the
death penalty, sentence of death may be
imposed only for the most serious
crimes in accordance with law in force
at the time of the commission of the
crime and not contrary to the provisions of
present Covenant and to the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide. This penalty can only be
carried out pursuant to a final judgement
rendered by a competent court.
(ARTICLE 4) Anyone sentenced to death
shall have the right to seek pardon or
commutation of the sentence. Amnesty,

pardon, or commutation of the sentence of

death may be granted in all cases
Article III 1987 Philippine Constitution
-

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty,

and property without due process of the law, nor
anyone shall be deprived of equal protection of the
laws
Section 19 (1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed
nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.
Neither shall death penalty 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

there are quite a number of people who honestly believe

that the supreme penalty is either morally wrong or unwise
or ineffective. However, as long as that penalty remains in
the statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides
for its imposition on certain cases, it is the duty of judicial
officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their
private opinions.||| (People v. Echegaray y Pilo, G.R. No.
117472 (Resolution), February 07, 1997)
II. Freedom against
conditions

FAMILY. The state recognizes the sanctity of family

life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
protect the life of the mother and the life of
the unborn from conception. The natural and
primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of
the youth and civic efficiency and the development
of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.

People vs Echegaray

and

inhuman

prison

Legal Basis
Article 7 and 10, ICCPR
-

Article II, Sec 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution

-

torture

Article 7. No one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment. In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his
free
consent
to
medical
or
scientific
experimentation
Article 10. (1) All persons deprived of their liberty
shall be treated with humanity and with respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person.
(2) (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional
circumstances be segregated from convicted
persons and shall be subject to separate treatment
appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons

Article III Sec 19 (2) 1987 Philippine Constitution

The employment of physical, psychological, or

degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under sub human
conditions shall be dealt by the law

Facts: Mr. Galit, accussed of committing murder, was held

under custody by police authorities in Montalban on 8
September 1977.On 9 September 1977 he allegedly
voluntarily executed a salaysay admitting participation in
the commission in the said crime.

Article I Convention against Torture and Other Cruel of

Degrading Treatment or Punishment

It was found that actually Mr. Galit had been interrogated

almost continuously for 5 days. The officers were found to
have mauled him and tortured him physically: covering his
face with a rag and pushed his face in a toilet bowl full of
human waste.

For the purpose of this Convention the term torture

means any act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession punishing him for
an act he or a third person has committed or is
suspected
of
having
committed,
or
intimidating or coercing him or a third person,
or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent of acquiesce of a public official or
other reason acting in a official capacity. It does
not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions
The article is without prejudice to any international
instrument or national legislation which does or may
contain provisions of wider application

People vs Galit

[It was also found that while Mr. galit was read of his rights
it was delivered in a long question to which Mr. Galit gave
monosyllabic answer of opo]
The court found that aside from the confession of galit was
the only evidence recovered.
Issue: Should the evidence be accepted?
Held: No because Mr. Galits confession were obtained by
means contrary to law.
Alleged confession is inadmissible as evidence when they
are obtained contrary to law. An alleged confession must
be voluntary. Unless properly waived, the accused must be
accompanied by a counsel at every step of the custodial
investigation. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully
into the circumstances surrounding the taking of any
confession, especially where the prisoner claims have

maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to

its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.

opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or

other status

OTHERS: It is a constitutional requirement for an accused

to be informed of his rights to custodial investigation. At
the moment of his arrest he shall be informed of his rights
under the constitution and laws, the questions should be
several short and clear and every right should be explained
in simple words in a dialect known to the person under
investigation. At the time of arrest, an accused should be
allowed to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a
friend.

Article III 1987 Philippine Constitution

confession which had been repudiated on the ground of

torture and only corroborated by evidence from a polluted
source, cannot be a basis for conviction.||| (People v.
Agcaoili, G.R. Nos. L-2084 & L-2085, June 06, 1950)

III.

Equality before the Law

Legal Basis
Article 26, ICCPR
-

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled
without any discrimination of the law. In this respect,
the law shall prohibit any discrimination and
guarantee all persons equal and effective protection
against discrimination on any ground such as race,
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other

IV.

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of right of life,

liberty, or property without due process, nor anyone
shall be denied equal protection of the law

Right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary arrest

Legal Basis
Article 8 ICCPR
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the
slave-trade in all their froms shall be prohibited
2. No one shall be held in servitude
3. (A) No one shall be required to perform forced or
compulsory labour;
(B) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in
countries where imprisonment with hard labour may
be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the
performance of hard labour in pursuance of a
sentence to such punishment for a competent court
(C ) For the purpose of this paragraph the term
forced or compulsory labour shall not include
i.
Any work or service nor referred in
subparagraph by, normally required of a
person who is under detention in consequence

ii.

iii.

iv.

of a lawful order of a court, or of a person

during conditional release from such detention
Any service of a military character and, in
countries where conscientious objection is
recognized, any national service required by
law of conscientious objectors
Any service exacted in cases of emergency or
calamity threatening the life of well-being of
the community
Any work or service which forms part of
normal civil obligations

Article 9 - ICCPR
1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of
person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his
liberty except on such grounds and in accordance
with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the
time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and
shall be promptly informed of any charges
against him.
3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall
be brought promptly before a judge or other officer
authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It
shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial
shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to
guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the
judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for
execution of the judgement.
4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or
detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a

court, in order that that court may decide without delay on

the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the
detention is not lawful.
5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or
detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.
Article 11 - ICCPR
No one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of
inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.
Article 12
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall,
within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement
and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his
own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those which are provided by law, are
necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre
public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms
of others, and are consistent with the other rights
recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter
his own country.
Article III 1987 Philippine Constitution
-

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in

their person, house, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature 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, particularly describing
the place to be search and persons and things to be
seized
Section 12. 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.
There rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of counsel.
No torture, force, violence, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate free will shall be used against
him.
Secret
detention
places,
solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
are prohibited

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

Any confession or admission obtained of this or

section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him

Villavicencio vs. Lukban

The law shall provide civil and penal sanctions for

violations of this section as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims or torture or similar
practices, and their families

Section 18. No person shall be compelled to be a

witness against himself
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro
Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with
their corollary, peonage, all denote "a condition of
enforced, compulsory service of one to another." |||
(Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. 14078,
March 07, 1919)
The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute
which is applicable to all of a class.||| (Rubi v.
Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. 14078, March
07, 1919)

Warrantless Arrest
Rule 113 Section 5 Rules of Court
A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or attempting to commit an

offense
b. When an offense has just been committed and
he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed
it; and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another

may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the

performance of hard labour in pursuance of a
sentence to such punishment for a competent
court
(C ) For the purpose of this paragraph the term
forced or compulsory labour shall not include
i.
Any work or service nor referred in
subparagraph by, normally required of a
person who is under detention in consequence
of a lawful order of a court, or of a person
during conditional release from such detention
ii.
Any service of a military character and, in
countries where conscientious objection is
recognized, any national service required by
law of conscientious objectors
iii.
Any service exacted in cases of emergency or
calamity threatening the life of well-being of
the community
iv.
Any work or service which forms part of
normal civil obligations

In cases palling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above,

the person to be arrested shall be forthwith delivered
to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of
rule 112
V. Freedom against slavery
Legal Basis
Article 8 Right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary
arrest
1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the
slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited
2. No one shall be held in servitude
3. (A) No one shall be required to perform forced or
compulsory labour;
(B) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude,
in countries where imprisonment with hard labour

Article III. Sec 18 (2) 1987 Philippine Constitution

-

Section 18 (2). No involuntary servitude in any form

shall exist except as punishment of a crime whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted

VI. Freedom of Movement

Legal Basis
Article 12 ICCPR

1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a state shall,

within that territory, have the right to liverty of
movement and freedom to choose his residence
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country,
including his own
3. The above-mention rights shall not be subject to any
restrictions except those which are provided by law,
are necessary to protect national security, public
order, public health or morals or rights and freedoms
of others, and are consistent with the other rights
recognized in the present Covenant
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of right to enter
his own country
Article II Sec. 6 1987 Philippine Constitution
Sec. 6 The liberty of abode and changing of the same
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
Marcos vs. Manglapus
Facts: After a series of coup d etat in the 1990s, President
Marcos, dying, wants to return home. President Aquino,
considering the dire consequences to the nation of his
return at a time when the stability of government is
threatened from various directions and the economy is just
beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on
the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.

Issue: Whether Ferdinand Marcos and his family have the

right to travel and liberty of abode, in light of the
circumstances raised by President Aquino.
Held: The right in question is not the right to travel
from the Philippines to other countries within the
Philippines. The court held that this right is different
from the right guaranteed in the bill of rights. The
right to return to ones own country is totally distincy
right under international law according to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Declaration speaks of the right of freedom of
movement and residence within the borders of each
state separately from the right to leave any
country, including his own, and to return to his
country. On the other hand, the covenant
guarantees the right to liberty of movement and
freedom to choose his residence and the right to
be free to leave any country, including his own
which rights may be restriced by such laws as are
necessary to protect national security, public order,
public health or morals or the separate rights and
freedoms of others as distinguished from the right
to enter his own country of which one cannot be
arbitrarily deprived.
President Aquino therefore is justified

VII. Right to security

Legal basis
Article 17, ICCPR
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful
interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his
honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference or attacks.
Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution
- Sec 2. The right of the person to be secure in the
persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures in for whatever
purpose or nature shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause personally determined by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce
particularly describing the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized
- Sec 3. (1) The privacy of communication and
correspondences 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 in evidence
for any purpose in any proceeding

Alvero vs. Dizon

Facts: On 12 Feb 1945 Aurelio Alvero, alleged guerrilla,

was placed under arrest for an accusation of
collaborating with the enemy. Papers and other
documents were taken from his house by the US Armed
Forces. He questions the seizure
Issue: Whether the documents seized by the US Army
can be admitted as evidence.
Held: Yes because they are allowed to do so under
international law and under the constitution. The Laws
and Customs of War on Land of The Hague Convetion of
1907 authorize seizure of military papers of POW. The
Constitutional protection against illegal seizure and
effects is directed to the Government of the Philippines
or its agents; the said constitutional guarantee does not
prohibit the government from taking advantage of
unlawful searches made by a private person or under
authority of state law. Herein, as soldiers of the US Army
that took and seized certain papers and documents
from the residence of Alvero, were not acting as agents
or on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth
of the Philippines.
The purpose of the constitutional provisions against
unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of
private security in person and property, and unlawful
invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law
acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give
remedy against such usurpations when attempted. But it

does not prohibit the Federal Government from taking

advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person
or under authority of state law.||| (Alvero v. Dizon, G.R. No.
L-342, May 04, 1946)
To whom directed
People vs Andre Marti
The constitution, in laying down the principles of the
government and fundamental liberties of the people, does
not govern relationships between individuals.||| (People v.
Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)
Where the contraband articles are identified without a
trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the
search that is prohibited by the constitution||| (People v.
Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)
That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not
meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals
finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. The constitutional proscription against
unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a
restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it
could only be invoked against the State to whom the
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of
power is imposed||| (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561,
January 18, 1991)
Zulueta vs. CA
Indeed the documents and papers in question are
inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction

declaring "the privacy of communication and

correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable
simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved
by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom
the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is
a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of
this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible
"for any purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies
between husband and wife do not justify any one of them
in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital
infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed
his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and
the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to
her.||| (Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383,
February 20, 1996)
VIII. Procedural guarantees in civil and criminal trials
a. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
People vs. Dramayo
Presumption of Innocence: Accusation is not,
according to the fundamental law, synonymous with
guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to
demonstrate that culpability lies. Appellants were
not even called upon then to offer evidence on their
behalf. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite
quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in
existence. Their guilt must be shown beyond

reasonable doubt. To such a standard, this Court has

always been committed. There is need, therefore, for
the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the
state, both oral and documentary, independently of
whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if
the judge below and the appellate tribunal could
arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been
committed precisely by the person on trial under
such an exacting test should the sentence be one of
conviction. It is thus required that every
circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken
into account. The proof against him must survive the
test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must
be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the
responsibility for the offense charged; that not only
did he perpetrate the act that it amounted to a
crime. What is required then is moral certainty|||
(People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29,
1971)
Reasonable Doubt: By reasonable doubt is not meant
that which of possibility may arise, but it is that
doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole
proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let
the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.
Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the

law to convict of any criminal charge but moral

certainty is required, and this certainty is required as
to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute
the offense. We feel that it is better to acquit a man
upon the ground of reasonable doubt, even though
he may in reality be guilty, than to confine in the
penitentiary for the rest of his natural life a person
who may be innocent||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No.
L-21325, October 29, 1971)
Acquittal of other alleged conspirators not a bar to
conviction: there had been cases where this Court,
notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being
acquitted, the element of conspiracy likewise being
allegedly present, did hold the party or parties
responsible for the offense guilty of the crime
charged, a moral certainly having arisen as to their
culpability.||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325,
October 29, 1971)
this Court has invariably respected the findings of
facts of a trial judge who was in a position to weigh
and appraise the testimony before him except when,
as was not shown in this case, circumstances of
weight or influence were ignored or disregarded by
him||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October
29, 1971)