BILL OF RIGHTS exist exercises “police power,” “power of eminent domain,” and

PRELIMINARIES “power of taxation.” A constitution does not grant such powers to

Government Power vs. Individual Freedom the government; a constitution can only define and delimit them
and allocate their exercise among various government
1. Among the changes brought about by the Period of
agencies.[1] These are awesome powers, which, if left uncheck,
Enlightenment was the shift of power from the crown to the
may seriously restrict and jeopardize the freedom of individuals.
individual. The long reign of monarchs came to an end, and the
Thus, it is inbuilt in every democratic constitution to meticulously
rule of the people became the standard. The government, while
include provisions guaranteeing the rights of the individuals and
still the repository of power, was limited to its role as the
those restricting the powers of the government. This is to prevent
protector of the people and the guardian of rights. Liberalism,
the tragedy that the government created by the people will in turn
which took its cue from individualism, advocated the principle of
be the instrument to enslave and abuse them.
egalitarianism, in which men, regardless of their status in life, are
regarded as equals in terms of rights before the law. Modern 4. The Bill of Rights (Article III) is an indispensable part of the
democracies are founded on these liberal ideals, in that the heart Constitution. In fact, it is one of the most important parts of the
of democratic objectives is the protection of human dignity and fundamental law since it aims at balancing the power of the
respect for human rights. government and the various freedoms of the individual. As will be
seen below, the Bill of Rights provide for two things: first,
2. Nonetheless, the government remains to be a powerful
restrictions directed against the state, and, second, explicit
institution, capable of summoning the military, evoking its past
identification and limitation of rights of the individuals. On the
image as the uncontestable holder of sovereignty. In fact,
one hand, the government exercises its tremendous powers, but
republicanism essentially requires delegation of powers to the
its powers are limited by the Constitution. On the other hand, the
government; that although the people remain to be the sovereign,
individuals are guaranteed of their rights, but subject also to
actual exercise of it is given to the government. Protection and
limitations in recognition of the powers of the government. What
service of the people is the primal duty of the government, but be
balances the two (power and freedom) are the limitations
that as it may, the government is still the single biggest institution
provided by the Constitution, which limitations are by nature
that exercises sovereign powers.
compromises or solutions to situations resulting from the
3. More so, it possesses the “inherent powers” which the overlapping or conflict of the two realms. For example, while the
Constitution itself does not confer. Every government for it to government has the inherent authority to take and convert a
property for public use, and the people on the other have the right
to hold their private property, the Constitution, contemplating a
case of overlap or conflict between the two, compromises both by
prescribing that the government gives just compensation to the
private owner who in turn must surrender his property.
Meaning of the Bill of Rights
1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the Bill
of Rights refers to the declaration and enumeration of the fundamental
civil and political rights of a person with the primary purpose of
safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as well as
by individuals and group of individuals. It includes the protection of
the following rights:
(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by virtue of
their citizenship, such as freedom to contract, right to property,
and marriage among others;
(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of
the individual vis-à-vis the administration of the government,
such as right of suffrage right to hold office, and right to petition
for redress of wrong;
(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure the well-being and
economic security of an individual; and
(d) Rights of the accused which refer to protections given to the
person of an accused in any criminal case.
2. It must be noted that the restriction provided in the Bill of
Rights is directed against the government, so that it does not
govern private relations. As far as the Constitution is concerned,
Article III can be invoked only against the government.
Nonetheless, with the inclusion of almost all the constitutional
rights in Article 32 of the Civil Code, the same may now be
invoked in civil cases involving relations between private persons.
Thus, the definition above indicates that the bill of rights is a
safeguard not just against the abuses of the government but also
of individuals or group of individuals.
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Life, Liberty, and Property
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution
states “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.” The provision speaks of “due
process” and “equal protection.”
2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons, whether
citizens or aliens, natural or juridical.
3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal
protection cover the right to life, liberty, and property. It is
important therefore to know the meaning of the three.
(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers not
just to physical safety but also to the importance of quality of life.
Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right to one’s limbs
against physical harm, and, equally important, right to a good
quality of life.[2] Life means something more than mere animal
existence.[3]
(b) Liberty. It includes “negative” and “positive” freedom. Negative
freedom means freedom from, or absence of, physical constraints,
while positive freedom means freedom to exercise one’s faculties.
Right to liberty therefore includes the two aspects of freedom and
it cannot be dwarfed into mere freedom from physical restraint or
servitude, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy his
God-given faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he
will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any
vocation, and enter into contracts.[4]
(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the
thing. As a thing, property is anything capable of appropriation,
and it could be personal or real. As a right, it refers to right to
own, use, possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The constitution
uses property in the sense of right, and as such it includes, among
others, right to work, one’s employment, profession, trade, and
other vested rights. It is important to note however that privileges
like licenses are not protected property; but they may evolve in a
protected right if much is invested in them as means of livelihood.
Public office is not also a property; but to the extent that security
of tenure cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a
limited sense analogous to property.[5]
5. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if one’s
property right over employment is taken away, the same will
adversely affect one’s right to life since quality of living is
jeopardized. Consequently, in the absence of property and a good
quality of life, the ability to do what one wants is impeded.
6. Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are intimately related, they
have a hierarchy. As to their order of importance, right to life
comes first, followed by right to liberty, and then right of
property.
Due Process
1. Meaning. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee against
hasty and unsupported deprivation of some person’s life, liberty,
or property by the government. While is it true that the state can
deprive its citizens of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so
in observance of due process of law. This right is “the
embodiment of the supporting idea of fair play”[6] and its essence
is that it is “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”[7]
2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of the
government is arbitrary, oppressive, whimsical, or unreasonable.
It is particularly directed against the acts of executive and
legislative department.
3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has two
aspects: procedural and substantive. Basically, the procedural
aspect involves the method or manner by which the law is
enforced, while the substantive aspect involves the law itself
which must be fair, reasonable, and just.
4. Procedural due process requires, essentially, the opportunity to be
heard in which every citizen is given the chance to defend himself
or explain his side through the protection of general rules of
procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard
before judgment is rendered.
In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process
are:[8]
(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction
over the subject matter;
(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the
property which is the subject of the proceeding;
(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement on
notice and hearing); and
(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.
Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies, the Court
also provides requirements of procedural due process
in administrative proceedings. These requirements, also known as
“seven cardinal primary rights,” are:[9]
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present evidence in
support of his case;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence;
(d) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion;
(e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing, or
at least contained in the record and known to the parties affected;
(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its own
independent consideration of evidence, and not rely on the
recommendation of a subordinate; and
(g) The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way
that the parties are apprised of the issues involved and the
reasons for the decision.
5. Notice and Opportunity to be Heard. What matters in procedural
due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard.
(a) Notice. This is an essential element of procedural due process,
most especially in judicial proceedings, because without notice
the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will not
bind the defendant. The purpose of the notice is to inform the
defendant of the nature and character of the case filed against
him, and more importantly, to give him a fair opportunity to
prepare his defense. Nevertheless, the notice is useless without
the opportunity to be heard.
(b) Opportunity to be Heard. It must be emphasized that what is
required is not “actual” hearing but a real “opportunity” to be
heard.[10] If, for instance, a person fails to actually appear in a
hearing even though he was given the chance to do so, a decision
rendered by the court is not in violation of due process. Moreover,
strict observance of the rule is not necessary, especially in
administrative cases. In fact, in administrative proceedings,
notice and hearing may be dispensed with for public need or for
practical reasons. It is also sufficient that subsequent hearing is
held if the same was not previously satisfied.
6. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid, fair,
reasonable, and just. For the law to be fair and reasonable it must
have a valid objective which is pursued in a lawful manner. The
objective of the government is valid when it pertains to the
interest of the general public, as distinguished from those of a
particular class. The manner of pursuing the objective is lawful if
the means employed are reasonably necessary and not unduly
oppressive
. alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.”
7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or law that is
vague is void because it violates the rights to due process. A
statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards which
men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily know as to its
common meaning but differ as to its application. Such kind of
statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to accord
persons proper understanding or fair notice, and because the
government is given unbridled freedom to carry out its provision.
For this doctrine to be operative, however, the statute must be
utterly vague. Thus, if a law, for example, could be interpreted
and applied in various ways, it is void because of vagueness.
Corollary to this is the doctrine of overbreadth which states that a
statute that is “overly broad” is void. This is because it prevents a
person from exercising his constitutional rights, as it fails to give
an adequate warning or boundary between what is
constitutionally permissive and not. If a law, for instance,
prohibits a bystander from doing any “annoying act” to passersby,
the law is void because “annoying act” could mean anything to a
passerby and as such, overly broad.
Equal Protection
1. Meaning. The guarantee of equal protection means that “no
person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same
protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other
classes in the same place and in like circumstances.”[11] It means
that “all persons or things similarly situated should be treated
The guarantee does not provide absolute equality of rights or
indiscriminate operation on persons. Persons or things that are
differently situated may thus be treated differently. Equality only
applies among equals. What is prohibited by the guarantee is the
discriminatory legislation which treats differently or favors others
when both are similarly situated.
2. Purpose. The purpose of the guarantee is to prohibit hostile
discrimination or undue favor to anyone, or giving special
privilege when it is not reasonable or justified.
3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is the rule
that reasonable classificationdoes not violate the guarantee,
provided that the classification has the following requisites:[12]
(a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;
(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
(d) It must apply equally to all members of the class.
4. Example. In one case,[13] Section 66 of the Omnibus Election
Code was challenged for being unconstitutional, as it is violative
of the equal protection clause. The provision distinguishes
between an elective official and an appointive official in the filing
of theire certificate of candidacy. While elective officials are not
deemed resigned upon the filing their certificates, appointive
officials are. The Supreme Court held that the law is
constitutional and not violative of equal protection since the
classification is valid. The Court argues that elective office is
different from appointive office, in that the mandate of the former
is from the people, while that of the latter is from the appointing
authority. The term of the elective officials are likewise longer
than that of the appointive officials. Thus, the classification is
adjudged reasonable and valid.
5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the protection extends to
both citizens and aliens, discrimination against aliens may be held
valid under certain circumstances. For example, citizens by virtue
of their membership to the political community possess complete
civil and political rights, while aliens do not have complete
political rights. The former can vote during elections, run for
public office, own real property, while aliens cannot.
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it said to
be subject to “judicial review.” There are three standards followed
by the court in judicial review, these are:
(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or
consistent to the guarantee of equal protection when they are
rational and the classifications therein bear a relation to a
legitimate governmental interests or purpose. In here the courts
do not seriously inquire into the substantiality of the interest and
possibility of alternative means to achieve the objectives;
(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the
governmental interest is closely scrutinized as well as the
availability of less restrictive means or alternatives. This standard
is used if the classification involves important but not
fundamental interests; and
(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the
presence of a compelling government interest, rather than a mere
substantial interest, and the absence of a less restrictive means for
achieving the interest. Upon showing of these requirements, the
limitation of a fundamental constitutional right is justified. This
standard is used if the law classifies persons and limits others of
their exercise of fundamental rights.
ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 2, Article III states that people
have the inviolable right to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose, and a search warrant or
warrant of arrest can only be issued upon showing of a probable
cause 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.
2. Scope. The protection extends to all persons, aliens or citizens,
natural or juridical. It is a personal right which may be invoked or
waived by the person directly affected[14]against unreasonable
arrests or searches by the government and its agencies. It cannot,
however, be invoked against private individuals.
Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant
1. Generally, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures
requires that before a person is arrested or a personal property
seized, it must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest or a
search warrant. The exceptions are in cases of valid warrantless
arrests and searches.
2. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court, issued in the
name of the Philippines, authorizing a peace officer to arrest a
person, and put him under the custody of the court.
3. A search warrant is a written order of the court, authorizing or
directing a peace officer to search a specific location, house, or
other premises for a personal property allegedly used in a crime
or may be utilized as a tool to prove a crime.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
1. Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is reasonable when it
is covered by a valid warrant, it is thus important to know
the requisites a valid warrant. The Court enumerates the requisites
as follows:
(a) It must be based upon a probable cause. Probable cause refers to
such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connect with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched;
(b) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
That the judge “personally” determines the probable cause means
that “he personally evaluates the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the public prosecutor regarding the
existence of the probable cause,” or, if the same is insufficient,
“require additional evidence to aid him in arriving at a conclusion
as to the existence of probable cause.”[15]Thus, personal
determination does not mean that he must personally examine
the complainant and his witnesses.[16] He may rely on reports
and evidence submitted to him, on the basis of which he
determines the existence of probable cause and orders the
issuance of warrant. What is prohibited is to rely solely on the
recommendation of the prosecutors without doing any
determination on his own;
(c) The determination must be made after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may
produce; and
(d) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. The property subject to search
includes those used in the commission of the offense, stolen or
embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or used or
intended to be used in the commission of the offense.
2. General warrants are those that do not particularly describe the
place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized. They
are unconstitutional because the sanctity of the domicile and
privacy of communication and correspondence of individuals are
placed at the mercy, caprice, and passion of peace officers.[17]
Warrantless Arrest
1. When Warrantless Arrest Valid. Arrest without warrant is strictly
construed as an exception to the general rule requiring warrant.
Under the Rules of Court,[18] a peace officer or a private person
may arrest a person even without a warrant under the following
instances:
(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact just been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment of place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
2. Citizen Arrest. It must be noted that a lawful warrantless arrest
may be performed not just by a peace officer but also by a civilian.
This is permitted under the rules under limited circumstances,
and it is called citizen arrest.
3. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an offense is committed “in
the presence” of the arresting officer or civilian. For example, if a
person pushes illegal drugs in the presence of a police officer, the
latter can arrest the pusher even without a warrant of arrest
because an offense is actually being committed in his presence.
The same principle underlies the “buy-bust” or “entrapment”
operations conducted by police officers in catching law offenders.
In one case,[19] the Court held that rebellion is a continuing
offense, and so the rebel may be arrested anytime even without a
warrant because he is deemed to commit the offense in the
presence of the arresting officer or person.
4. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the arresting
officer or civilian if the warrantless arrest is performed outside
the above rules.
Warrantless Searches
A search is valid even without a warrant, under the following
instances:
(a) Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. When a valid arrest
precedes the search or contemporaneous with it, and the search is
limited to the immediate vicinity of the place of arrest, for
purposes of securing dangerous objects and effects of the crime;
(b) Consented search. When the right has been voluntarily waived
by person who has a right, aware of such right, and has an actual
intention to relinquish such right;
(c) Plainview search. When prohibited articles are within the sight
of an officer who has the right to be in a position to that view;
(d) Visual search at checkpoints. When the search at stationary
checkpoints is pre-announced, and limited to a visual search only;
(e) Terry search. When a police officer, in interest of effective
crime prevention, performs a “stop-and-frisk” or patting of outer
clothing for dangerous weapons, after observing a suspicious
conduct on the part of a citizen;
(f) Search of moving vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts for violation of
laws;
(g) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement
of fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and
(h) Search in airports and other populous places.
Administrative Searches and Arrests
1. In cases of deportation, where the State expels an undesirable
alien from its territory, court intervention and proceedings are
not required. Nonetheless, the alien’s constitutional rights are still
preserved because they are given fair trial and administrative due
process.
2. Important to note is that no probable cause is required in
deportation proceedings.[20] It is the Commissioner of
Immigration or any officer designated by him, not the judge, who
issues the administrative warrant, after determination by the
Board of Commissioners of the existence of a ground for
deportation.
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy
1. Constitutional Provisions. The right to privacy is scattered
throughout the Bill of Rights.[21] The right against unreasonable
searches and seizures, in Section 2, is an expression of this right,
inasmuch as it is based on the sacred right to be secure in the
privacy of one’s person, house, paper, and effects. Due process of
law, in Section 1, also provides the same privacy security by
protecting an individual’s life, liberty, and property against undue
interference by the government. Section 6 speaks of the right to
establish and change one’s home which likewise deals with the
privacy and comfort of one’s home. The right to form unions or
associations under Section 8, and the right against self-
incrimination under Section 17 are also privacy rights which need
protection against undue intrusion by the government.
2. Nonetheless, the word “privacy” is expressly provided in
Section 3(1), Article III, which states that “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.” Privacy of
communication and correspondence is also an expression of the
right to privacy.
3. Statutory Reinforcements. To reinforce these constitutional
provisions, the Congress has passed laws that recognize and
protect the zones of privacy of an individual. These laws include:
(a) The Civil Code of the Philippines; (b) The Revised Penal Code;
(c) Anti-Wire Tapping Act; (d) The Secrecy of Bank Deposits; and
(e) Intellectual Property Code.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
1. Subject of the Right. Invasion of communication and
correspondence is one kind of search.[22] However the subject of
search is not a tangible object but an intangible one, such as
telephone calls, text messages, letters, and the like. These forms of
communication and correspondence may be intruded into by
means of wiretapping or other means of electronic eavesdropping.
What the constitution prohibits is government intrusion, by
means of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping, into the
privacy of communication without a lawful court order or when
public safety and order does not demand.
2. Rule. As a rule, the government cannot intrude into the privacy
of communication and correspondence. The exceptions are: (a)
when the court allows the intrusion, and (b) when public safety
and order so demands.
Anti-Wire Tapping Act
1. R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as a reinforcement of
privacy of communication, is a law which prohibits a person not
authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to
wire tap or use any devise to secretly overhear, intercept, record,
or communicate the content of the said communication to any
person.
2. Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or
criminal proceedings involving specified offenses principally
affecting national security, and only with previous authorization
by the court which must comply with the requirements of a
warrant. The authority is effective only for sixty days.
Writ of Habeas Data
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is violated or threatened
to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding
the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.
Exclusionary Rule
1. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence unlawfully
obtained is inadmissible as evidence before the courts. This is
based on Section 3(2), Article III which provides that any
evidence obtained in violation of right to privacy of
communication or right to due process of law shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The same rule is
applied to any evidence taken in violate of R.A. 4200.
2. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The
name of the doctrine metaphorically describes what happens to
an “evidence” (fruit) taken through “unlawful means” (poisonous
tree). The evidence-fruit is discarded because it may infect or
destroy the integrity of the case and forfeit the purpose of the law.
3. For example, if police officers search a house without a search
warrant and the same does not fall under any of the instances of a
valid warrantless search, the evidence obtained even if material in
the case cannot be admitted in court. Or if police officers wiretap
a conversation without court authorization, the recorded
conversation shall be excluded as an evidence in court. Thus, the
evidences are said to be fruits of a poisonous tree.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Meaning and Scope
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 4, Article III provides that “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.”
The right underscores tolerance to different views and thoughts.
2. Aspects of the Right. Freedom of expression has four aspects, to
wit: (a) freedom of speech; (b) freedom of expression; (c) freedom
of the press; and (d) freedom of assembly. Nonetheless, the scope
of the protection extends to right to form associations or societies
not contrary to law, right to access to information on matters of
public concern, and freedom of religion. These are all crucial to
the advancement of beliefs and ideas and the establishment of an
“uninhibited, robust and wide-open debate in the free market of
ideas.”[23]
3. Importance of the Right. Freedom of expression is accorded the
highest protection in the Bill of Rights since it is indispensable to
the preservation of liberty and democracy. Thus, religious,
political, academic, artistic, and commercial speeches are
protected by the constitutional guarantee.
4. Limitation. The right is not absolute. It must be exercised within
the bounds of law, morals, public policy and public order, and
with due regard for others’ rights. Thus, obscene, libelous, and
slanderous speeches are not protected by the guarantee. So are
seditious and fighting words that advocate imminent lawless
conduct.
Freedom from Prior Restraint and Subsequent Punishment
1. Freedom of speech and of the press has two aspects: (a)
freedom from prior restraint, and (b) freedom from subsequent
punishment.
2. On the one hand, freedom from prior restraint means freedom
from censorship or governmental screening of what is politically,
morally, socially, and artistically correct. In here, persons and the
media are freed from total suppression or restriction by the
government of what could be disseminated, and prevents the
government from being a subjective arbiter of what is acceptable
and not. Although the system of prior restraint is presumed
unconstitutional, it is allowed under the following instances:[24]
(a) Undue utterances in time of war;
(b) Actual obstruction or unauthorized dissemination of military
information;
(c) Obscene publication; and
(d) Inciting to rebellion.
3. On the other hand, freedom from subsequent punishment refers to
the assurance that citizens can speak and air out their opinions
without fear of vengeance by the government. Subsequent
chastisement has the effect of unduly curtailing expression, and
thus freedom therefrom is essential to the freedom of speech and
the press. The State, however, can validly impose subsequent
punishment under the following instances:
(a) Libel which is the most common form of subsequent
punishment, refers to a public and malicious imputation of a
crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act or omission,
status tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or blacken the memory of one who is
dead;[25]
(b) Obscenity which includes works (taken as a whole) appealing
to prurient interest or depicting sexual conduct as defined by law
or lacking of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value;[26]
(c) Criticism of official conduct made with actual malice;[27] and
(d) School articles which materially disrupt class work or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others.[28]
Tests to Determine When Right Maybe Suppressed
There are six tests or rules to determine when the freedom may be
suppressed. These are:
(1) Dangerous Tendency Test which provides that if a speech is
capable of producing a substantive evil which the State is
mandated to suppress or prevent, even if it did not materialize,
the State is justified of restricting the right. This rule has already
been abandoned;
(2) Clear and Present Danger Test which is a more libertarian rule,
provides that the finding out of substantive evil is not enough to
suppress the right. Rather the substantive evil must have clear
and present danger type depending on the specific circumstances
of the case. This rule is consistent with the principle of “maximum
tolerance” and is often applied by the Court in freedom of
expression cases;
(c) Balancing of Interest Test which provides that when there is
conflict between a regulation and freedom of speech, the court
has the duty to determine which of the two demands greater
protection;
(d) Grave-but-Improbable Danger Test which was meant to supplant
the clear and present danger test, determines whether the gravity
of the evil, less its improbability to happen, can justify the
suppression of the right in order to avoid the danger;[29]
(e) O’Brien Test which provides that when “speech” and “non-
speech” elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a
sufficiently important government interest that warrants the
regulation of the “non-speech” element can also justify incidental
limitations on the speech element; and
(f) Direct Incitement Test which determines what words are uttered
and the likely result of the utterance, that is, whether or not they
will directly incite or produce imminent lawless action.
Restrictions on Freedom of Speech
1. Two Kinds of Restrictions. The State may impose two kinds of
restrictions on speech under a system of prior restraint: content-
based restriction and content-neutral restriction. The restriction is
content-based when restriction is directed to the speech itself,
while the restriction is content-neutral when it is directed, not to
the speech itself, but to the incidents (such as time, place, or
manner) of the speech. An example of a content-based restriction
is when the government prohibits speeches against the President,
in which case the restriction is on the speech itself. An example of
a content-neutral restriction is when the government regulates
the manner of posting campaign advertisements, in which case
the restriction is on the manner the right is made.
2. Appropriate Tests for Each Restriction. If the governmental
restriction is content-based, the applicable rule or test is the clear
and present danger test. This is to give the government a heavy
burden to show justification for the imposition of such prior
restraint which bears a heavy presumption of unconstitutionality.
If the restriction is content-neutral, the applicable rule is only an
intermediate approach, inasmuch as the restraint is only
regulatory and does not attack the speech directly.
3. Example. In one case, the court held that the act of granting a
permit to rally under the condition that it will be held elsewhere is
a content-based restriction and not content-neutral because it is
directed to the exercise of the speech right itself and not merely to
the manner. As such, the applicable test is the clear and present
danger test.[30]
Regulations on Mass Media
Mass media may be broadcast media (e.g. television and radio) or
print media (e.g. newspaper). The two have a substantial
difference in that broadcast media has a uniquely pervasive
presence in the lives of Filipinos. Thus, freedom of television and
radio broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the freedom accorded
to the print media;[31] greater regulation is imposed over
broadcast media because of its greater tendency to invade the 3. Private speech is accorded more freedom and protection than
privacy of everyone than print media. commercial speech.
Doctrine of Fair Comment
Freedom of Assembly
1. Meaning. Under the doctrine of fair comment, a discreditable
1. Meaning. Freedom of assembly refers to the right to hold a rally
imputation directed against a public person in his public capacity,
to voice out grievances against the government.
does not necessarily make one liable. Although generally every
2. Freedom not Subject to Prior Restraint. As a rule, freedom of
discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false and
assembly is not subject to prior restraint or prior issuance of
malicious because every man is presumed innocent until proven
permit by government authorities. Nevertheless, it must be
guilty, nevertheless, if the imputation directed against a person in
exercised in such a way that will not to prejudice public welfare.
his public is based on “established facts,” even if the inferred
Freedom of assembly is reinforced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 880,
opinion is wrong, the comments as justified. As long as the
otherwise known as the Public Assembly Acts of 1985, which
opinion might reasonably inferred from the facts, it is not
basically provides the requirements and procedure for holding
actionable. In order to that such discreditable imputation to a
rallies. It also implements the observance of “maximum
public official may be actionable, it must either be a “false
tolerance” towards participants of rallies consistent with the clear
allegation” or a “baseless comment.”[32]
and present danger test.
2. Example. If a case of theft was filed against a barangay official,
3. Permit Requirement. Under the said law, permit is required to
and someone commented that he maliciously stole things from
hold a rally. It must be emphasized, however, that the permit
the local residents, the doctrine of fair comment is applicable,
is not a requirement for the validity of the assembly or rally,
inasmuch as the opinion was based on such fact. In here, the
because the right is not subject to prior restraint. Rather, the
comment is justified.
permit is a requirement for the use of the public place.
Commercial Speech
4. When Permit not Required. Permit is not required if the rally is
1. Meaning. Commercial speech is one that proposes a commercial
held in a private place, in a campus of a state college or university,
transaction done in behalf of a company or individual for
or in a freedom park, in which case only coordination with the
purposes of profit. It is a protected speech for as long as it is not
police is required. If the application for permit is not acted upon
false or misleading and does not propose an illegal
by the mayor within two working days, then the same is deemed
transaction.[33]
granted.
2. But if the government has a substantial interest to protect, even
a truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated.[34]
5. Political rally during election is regulated by the Omnibus governed by law and the employees therein shall not strike for
Election Code, not by BP 880. purposes of securing changes.[36]
Right to Information
Right to Form Associations
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 7, Article III provides that “the
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 8, Article III provides that “the
right of the people to information on matters of public concern
right of the people, including those employed in the public and
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions,
purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.”
as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
2. Who may Exercise the Right. The right of association may be
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
exercised by the employed or the unemployed and by those
limitations as may be provided by law.”
employed in the government or in the private sector. It likewise
2. Scope and Limitation. The right guarantees access to official
embraces the right to form unions both in the government and
records for any lawful purpose. However, access may be denied by
private sector. The right of civil servants to unionize is expressly
the government if the information sought involves: (a) National
provided in Section 2(5), Article IX-B: “The right to self-
security matters, military and diplomatic secrets; (b) Trade or
organization shall not be denied to government employees.” The
industrial secrets; (c) Criminal matters; and (d) Other
right of labor in general to unionize is likewise provided in Section
confidential information (such as inter-government exchanges
3, Article XIII: “[The State] shall guarantee the rights of all
prior to consultation of treaties and executive agreement, and
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
privilege speech).
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right
to strike in accordance with law.”
3. Right to Strike not Included. The right to form associations or to
self-organization does not include the right to strike. Thus, public
school teachers do not enjoy the right to strike even if they are
given the constitutional right of association.[35] The terms and
conditions of employment in the Government, including in any
political subdivision or instrumentality thereof and government
owned and controlled corporations with original charters, are
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion
1. Freedom of religion has two aspects: (a) the freedom to believe,
and (b) the freedom to act on one’s belief. The first aspect is in the
realm of the mind, and as such it is absolute, since the State
cannot control the mind of the citizen. Thus, every person has the
absolute right to believe (or not to believe) in anything
whatsoever without any possible external restriction by the
government. The aspect refers to the externalization of belief as it
is now brought out from the bosom of internal belief. Since it may
affect peace, morals, public policy, and order, the government
may interfere or regulate such aspect of the right.
2. The second aspect is expressed in Section 5, Article III, thus “…
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
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 5, Article III provides that “no
law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
2. Explanation. The non-establishment clause holds that the State
cannot set up a church or pass laws aiding one religion, all
religion, or preferring one over another, or force a person to
believe or disbelieve in any religion.[37] In order words, it
prohibits the State from establishing an official religion. It
discourages excessive government involvement with religion and
manifest support to any one religious denomination. Manifestly,
the clause is rooted in the principle of separation of church and
state.
3. Particular Prohibitions. In particular, the non-establishment
clause prohibits, among others, prayers of a particular
denomination to start a class in public schools,[38]financial
subsidy of a parochial school,[39] display of the ten
commandments in front of a courthouse,[40] law prohibiting the
teaching of evolution,[41] mandatory reading of the bible,[42] and
using the word “God” in the pledge of allegiance.[43]
4. Exceptions to the Prohibition. The clause, however, permits the
following:
(a) Tax exemption on property “actually, directly and exclusively
used” for religious purposes;[44]
(b) Religious instruction in sectarian schools[45] and expansion of
educational facilities in parochial schools for secular
activities;[46]
(c) Religious instruction in public schools, elementary and high
school, at the option of parents or guardians expressed in writing,
within regular class hours by designated instructors, and without
additional costs to the government;[47]
(d) Financial support given to priest, preacher, minister, or
dignitary assigned to the armed forces, penal institution or
government orphanage or leprosarium;[48]
(e) Government sponsorship of town fiestas which traditions are
used to be purely religious but have now acquired secular
character;[49] and
(f) Postage stamps depicting Philippines as the venue of a
significant religious event, in that the benefit to religious sect is
incidental to the promotion of the Philippines as a tourist
destination.[50]
Tests to Determine whether Governmental Act Violates Freedom of
Religion
1. Different tests are used to determine if there are governmental
violations of non-establishment clause and free exercise clause.
On the on hand, Lemon Test is used to determine whether an act of
the government violates the non-establishment clause. Under this
test, a law or a governmental act does not violate the clause when
it has a secular purpose, does not promote or favor any set of
religious beliefs, and does not get the government too entangled
with religion.[51]
2. On the other hand, Compelling State Interest Test and Clear and
Present Danger Test are used to determine whether there is
violation of free-exercise clause. Compelling state interest test is
used to determine if the interests of the State are compelling
enough to justify intrusion into an individual’s freedom of
religion. Under this test, government infringement is justified if
the burden it creates on freedom of religion is due to a sufficiently
compelling state interest and the means used to attain its purpose
is the least intrusive. Clear and present danger test is used to
determine whether the circumstance are of such nature as to
create a clear and present danger that will bring about a
substantive evil which the state has the right to prevent.
3, Example. In one case,[52] the Court held that expulsion from
school is unjustified if is based on the conflict between religious
beliefs and school practices (saluting the flag). The expulsion
violates the right of children to education. Using the clear and
present danger test, the Court held that the danger of disloyalty
which the government is trying to prevent may be the very same
thing that it advocates if expulsion is validated. Times have
changed. Freedom of religion is now recognized as a preferred
right.
Religious Solicitations
Under Presidential Decree No. 1564, also known as the Solicitation
Law, permit is required before solicitations for “charitable and
public welfare purposes” may be carried out. The purpose of the
law is to protect the public from fraudulent solicitations.
Nonetheless, permit is no longer required if the solicitation is for
“religious purposes.” Fraud is much less in religion. If the law is
extended to religion, then it becomes unconstitutional; it
constitutes restriction on freedom of religion as resources
necessary for maintenance are deprived of churches.
Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is someone who sincerely claims the
right to refuse to perform military service[53] and salute a
flag[54] on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or
religion. He may be granted exemption from military service or
from saluting the flag if he establishes that his objection is
“sincere,” based on “religious training and belief,” and not
arbitrary.
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Freedom of Movement
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 6, Article III provides that “the Contract Clause
liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
1. Section 10, Article III provides that “no law impairing the
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order
obligation of contracts shall be passed.” This is the so-called
of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in
contract clause, which seeks to restrain substantial
the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as
legislative impairment of, or intrusion into, the obligations of
may be provided by law.”
contracts. What the clause guarantees is the integrity of contracts
2. Aspects of the Freedom. Freedom of movement has two aspects:
against undue interference by the government.
(a) Freedom to choose and change one’s domicile, and (b)
Freedom to travel within and outside the country. A person’s 2. For example, if a lawyer enters into a contract with a client by
place of abode or domicile is his permanent residence. which the latter will pay 5% of the value of the monetary claim, a
Limitations subsequent law which deprives the lawyer of the said value is
arbitrary and unreasonable since it is destructive of the
1. Freedom of movement is not an absolute right. It has
inviolability of contracts, and therefore invalid as lacking of due
limitations. Liberty of abode may be impaired or restricted when
process.[56]
there is a “lawful court order.”
Contracts Affected
2. The right to travel may also be restricted in interest of national 1. Only valid contracts, either executed or executory, are covered
security, public safety, or public health, or when a person is on by the guarantee.
bail, or under a watch-list and hold departure order. 2. The agreement of the parties, as long as it is valid, is the law
between them. Their will should prevail, and this must be
Right to Return to One’s Country
respected by the legislature and not tampered with by subsequent
Although the right to return to one’s country is not among the
laws. Well-established is the policy that the subject of contractual
rights expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it is nonetheless
agreements is “imbued with paramount public interest.”
recognized and protected in the Philippines. It is a generally
Kind of Impairment Covered
accepted principle of international law, and as such it is part of
1. For the clause to be operative, the impairment caused by law
the law of the land, pursuant to the doctrine of incorporation. It is
must be substantial. Substantial impairment happens when the
different from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the
law changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[55]
in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions,
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its
satisfaction something different from that provided in its
terms.[57] In other words, the act of impairment is anything that
diminishes the value of the contract.[58]
2. The cause of the impairment must be legislative in nature. The
obligation of contract must be impaired by a statute, ordinance,
or any legislative act for it to come within the meaning of the
constitutional provision.[59] An administrative order or court
decision is not included in the scope of the constitutional
guarantee.
3. In one case,[60] the Court held that a Rehabilitation Plan
approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission which
suspends contractual claims against an insolvent or bankrupt
corporation does not violate the contract clause. The impairment
must be legislative in character. SEC’s approval of the plan is not
a legislative act but an administrative act. Thus, there is not
impairment of the freedom to contract.
Limitations
1. As between freedom of contract and police power, police power
prevails. Thus, laws enacted in exercise of police power will prevail
over contracts. After all, private rights and interest in contracts
must yield to the common good. Every contract affecting public
welfare is presumed to include the provisions of existing laws and
a reservation of police power.
2. The supremacy of police power is felt most clearly in labor
contracts and agricultural tenancy contracts. For instance, a law
(Blue Sunday Law) which provides for work or play on a Sunday
is upheld as valid even if it nullifies existing labor contracts, since
it is a legitimate exercise of police power.[61] In another case, a
law (R.A. No. 34) changed the crop-sharing system between the
landlord and tenants from 50-50 to 55-45 in favor of the tenants.
The Court held that the law is valid. Consistent with the policy of
social justice, the law favored the tenants as well as the general
welfare of the people in exchange of contractual rights.
3. The power of taxation and power of eminent domain, inasmuch as
they are also sovereign powers of the state, can validly impair
obligations of contracts.
4. Licenses are different from contracts. Licenses are franchises or
privileges given by the State to qualified entities that may be
withdrawn or relinquished when national interests so require.
However, like contracts, they yield to police power.
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 11, Article III provides that “free
access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
2. Protection for the Poor. Free access is a right covered by the due
process clause, because a person, regardless of his status in life,
must be given an opportunity to defend himself in the proper
court or tribunal. Nonetheless, the right is placed in a separate
provision to emphasize the desire for constitutional protection of the
poor.[62]
3. Litigation in Forma Pauperis. In consonance with this
constitutional provision, the Rules of Court provide for
litigation in forma pauperis in which paupers and indigents, who
have only their labor to support themselves, are given free legal
services and access to courts.
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Miranda Rights
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 12, Article III enumerates the
rights of a person under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense, to wit:
(a) Right to remain silent, right to have a competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice, right to free legal services if he
cannot afford one, and the right to informed of these rights. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel;
(b) Right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate his free
will. Prohibition against secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention;
(c) Exclusion of any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this provision or the right against self-incrimination as evidence
against him; and
(d) Sanctions against violators and compensation for rehabilitation of
victims.
2. Why called Miranda Rights. The present provision is usually
referred to as the “Miranda Rights” because it is an adoption of
the rights provided in the American case “Miranda v.
Arizona.”[63]
Purpose of the Right
The provision emphasizes on the duty of law enforcement officers to
treat properly and humanely those under investigation. It recognizes
the fact that the environment in custodial investigations is
psychologically if not physically coercive in nature,[64] so that law
enforcers should be reminded of the sanctity of individual rights
and the limitations on their means of solving crimes. In fact, as
far as the present provision is concerned, the “presumption of
regularity” of official acts and the behavior of police or
prosecution is not observed if the person under investigation was
not informed.[65]
Custodial Investigation
1. This enumeration of rights above may be invoked
during custodial investigations. Custodial investigation refers to any
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody. The rights are available when the
person interrogated is already treaded as a particular suspect and
the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved
crime. However, during this stage, no complaint or criminal case
has been filed yet. As such, the person suspected to have
committed a crime is not yet an accused, since no case was
instituted against him.
2. During custodial investigations, suspects are identified by way
of show-ups, mug shots, and line ups. Show-ups are done by
bringing the lone suspect face-to-face with the witness for
identification. Mug shots are performed by showing photographs
to witnesses to identify the suspect. And in line ups, the witness
identifies the suspect from a group of persons.
Extrajudicial Confession
1. Meaning. Extrajudicial consfession refers to a confession or
admission of guilt made outside (extra) the court (judicial). It is a
critical area of study in Constitutional Law. With respect to the
present provision, it refers to a confession given during a
custodial investigation, which is not judicial in nature. Under the
Miranda Rights, a person may waive his right to remain silent and
admit the charge against him because anything that he says may
be used against him. However, the waiver or confession must be
valid to be admissible as evidence against him.
2. Requisites for Validity. For an extrajudicial confession to
be valid and admissible as evidence in court, it must be: (a)
voluntary; (b) made in the assistance of a competent and
independent counsel; (c) express; and (d) in writing.
3. Involuntary Confession. There are two kinds of involuntary
confession: (a) confession through coercion;[66] and (b)
confession without being informed of the Miranda
rights.[67] Both forms are invalid and cannot be admitted as
evidence against the confidant, the confession considered as a
fruit of a poisonous tree. Extrajudicial confessions must be given
voluntarily. However, there is a distinction between the two. On
the one hand, an extrajudicial confession alleged to be taken
through torture or coercion is presumed voluntarily given and valid
since the law enforcers are presumed to perform their duty
regularly, so that the complainant-suspect should prove that there
is torture to invalidate his confession. On the other hand, a
confession given without being informed of the Miranda rights is
presumed involuntarily given, so that the law enforces must prove
its regularity.[68]
4. Assistance of Counsel. An extrajudicial confession made in the
absence of a counsel, or even in his presence but without
adequate assistance, is also invalid and inadmissible. The rule
requires that the assisting counsel must
be independent and competent. For this matter, a fiscal or a public
prosecutor, who represents the interest of the State, cannot assist
the suspect or person under investigation. His interest is adverse
to the latter. Thus, even if competent, he cannot be
an independent counsel for the suspect.
5. A counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office is qualified to assist a
person in executing an extrajudicial confession, his interest not
adverse to the latter.
6. An extrajudicial confession to a mayor, even if uncounselled, may
be admissible.[69]While a mayor has power of supervision over
the police, an admission to him, not in the capacity of a law
enforcer, is deemed freely given. The uncounselled admission to
him does not violate the right to legal assistance and therefore the
confession is admissible as evidence against the confidant. In
addition, extrajudicial confession to a media man who is acting as
a news reporter and not under the supervision of the police, is
admissible.
7. Because of the inherent danger of using information from
broadcast media, extreme caution must be taken in further
admitting similar evidence or confession. There is presumption of
voluntariness in confessions which media describes as freely
given. They must be strictly scrutinized.
RIGHT TO BAIL
Meaning of Right
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 13, Article III provides that “all
persons, except those charged with offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall
not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas (c) Penalty for offense charged;
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.”
(d) Character and reputation of accused;
2. Meaning of Bail. Bail refers to the security given for the
temporary release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by (e) Age and health of the accused;
him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any
(f) Weight of evidence against him;
court as may be required. For instance, a person arrested and
detained for the offense of homicide may post a bond for his (g) Probability of his appearance at trial;
temporary release on the condition that he will appear in the
court during the trial or when the court so requires. (h) Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
3. Purpose of Bail. Probational release through bail is corollary to (i) The fact that he is a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
the right to be presumed innocent and a means of immediately
obtaining liberty.[70] During the duration of release, the accused (j) Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
is given the chance to prepare his defense,[71] and thus level the
When Right May be Invoked
playing field for the parties. Worth emphasizing is the reason why
1. General Rule. The right to bail may be invoked from the moment
those charge with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua and
of detention or arrest. Even if no formal charges have been filed
against whom evidence of guilt is strong, are not allowed to bail.
yet, for as long as there is already an arrest, the right may already
Under such circumstances, there is improbability of appearance,
be availed of.
and bail merely becomes an instrument of evading the law.
2. Bail as a Matter of Right. Bail may be invoked as a matter of right
Standards for Fixing Amount of Bail
if the charge is not punishable by reclusion perpetua and there is no
1. The law does not prescribe for a fix amount of bail. What it
final judgment of conviction yet. Technically, the instances when
requires is that the amount should be reasonable and not
bail is a matter of right are: (a) Before or after conviction by the
excessive otherwise the right is rendered useless. Under the Rules
MTC; and (b) Before conviction of the RTC of an offense not
of Court, the amount is reasonable if the judge bases it primarily,
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
but not exclusively, on the following guidelines:[72]
3. Bail as a Matter of Discretion. Bail may be invoked as a matter of
(a) Financial ability of the accused; discretion on the part of the court in the following instances:
(a) After conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
(b) Nature and circumstances of offense; death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;
(b) Pending appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman; and
(c) After conviction, pending appeal when the court imposed a
penalty of imprisonment for more than six years but not more
than twenty years, and it is not shown that the accused repeated a
crime, an escapee, committed an offense while under the custody
of the probational release, or had the tendency of flight or to
commit another offense.
3. Right not Suspended. The present constitutional provision clearly
provides that the right to bail is not suspended when the
President suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
While bail and habeas corpus are remedies intended for the
immediate release of a detainee, there are fundamental
differences between them so that the suspension of one does not
mean the suspension of the other. Firstly, in bail, there is an
implicit recognition of the validity of detention or arrest, while in
habeas corpus, there is an assumption that the detention or arrest
is illegal. And secondly, the prayer in bail is for the temporary
release of the detainee, whereas in habeas corpus, the prayer is for
permanent release.
When the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended, the remedy of
immediate release cannot be availed of (although filing is still
allowed). Under the current rules, if the detainee files a bail for
his temporary release, then it moots the purpose of habeas
corpus, because it destroys the assumption of illegality of the
arrest or detention.
4. The law still allows those who jumped bail to exercise the right
before conviction for as long as bail is still a matter of right. What
the court must do in such cases is to increase the amount of bail.
5. Bail is now available in extradition[73] cases, consistent with the
developments in international law which now treats an individual
as a subject or party.[74]
When Right May not be Invoked
1. It could be inferred from the present provision that the right to
bail may not be invoked if the offense for which the person is
detained is punishable by reclusion perpetua and the evidence of
guilt is strong.
2. Important also to note is that the military may not invoke the
right to bail.[75]Among other reasons, allowing military members
to bail would pose a great danger to national security. They are
allowed to use firearms and they are paid using government
money. Their sheer number and unique structure, as well as the
military mentality that they carry, may very well result to the
overthrow of the government if continuous allowance of the right
to bail is given them most especially when there are coup
attempts. Allowing them to bail could mean resumption of
widespread commission of heinous activities.
Mandatory Hearing
When the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua,
before rendering a judgment, due process demands that the court
must conduct a mandatory hearing to determine if evidence of
guilt is strong. This is one of the instances when bail is a matter of
discretion. But if the prosecutor simply manifested that he leaves
it to the sound discretion of the judge to grant bail and the judge
grants the same without hearing, then the judge commits an error
because he cannot repose solely on the prosecutor his decision.
Even if there is no objection, there must be a hearing.[76]
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Criminal Cases
1. Section 14, Article III deals with the rights of the accused. It
contemplates a scenario where a case has already been filed against
a person, in contrast to custodial investigations where a case may
not have been filed yet. The case filed is a criminal case, in which
the parties are the “People of the Philippines” and the “accused.”
The People of the Philippines is the complainant, while
the accused is the person formally charged of a crime or offense
punishable by law.
2. A case is said to be criminal when it involves the prosecution of
a crime by the State and the imposition of liability on erring
individuals. It highlights the relation of the individual and the
state, with the state having the right to inflict punishment to an
offender once his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The real offended party or victim in a criminal case is the State
or the People of the Philippines, and not the private complainant.
This is because what has generally been violated is the law of the
Philippines which provides protection to the people and
guarantees peace and order in the land. Violation of the law poses
danger not just to a private person, but to the people as a whole,
and is a threat to the sovereignty of the State.
4. The accused, who is the person charged in a criminal case, is
pitted against the State. With all its machineries, manpower, and
almost unlimited sources of money, the State is placed in an
advantaged position. To level therefore the playing field, the
Constitution provides for numerous rights of the accused and of
persons under investigation. Justice demands that they should be
given a fighting chance against the most power institution, which
is the State.
Criminal Due Process
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(1), Article III provides that
“no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.”
2. The provision refers to due process in criminal cases. As to its
procedural aspect, criminal due process requires that: (a) The
accused is brought into a court of competent jurisdiction; (b) He
is notified of the case; (c) He is given the opportunity to be heard;
and (d) There is a valid judgment deliberated and rendered by the
court.[77] As to its substantive aspect, the criminal cases must be
based on a penal law.
3. The right to appeal is not a constitutional right. It is a statutory
right granted by the legislature. But when it is expressly granted
by law, then it comes within the scope of due process.
4. Criminal due process requires impartiality or objectivity on the
part of the court. Although a separate right to impartial trial is
granted in Section 14, paragraph 2 of the Bill of Rights, it refers
only to the right of the accused during trial. Impartiality in
criminal due process (Section 14, paragraph 1) is broader since it
extends to preliminary investigations conducted before the filing
criminal cases in court. One of the instances wherein impartiality
is compromised is the so-called trial by publicity. When
preliminary investigations are held for purposes of determining
whether an information or a case should be filed against the
respondent, the investigating prosecutor should not be swayed by
the circumstances of pervasive and prejudicial publicity. It was
held that prejudicial publicity may be invoked as denial of due
process if it prevents the “observance of those decencies” or
requirements of procedural due process.[78]
5. A military court has its own unique set of procedures consistent
with the nature and purpose of the military. Because of its distinct
features, a military court cannot try and exercise jurisdiction,
even during martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly
committed by them as long as civilian courts are still open and
functioning.[79] Due process therefore demands that civilians can
only be tried for an offense in civilian courts and not in military
courts, unless no civilian court is available.
Rights of the Accused during Trial
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 14(2), Article III enumerates
rights of the accused in all criminal prosecutions, to wit:
(a) Right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved;
(b) Right to be heard by himself and counsel;
(c) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him;
(d) Right to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial;
(e) Right to meet the witnesses face to face; and
(f) Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
2. Criminal Prosecution. These are rights of the accused “in
criminal prosecutions.” Under the Rules, criminal proceedings
start from arraignment up to the rendition of final judgment by
the court. Arraignment refers to that stage of the criminal
proceeding when the information is read to the accused to which
he pleads guilty or not guilty. The proceeding continues until a
final judgment is entered by the court. The judgment is final when
there is nothing for the court to do but to execute it. Thus, during
this duration the accused can invoke the said rights under the
proper circumstances.
Right to be Presumed Innocent
1. Meaning. The right refers to the constitutional guarantee that
the accused should be treated as if innocent until he is proven
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Presumption of Innocence and Criminal Due Process. Basically, the
rights in Section 14(2) are elaborations of criminal due process.
The right to presumption of innocence, for instance, is based on
the fundamental procedural rule that the court must hear first
before it condemns. If what the court presumes is the guilt of the
accused, then procedural due process is violated. In fact, the
accused is already in a disadvantaged position since he is pitted
against the State. Presumption of guilt renders the rights of the
accused nugatory. To protect therefore individual rights, in
particular one’s liberty, it should be the State that proves the guilt
of accused, and not that the accused proves his innocence. It is
the prosecution (State) who has the burden of overcoming the
presumption of innocence. It should rely on its own merits and
not on the weakness of the defense.
2. When Presumption is Overcome. The presumption of innocence is
overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Under the rules of
evidence, proof beyond reasonable doubt is the highest quantum
of evidence. Such proof requires that the court is morally certain
that the accused is guilty of the crime, so that if there is
reasonable doubt that lurks in the mind of the judge, the accused
must be acquitted. When the defense creates reasonable doubt,
the presumption of innocence remains. It must be noted that the
certainty required by law is not absolute certainty but moral
certainty as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute
the offense.[80]
3. Why Right is Granted. The philosophy behind the very high
quantum of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused is
expressed by the court as follows: “It is better to acquit a person
upon the ground of reasonable doubt even though he may in
reality be guilty, than to inflict imprisonment on one who may be
innocent.”[81]
4. Presumption of Guilt. The law and rules, however, allow that
presumption of innocence may be overcome by another
presumption through prima facie evidence. Prima facie evidence
means an evidence deemed sufficient unless contradicted. The is
based on logic and human experience. When the prosecution, for
instance, establishes that the stolen object is in the possession of
the accused, it creates a prima facieevidence that the accused
committed the crime of theft. The presumption of innocence is
overturned, and the evidence creates a prima facie proof of the
guilt of the accused. This does not, however, mean that the
presumption of innocence is finally overcome. The burden of
proof simply shifts from the prosecution to the defense (side of
the accused) who will in turn present contradictory evidence to
overcome the prima facie proof.
Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
1. Right to be Heard. The right to be heard is the heart of criminal
due process. Basically, it refers to all the mechanisms afforded to
the accused during the criminal proceedings. It is a safeguard
against prejudicial and partial judgments by the courts, as well as
a guarantee that the accused be given an opportunity to
participate during trial in defense of himself.
2. Related Rights. Participation of the accused in the right to be
heard includes three specific rights: (a) the right to present
evidence and to be present at the trial; (b) the right to be assisted
by counsel; and (c) the right to compulsory process to compel the
attendance of witnesses in his behalf.[82]
3. Ratio of Right to Counsel. The right of the accused to counsel is
based on the reason that only a lawyer has a substantial
knowledge of the rules of evidence, and a non-lawyer, in spite of
his education in life, may not be aware of the intricacies of law
and procedure. Depriving a person of such right constitutes
violation of due process.
4. Related Right. Included in the right to counsel is the duty of the
court to inform the accused of his right to counsel before arraignment
and to give a counsel in case the accused cannot afford the services of
one. The counsel representing the accused must be independent
and competent. A counsel who has a divided interest between the
prosecution (State) and the defense (accused) is disqualified on
the ground of lack of independence and conflict of interest.
Right to be Informed of Nature and Cause of Accusation
1. Right to be informed is again an essential aspect of procedural
due process. The constitutional mandate is complied with by
the arraignment of the accused in which he is informed by the
court of the offense charged to which the accused either pleads
guilty of not guilty.
2. Well-settled is the rule that the allegations in the
complaint and not the title of the case that determines the nature of
the offense.
Right to Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
1. Right to speedy trial is based on the maxim that “justice
delayed is justice denied.” Unreasonable delays may result to a
prolonged suffering of an innocent accused or an evasion of
justice by a truly guilty person. It offends not just the accused but
also the State, inasmuch as what is at stake is the speedy,
inexpensive, and orderly administration of justice. Undue
postponements not only depletes the funds of the defense but also
of prosecution. Thus, if the prosecution unreasonably delays the
criminal proceedings because of too many postponements and
unjustifiable absences, the accused may be acquitted on the
ground of violation of right to speedy trial. This does not,
however, mean that the court cannot grant reasonable
postponements. What is prohibited is oppressive and vexatious
postponements.
2. Right to impartial trial primarily requires that the judge who sits
in the case must be objective and renders a decision based on the
cold neutrality of the evidence presented. For instance, a judge
who is hostile to the accused based on his comments and
utterances, or who is substantially swayed by the prejudicial
publicity of the case, is a partial judge and must be inhibited from
the case.
3. Right to public trial demands that the proceedings be conducted
in such a way that the public may know what transpires during
the trial. It is not necessary that the entire public can witness the
proceedings; it is enough that the relatives and friends of the
interested parties are accommodated in the trial venue. In fact,
the court is allowed under the rules to order the public to leave
the premises of the court room in interest of morality and order.
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face-to-Face
The right to confrontation enables the accused to test the
credibility of the witnesses. The right is reinforced under the rules
of criminal procedure by the so-called cross-examination. Cross-
examination is conducted after the presentation and direct
examination of witnesses by the opposing side. Both parties are
allowed to test the veracity of the testimonies presented by the
other.
Right to Compulsory Process
1. Reason for the Right. The form of criminal proceeding is
adversarial because two opposing parties battle out against each
other and only one of them could emerge as victor. It is often the
case that the party with the weightier evidence wins. In criminal
proceedings, the accused needs only to create reasonable doubt
on the mind of the court to be acquitted. Nevertheless, evidence is
difficult to find because of people’s anxiety in testifying in court as
well as their dislike for burdensome court processes. In
recognition therefore of this fact, the law and the rules give the
accused the right to avail of compulsory means for attendance of
witnesses and production of needed document or things.
2. Kinds of Compulsory Processes. When the person sought to
testify is uncooperative or just afraid of court-related actions, the
remedy of subpoena ad testificandum may be availed to compel the
person to testify. When relevant documents are needed but the
holder thereof refuses to produce them, the remedy of subpoena
duces tecum may be availed of to compel the production of the
same.[83] These remedies are also available to the prosecution.
Right to be Present
1. Meaning and Purpose of the Right. As a rule, the accused has the
right to be present at all stages of trial, from arraignment to
rendition of judgment, in order that he may be informed of what
transpires in every stage of the proceedings, to guard himself
from technical blunders, and ultimately, to fully defend himself
from the accusation against him. Thus, it is again an incident of
criminal due process.
2. Waiver of Right. Right to be present, inasmuch as it is a right,
may be waived by the accused. For as long as it does not prejudice
others, rights may be waived by its possessor. An example of a
valid waiver of the right to be present is the so-called trial in
absentia. Even in the absence of the accused, trial may still
proceed (trial in absentia) if after his arraignment and notification
of the date of the hearing, he still unjustifiably failed to appear.
The effect of the waiver is that the accused will no longer have the
right to present evidence and confront the witnesses.
3. When Right not Waivable. It must be noted that the presence of
the accused becomes a duty, and therefore not waivable, in the
following: (a) During arraignment and plea;[84] (b) When he is to
be identified;[85] (c) During the promulgation of judgment,
except when it is for a light offense.[86] In all these instances, the
accused must appear because his non-appearance may either
prejudice his rights or that of the State.
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 15, Article III states that “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.” This is a reiteration of Section 18, Article VII. What is
constitutionally guaranteed is the right of a person detained by
another to test or challenge, through habeas corpus, the validity
of his detention when the authority of the detaining person or
agency is at issue.
2. The writ of habeas corpus is a written order issued by the court
directed to a person detaining another commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place,
with the day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, to
submit to, and to receive whatever court or judge awarding the
writ shall consider in his behalf. When a person is illegally
confined or detained, or when his liberty is illegally restrained, he
has the constitutional right to file a petition of habeas corpus.
Should the court find out that the person is illegally confined or
detained, he shall be immediately released from detention.
3. When Privilege Suspended. The privilege of habeas corpus is
suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion. This is in order to
meet the exigencies in such cases.
4. Writ of Amparo. Aside from the writ of habeas corpus, the writ of
amparo is another available remedy to any person whose right to
life, liberty, and security has been violated or threatened to be
violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. This remedy is
especially available in cases of enforced disappearances and
extrajudicial killings.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Section 16, Article III states that “all persons shall have the right
to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.” Unlike the right to speedy trial
which applies only in criminal proceedings, the right to speedy
disposition of cases may be invoked in all cases, whether judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative. Thus, right to speedy disposition
of cases is broader than right to speedy trial.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Meaning of Right against Self-Incrimination
Section 17, Article III provides that “no person shall be compelled
to be a witness against himself.” This constitutional guarantee is
better known as right against self-incrimination. The right allows
a person not to answer an incriminating question. An
incriminating question is one that if answered renders a person
liable for an offense. However, it is only when the incriminating
question is put to a witness stand that the right may be invoked.
When Right Available
1. The right is available in all government proceedings, whether
criminal or civil, and whether judicial or quasi-judicial or
administrative. It is even available in legislative investigations
and impeachment proceedings. In addition, the right may be
invoked by all persons subject to judicial examination and
legislative investigation. Thus it may be invoked not just by the
accused in criminal cases, but also defendants in civil cases, and
witnesses in all kinds of proceedings.
2. The right, nonetheless, is not self-executing. It is not
automatically operational once an incriminating question is
asked. It must be properly invoked by objecting to an
incriminating question. For example, when a witness is subjected
to direct examination by the opposing party, and the opposing
counsel asked “was there an instance that you cheated on your
wife?,” the right may be invoked by a timely objection to the
incriminating question. If no objection is raised, then the answer
may be used as evidence against the witness for the proper
criminal charge.
3. Although all persons subject to judicial, quasi-judicial,
administrative, and legislative investigations can invoke the right
under proper circumstances, special utilization of the right is given to
the accused. A witness can invoke the right only when the question
tends to be self-incriminating, but an accused can invoke the
same in two ways. First is by refusing to testify altogether during
trial. And the second is, when he chooses to testify, by refusing to
answer questions that tend to incriminate him for another
offense.
4. In criminal proceedings what is prohibited is physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the accused. Subjecting
the body of the accused when material to solve the case is allowed
and not violative of the right. In one case, the Court held that
writing is not a pure mechanical act but requires the use of the
intellect. Thus, an accused cannot be compelled to write or sign
and use the same as evidence against him.
5. State witnesses cannot avail of the right because the very purpose
of their being state witnesses is to give them immunity or
protection to testify. Their testimonies are so crucial to the
resolution of a criminal case so that in attainment thereof
immunity is given to them by the State. This means that they will
no longer be prosecuted for the crime for which they are
testifying. Since they have to unravel everything, even their guilt,
in exchange of immunity, the right against self-incrimination
could no longer be invoked.
Basis of the Right
1. The philosophy behind the constitutional guarantee is similar
to the other rights of the accused. From the very start, the accused
is already in an adverse position pitted against the entire
machinery of the State. If evidence will still be taken from the lips
of the accused, it would even tilt the scales heavily in favor of the
State.
2. The right is founded on public policy and humanity.[87] Public
policy demands that a person be spared from answering
incriminating questions because requiring him would likely lead
to the crime of perjury, which is basically lying to the court after
having promised to tell the truth and nothing but the whole truth.
Humanity prevents extorting confession by duress.
RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 18, Article III provides that no
person should be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs
and aspirations, nor should involuntary servitude in any form
exist, except as a punishment for a crime. The first part of the
provision deals with the right not to be detained by reason solely
of political beliefs and aspirations. This is essentially embodied in
the freedom of expression but with emphasis on the prohibition
against incarceration of “political prisoners.” The second part
deals with the right against involuntary servitude. Involuntary
servitude refers to the compulsory service of another or simply
modern day slavery. The right is based on the egalitarian principle
of democracy which prescribes equality of everyone in law, and on
humanity which prevents degradation of human dignity through
enforced labor.
2. Slavery is an ancient practice of treating man as a commodity
under the complete power of the master. This has never been
practiced in the Philippines, but has its remnants in modern
forms of enforced labor and peonage. Enforced labor happens
when a person is unlawfully compelled to work against his will; it
is involuntary and to a certain extent resembles slavery. When a
person, because of poverty or lack of money, works for another in
payment of his debt, the same is prohibited by the present
guarantee even if the service is rendered voluntarily. This
voluntary service in payment of debt is called peonage. While it
appears voluntary, peonage is prohibited because the person is
forced to work by the circumstances of his indebtedness, although
not by his creditor.
2. Exceptions. Involuntary servitude may be allowed under the
following instances: (a) as punishment for crime; (b) in the case
of personal, military or civil service in defense of the State; and (c)
in compliance to a return to work order issued by the Department
of Labor and Employment.
RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL
PUNISHMENTS
Meaning of Excessive Fine and Cruelty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(1), Article III states that
“excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted…”
2. A fine is excessive when it is unreasonable and beyond the limits
prescribed by law. The amount of the fine is said to be
unreasonable if the court does not take into consideration certain
standards, such as the nature of the offense, and the
circumstances of the person punished by fine. The imposed fine
may never go beyond the statutory prescription, otherwise it is
unlawfully excessive.
3. A punishment is cruel when it is shocking to the conscience of
mankind and it involves prolonged suffering and agony to the
person punished. For a penalty to violate the constitutional
guarantee, it must be so flagrant and oppressive so as to be
degrading to human dignity, and it must be unreasonably
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the
senses of the community.[88] The mere severity of a penalty does
not make the punishment cruel or inhumane, for as long as it is
within the limits provided by law. As one maxim states, “even if
the law is harsh, it is still the law (dura lex sed lex).” A penalty that
is germane to purpose of the penal law is not cruel and inhumane.
4. Lastly, a penalty must be acceptable to the contemporary society.
Ancient forms of punishment, such as pillory, disembowelment,
and crucifixion, which are already considered barbarous
practices, are cruel and inhumane. If a person, for instance, is
paraded around town naked with a tag on his neck saying “I am a
thief; do not imitate me,” the form of punishment is cruel and
inhuman; it is barbarous and so ancient that it is no longer
acceptable to the present-day society.
Death Penalty
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2) also states that “… neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it.
Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.” The present provision abolishes death penalty, although
with a reservation that the Congress can subsequently pass a law
imposing it for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
2. Death Penalty not Cruel. The constitutional provision on death
penalty or capital punishment does not explicitly mention that it
is cruel and inhumane. In fact, the Constitution allows the
Congress to impose death penalty for the right reasons. It could
even be argued that extinguishment of human life is not cruel and
inhumane for the following reasons:
(a) It is proportionate to the nature of the offense. Death penalty may
only be imposed by Congress in the commission of heinous crimes
and for compelling reasons. Heinous crimes are crimes which are
so flagrant and evil so as to be shocking to the conscience of
civilized persons, such as genocide, rape with homicide, murder,
rebellion, and treason, especially when committed against the
innocent and helpless. With compelling reasons, Congress may
impose death penalty since it is proportionate to the atrocities
committed;
(b) This form of penalty still has currency in the contemporary time.
Death by lethal injection is prevalently practiced by many
countries for the punishment of heinous offenses; and
(c) Death by lethal injection is not cruel and inhumane because it
does not prolong suffering or inflict excruciating agony to the person
punished. In truth, it only induces the person to sleep through a
lethal substance injected in the bloodstream which thereafter
painlessly put the person to death.
Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or Imprisoned
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2), Article III provides that
“the employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.”
2. Purpose of the Right. This constitutional guarantee recognizes
the inalienability of human dignity. Even when a person is
imprisoned or detained, and even if he commits heinous crimes,
he is still a person entitled to proper treatment and protection.
Paraphrasing it, the Constitution provides that even if a person is
imprisoned or detained, he must be protected against physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment, and is entitled to the use
of standard or adequate penal facilities under humane conditions.
RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 20, Article III provides that “no
person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.”
2. A debt, as covered by the constitutional guarantee, refers to a
contractual obligation by a debtor to pay money to the creditor. If
by reason of poverty or lack of money a person cannot pay his
debt, he cannot be imprisoned by reason thereof. The creditor
only has himself to blame if he voluntarily agreed to lend money
to someone who apparently cannot pay or whom he thought could
pay but did not. Nevertheless, although the debtor cannot be
imprisoned, his property may be taken or attached by the court,
and then sold at public auction in payment of his debt to the
creditor.
3. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee. What is
punished in estafa is not the non-payment of debt but the deceit
accompanying the act of non-payment.
4. Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of imprisonment. A poll
tax is a tax of a fixed amount imposed on individuals residing
within a specified territory, whether citizens or not, without
regard to their property or the occupation in which they may be
engaged.[89] Community tax or residence tax is an example of
poll tax. As far as poll tax is concerned, non-payment is not
punished by the government in consideration of the plight of the
poor who cannot even afford to pay it. Poverty could never be a
reason for a person’s imprisonment. It must be emphasized,
however, that as regards other forms of taxes, non-payment may
be a cause of imprisonment. Failure to pay income taxes is
considered a crime (tax evasion), and punishable under the law by
imprisonment.
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Meaning of Double Jeopardy
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 21, Article III states that “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.” This is more famously
known as the right against double jeopardy.
2. Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at the risk of
conviction for the same act or offense. The right against double
jeopardy therefore means that a person can only be indicted or
charge once by a competent court for an offense. When a person,
for instance, has been charged of homicide and the court
acquitted him of the case, he can no longer be prosecuted for the
same offense or act. He can now invoke his right against double
jeopardy.
3. There are two types of double jeopardy. The first happens when a
person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same
offense, and the second happens when an act is punishable by a
law and an ordinance at the same time, in which case the
conviction or acquittal in either one of them constitute as bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
3. The requisites of double jeopardy are:[90]
(a) A valid complaint or information;
(b) Filed before a competent court;
(c) To which the defendant has pleaded; and
(d) The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the
case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express
consent.
When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed
1. Before double jeopardy could be claimed, there must be a first
jeopardy. The first jeopardy attaches only: (a) upon good
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment;
(d) when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without the consent of the
accused. A case is said to be terminated without the consent of the
accused when there is acquittal or a final decision convicting him.
2. To substantiate therefore the claim for double jeopardy, the
following must be proven:
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first jeopardy;
(b) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the
second offense includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit the
same or is a frustration thereof.
RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF
ATTAINDER
Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 22, Article III provides that “no
ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.”
2. An ex post facto law is one which:
(a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed;
(c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different testimony than the law required at the time
of the commission of the offense;
(e) Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
(f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection
to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.[91]
3. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. The constitutional prohibition
applies only in criminal cases.[92] One of the characteristics of
criminal law is prospectivity in which only crimes committed after
the enactment of a penal are punishable. It cannot retroact and
punish acts which were not yet criminalized before its passage.
The basic rule is that before an act may be considered an offense
or crime, it must first be defined as a crime and a penalty must be
imposed for it under a law passed by the legislative body. An act
therefore is not a crime if there is no law punishing it. In the same
vein, a person does not commit a crime, no matter how
apparently illegal it is, if there is no law defining and punishing it.
It is for this reason that an ex post facto law is not allowed
because it criminalizes what was not yet a crime during its
commission.
Meaning of Bill of Attainder
1. Definition. A bill of attainder is “a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without trial. Its essence is the substitution of a
legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.”[93]
2. Two Kinds of Bill of Attainder: (a) the bill of attainder proper which
involves the legislative imposition of death penalty, and (b) bill of
pains and penalties which involves imposition of a lesser penalty.
3. Reason for Prohibition. The prohibition against bill of attainder
is an implementation of the principle of separation of powers. The
legislature cannot bypass the judiciary by enacting a law that
punishes an act without need of judicial proceedings. The
legislative department should be confined to its law-making
function; it cannot encroach the authority of the courts by
prescribing a law that directly adjudges guilt without judicial
determination.
4. Example. In one case, the Court held that the Anti-Subversion
Law (R.A. 1700) is not a bill of attainder.[94] The law declared the
Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) a clear and present
danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in
such organization. It is not a bill of attainder because it does not
define a crime, but only lays a basis for the legislative
determination that membership in CPP and any other
organization having the same purposes is a crime. It does not
automatically secure judgment by mere membership. In
operation, the law does not render unnecessary judicial
proceedings. The guilt of the individual members of subversive
groups must still be judicially established.