BILL OF RIGHTS
Provincial Board
 It is a declaration and enumeration of a person's
fundamental civil and political rights. It also
imposes safeguards against violations by the
government, by individuals, or by groups of
individuals.
 ―The Bill of Rights governs the relationship
between the individual and the state. Its concern
is not the relation between individuals, between
a private individual and other individuals.
 What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some
forbidden zones in the private sphere
inaccessible to any power holder.‖ (Sponsorship
Speech of Commissioner Bernas, Record of the
Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July
17, 1986; Emphasis supplied) [People v. Marti
(1991)
 It is generally self-executing.
 Article III contains the chief protection for human
rights but the body of the Constitution
guarantees other rights as well.
DUE PROCESS
 Due process of law simply states that ―[i]t is part
of the sporting idea of fair play to hear "the other
side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is
made by those who sit in judgment.‖ [Ynot v.
IAC (1987)]
 It covers any governmental action which
constitutes a deprivation of some person's life,
liberty, or property.
 ―A law which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after
trial‖
[Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton
518]
Life includes the right of an individual to his body in its
completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends
to the use of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable.
[Justice Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, pp. 320-
321; See Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200]
Liberty ―includes the right to exist and the right to be free
from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude.xxx (It)
includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways xxx‖ [Rubi v.
of Mindoro (1919)]
Property is anything that can come under the right of
ownership and be the subject of contract. It represents
more than the things a person owns; it includes the right
to secure, use and dispose of them. [Torraco v.
Thompson, 263 US 197]
EQUAL PROTECTION
 Equal protection requires that all persons or
things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. Similar subjects, in other words,
should not be treated differently, so as to give
undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate
against others.
 The guarantee means that no person or class of
persons shall be denied the same protection of
laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other
classes in like circumstances. [City of Manila v.
Laguio (2005) citing Ichong v. Hernandez
(1957)]
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
 The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall
be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant
of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be
seized. [Art. III, Sec. 2
 It may be invoked only by the person entitled to
it. [Stonehill v. Diokno (1967)]
 It may be waived expressly or impliedly only by
the person whose right is invaded, not by one
who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver.
[People v. Damaso (1992)]
REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A VALID
SEARCH WARRANT
(1) Existence of probable cause
 Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of the warrant that in themselves are
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on
 them and act in pursuance thereof. [People v.
Syjuco (1937); Alvarez v. CFI (1937)]
 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 connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched.
[Burgos v. Chief of Staff (1984)]
(2) Determination of probable cause personally by the
judge.
(3) After personal examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce.
How it is done: In the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath [Rule 126, Sec. 6,
ROC]
(4) On the basis of their personal knowledge of the
facts they are testifying to.
(5) The warrant must describe particularly the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law
enforcers serving the warrant to —(1) readily identify the
properties to be seized and thus prevent them from
seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace
officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and
seizures. [People v. Tee (2003)]
GENERAL RULE FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCHES:
PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED
―The essential requisite of probable cause must still be
satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be
lawfully conducted.‖ In these cases, probable cause
(warrantless searches) must be ―based on reasonable
ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been
committed or is about to be committed.‖ [People v. Aruta
(1998)]
LAWFUL WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest
(2) Plain view doctrine
(3) Search of a moving vehicle
(4) Consented search
(5) Customs search
(6) Stop and frisk
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances
(8) Visual search at
SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST
Search incident to lawful arrest - A person lawfully
arrested
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of an
offense, without a search warrant. [Sec. 12, Rule 126,
Rules of Court]
Tests for validity
(1) Item to be searched was within the arrester’s
custody;
(2) Search was contemporaneous with the arrest
Under the Rules of Court, a person charged with an
offense may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may be used as proof of the commission
of the offense. As an incident of an arrest, the premises
where the arrest was made can also be searched
without search warrant. [Nolasco v. Cruz Paño (1985)]
SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES
Securing a search warrant is not practicable since the
vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought [Papa v.
Mago (1968)]
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: THINGS SEIZED ARE
WITHIN PLAIN VIEW OF A SEARCHING PARTY
Requisites:
(1) Prior valid intrusion into a place;
(2) Evidence:
(a) inadvertently discovered
(b) by police who had the right to be where they were;
(3) Evidence must be immediately apparent and
(4) Noticed without further search [People v. Musa;
People v. Sarap (2003)]
An object is in ―plain view‖ if the object itself is plainly
exposed to sight. Where the seized object is inside a
closed package, the object is not in plain view and,
therefore, cannot be seized without a warrant. However,
if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its
distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
contents are obvious to an observer, then the content
are in plain view, and may be seized. [Caballes v. Court
of Appeals (2002)]
STOP AND FRISK SEARCHES
There should be a genuine reason to ―stop-and-frisk in
the light of the police officer’s experience and
surrounding conditions to warrant a belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed. [Malacat v.
CA (1997), citing Terry v. Ohio]

Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on street and
pat him for a weapon in the interest of protecting himself
from the person with whom he was dealing was not
armed.
Scope: Outer clothing for concealed weapon, etc
When accused checked in his luggage as passenger of
a plane, he agreed to the inspection of his luggage in
accordance with customs laws and regulations, and thus
waived any objection to a warrantless search [People v.
Gatward (1997)].
CUSTOMS SEARCH
Searches of vessel and aircraft for violation of
immigration and smuggling laws [Papa v. Mago (1968)].
EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
The raid and seizure of firearms and ammunition at the
height of the 1989 coup-de-etat, was held valid,
considering the exigent and emergency situation. The
military operatives had reasonable ground to believe that
a crime was being committed, and they had no
opportunity to apply for a search warrant from the courts
because the latter were closed. Under such urgency and
exigency, a search warrant could be validly dispersed
with [People v. de Gracia (1994)].
VISUAL SEARCH AT CHECKPOINTS
―Stop and search‖ without a warrant at military or police
checkpoints, which has been declared not to be illegal
per se so long as it is required by exigencies of public
order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists
[Valmonte v. de Villa (1989)].
For a mere routine inspection, the search is normally
permissible when it is limited to a mere visual search,
where the occupants are not subjected to physical or
body search. On the other hand, when the vehicle is
stopped and subjected to an extensive search, it would
be constitutionally permissible only If the officers
conducting the search had reasonable or probable
cause to believe,before the search, that either the
motorist is a law offender or they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the
vehicle to be searched[Caballes v. Court of
Appeals (2002); People v. Libnao (2003)].
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE
General Rule: Only the articles particularly
described in the warrant may be seized.
(1) Property subject of an offense
(2) Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or
fruits of an offense
(3) Used or intended to be used as a means of
committing
an offense [Sec. 2 Rule 126, ROC]
REQUISITES FOR ISSUANCE OF A VALID ARREST
WARRANT
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
himself of the existence of probable cause.
In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is
notrequired to personally examine the complainant and
his witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:
(1)Personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the
existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest; or
(2)If he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
[Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)]
Existence of Probable Cause: Such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested. [Webb v. De Leon (1995)]
Determination of probable cause personally by the judge
as to warrant of arrest:
(1) On the basis of the witnesses’ personal knowledge of
the facts they are testifying to.
(2) The arrest warrant must describe particularly the
person to be seized.
(a) By stating the name of the person to be arrested.
(b) If not known, then a ―John Doe warrant‖ may be
issued, with some descriptio persona that will enable the
officer to identify the accused.
REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST
(1) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense; (in flagrante delicto)
Hot Pursuit: The arrest of the accused inside his house
following hot pursuit of the person who committed the
offense in flagrante was held valid. [People v. De Lara
(1994)]
Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrante
arrest. The subsequent search of the person arrested
and the premises within his immediate control is valid as
an incident to a lawful arrest. [People v. Hindoy (2001)]
Exception to buy-bust: Instead of arresting the suspect
after the sale in a buy-bust op, the officer returned to the
police headquarters and filed his report. It was only in
the evening that he, without warrant, arrested the
suspect at his house where dried marijuana leaves were
found and seized. This is unlawful arrest. [People v.
Rodrigueza (1992)]
(2) When an offense has just been committed and he
has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it;
(3) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place where
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another
Privacy of Communications and Correspondence
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. [Art. III, Sec. 3]
INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED
(1) By lawful order of the court
(2) When public safety or public order requires
otherwise,
as may be provided by law.
FORMS OF CORRESPONDENCE COVERED
(1) letters
(2) messages
(3) telephone calls
(4) telegrams, and the like [Bernas]
TESTS OF REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF
PRIVACY:
(1) Whether by his conduct, an individual has exhibited
an expectation of privacy;
(2) Whether such expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable. [Ople v. Torres (1998)]
Freedom of Expression
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. [Art. III, Sec. 4]
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations. [Art. III, Sec. 18(1)]
Speech, expression, and press include:
(1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not)
(2) Symbolic speech (e.g. wearing armbands as symbol
of protest)
(3) Movies
Freedom of Assembly
The right to freedom of speech and to peaceably
assemble, and petition the government for redress of
grievances are fundamental personal rights of the
people guaranteed by the constitutions of democratic
countries. City or town mayors are not conferred the
power to refuse to grant the permit, but only the
discretion in issuing the permit to determine or specify
the streets or public placeswhere the parade may pass
or the meeting may be held. [Primicias v. Fugoso (1948)]
Absent any clear and present danger of a substantive
evil, peaceable assembly in public places like streets or
parks cannot be denied. [J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing
(1983)]
Freedom Parks
B.P. 880 provides that every city and municipality must
set aside a freedom park within six months from the
law’s effectivity in 1985. Section 15 of the law provides
for an alternative forum through the creation of freedom
parks where no prior permit is needed for peaceful
assembly and petition at any time. Without such
alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to
deny the right to peaceably assemble.
Permit Application
There is a need to address the situation adverted to by
petitioners where mayors do not act on applications for a
permit and when the police demand a permit and the
rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately
dispersed. In such a situation, as a necessary
consequence and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists
who can show the police an application duly filed on a
given date can, after two (2) days from said date, rally in
accordance with their application without the need to
show a permit, the grant of the permit being then
presumed under the law, and it will be the burden of the
authorities to show that there has been a denial of the
application, in which case the rally may be peacefully
dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance
prescribed by the law. [Bayan v. Ermita (2006)]
Freedom of Association and Self-Organization
The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees. [Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(5)]
The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations,
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. [Art. III, Sec. 8]
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike
in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security
of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage.
They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law. [Art. XIII, Sec. 3(2), par. 2]
Freedom of Religion
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights. [Art. III, Sec. 5]
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
The clause prohibits excessive government
entanglement with, endorsement or disapproval of
religion [Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union
(1974); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668 (1984) O'Connor,
J., concurring); Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburg
ACLU (1989)]
Rooted in the separation of Church and State [Sec. 2(5),
Art. IX-C; Sec. 5(2), Sec. 29(2) Art. VI, 1987 Consti]
ACTS NOT PERMITTED BY NON-ESTABLISHMENT
CLAUSE
(1) Prayer and Bible-reading in public schools [Engel v.
Vitale (1967); Abington School District v. Schemp
(1963)]
(2) Financial subsidy for parochial schools[Lemon vs.
Kurtzman (1971)]
(3) Religious displays in public spaces: Display of granite
monument of 10 commandments in front of a
courthouse is unconstitutional for being unmistakably
non-secular. [Glassroth vs. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th
Cir. 2003)]
(4) Mandatory religious subjects or prohibition of secular
subjects (evolution) in schools [Epperson vs. Arkansas
(1968)]
(5) Mandatory bible reading in school (a form of
preference
for belief over non-belief) [School District vs. Schempp
(1963)]
(6) Word ―God‖ in the Pledge of Allegiance: religious vs
atheist students [Newdow vs. US (2003)]
ACTS PERMITTED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT
CLAUSE
(1) Tax exemption
Charitable institutions, churches and personages or
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements,
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious,
charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from
taxation. [Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)]
(2) Operation of sectarian schools
Educational institutions, other than those established by
religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned
solely by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or
associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of
which is owned by such citizens… [Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2)]
(3) Religious instruction in public schools
At the option expressed in writing by the parents or
guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their
children or wards in public elementary and high schools
within the regular class hours by instructors designated
or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to
which the children or wards belong, without additional
cost to the Government. [Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3)]
(4) Public aid to religion
No public money or property shall be appropriated,
applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the
use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion,
or of any priest, preacher, minister, other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed
forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.[Art. VI, Sec. 29(2)]
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
LAWS AND ACTS JUSTIFIED UNDER FREE
EXERCISE CLAUSE
(1) Exemption from flag salute in school [Ebralinag vs.
Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu (1993)]
(2) Freedom to propagate religious doctrines
The power to tax the exercise of the privilege is the
power to control or suppress its enjoyment [American
Bible Society vs. City of Manila (1957)]
(3) Exemption from union shop Congress acted merely
to relieve persons of the burden imposed by union
security agreements.
(4) Non-disqualification of religious leaders from local
government office [Pamil v. Teleron (1978)](5) Working
hours from 7:30am to 3:30pm without break
during Ramadan [Re: Request of Muslim Employees in
the Different Courts of Iligan City (2005)]
(6) Exemption from administrative charge on immorality
Cohabiting with a married man with church sanction
evidenced by a document of ―Declaration of Pledging
Faithfulness‖ [Estrada v. Escritor (2003)]
Liberty of Abode and Freedom of Movement
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to
travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety or public health, as may be
provided by law. [Art. III, Sec. 6]
"Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it
is "Liberty regulated by law."
WHO MAY IMPAIR AND WHEN RIGHTS MAY BE
CURTAILED
Liberty of abode
Who: courts (lawful order)
When:within limits prescribed by law
The executive of a municipality does not have the right
to force citizens of the Philippine Islands to change their
domicile from one locality to another. [Villavicencio vs.
Lukban (1919)]
Right to travel
Who: courts (lawful order) or by the appropriate
executive officer.
When: in the interest of national security (Human
Security Act), public safety or public health (quarantine)
Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic people, is a
proper restraint to their liberty. It is for their advancement
in civilization and so that material prosperity may be
assured. [Rubi vs. Provincial Board (1919)]
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed
to avoid the possibility of losing jurisdiction if accused
travels abroad. [Manotok vs. CA (1986)]
RETURN TO ONE’S COUNTRY
Right to return to one's country, a distinct right under
international law, is independent from although related to
the right to travel.
The President has the power (residual/implied) to impair
the right to return when such return poses threats to the
government. [Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)]
Right to Information
Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the
State adopts and implements a policy of full public
disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
[Art. II, Sec. 28]
The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to
government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law. [Art. III, Sec.
7]
The State shall provide the policy environment for the full
development of Filipino capability and the emergence of
communication structures suitable to the needs and
aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of
information into, out of, and across the country, in
accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of
speech and of the press. [Art. XVI, Sec. 10]
SCOPE OF RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION
Essence: matters of public concern
(1) Official records
Includes the names of nominees of party-lists because
ultimately, the individual members and not the party
list itself will sit in Congress [Bantay Republic v.
COMELEC (2007)]
(2) Documents pertaining to official acts
Includes negotiations leading to the consummation of
the transaction. Otherwise, the people can never
exercise the right if no contract is consummated, or if
one is consummated, it may be too late for the public
to expose its defects. Limited to definite propositions,
see below. [Chavez v. PEA and Amari (2002)]
(3) Gov’t research data used as basis for policy
development
LIMITATIONS
Restrictions to the right to information may be:
(1) Based on kinds of information
Exempted information:
(a) Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
(b) Information of military and diplomatic secrets
(c) Information affecting national security
(d) Information on investigations of crimes by law
enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v. PEA and
Amari, supra]
(e) Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations
[Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
(2) Based on access:
(a) opportunity to inspect and copy records at his
expense. [Chavez v. PEA and Amari, supra]
(b) not the right to compel custodians of official records
to prepare lists, summaries and the like. [Valmonte
v. Belmonte (1989)]
(3) Based on reasonable regulation for the convenience
of and for order in the office that has custody of the
documents.[Baldoza v. Dimaano (1976)]
Discretion does not carry with it the authority to
prohibit access, inspection, examination, or
copying.[Lantaco v. Llamas (1981)]
(4) Based on Availability
Right available only to citizens
PUBLICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS
General: Full publication is a condition for law’s
effectivity.
Effectivity: Fifteen days after publication unless a
different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature
[Tañada v. Tuvera (1986)]
Right to Association
The right of the people, including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form unions, association,
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged. [Art. III., Sec. 8]
The right to self-organization shall not be denied to
government employees. [Art. IX—B, Sec. 2(5)]
xxx. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to
selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations,
and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to
strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law. [Art. XIII, Sec. 3]
Interpretation of ―for purposes not contrary to law‖: same
as clear and present danger rule, only such may justify
abridgement to the right to form association or society.
[Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]
Scope: The right is recognized as belonging to people
whether employed or unemployed, and whether
employed in the government or in the private sector.
Includes the right to unionize
The State does not infringe on the fundamental right to
form lawful associations when it leaves to citizens the
power and liberty to affiliate or not affiliate with labor
unions. [Victoriano v. Elizalde (1974)]
Every group has a right to join the democratic process,
association itself being an act of expression of the
member’s belief, even if the group offends the
sensibilities of the majority. Any restriction to such
requires a compelling state interest to be proven by the
State. [Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC (2010)]
The freedom of association presupposes a freedom not
to associate. An organization may remove a member if:
(1) It is engaged in some form of expression, whether
public or private
(2) The forced inclusion of a member would significantly
affect the organization’s ability to advocate public or
private viewpoints [Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
(2000)]
Note: Right to association and right to unionize of
government employees do not include the right to strike.
[SSS Employees Association v. CA (1989)]
Eminent Domain
It is the right of the government to take private property
with just compensation.
GENERALLY
(1) Taking of Private Property
(2) for Public Use,
(3) with Just Compensation, and
(4) Due Process.
SPECIFICALLY (LGUs, Sec. 19, Local Government
Code)
(1) Ordinance by a local legislature council is enacted
authorizing local chief executive to exercise eminent
domain,
(2) For public use, purpose or welfare or for the benefit
of
the poor and of the landless,
(3) Payment of just compensation,
(4) Valid and definite offer has been previously made to
owner of the property sought to be expropriated but
such offer was not accepted [Municipality of Parañaque
vs. VM Realty (1998)]
Contracts Clause
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed. [Art. III, Sec. 10]
APPLICATION OF THE CONTRACT CLAUSE
Impairment is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the
contract. [Clements v. Nolting (1922)]
Legal Assistance and Free Access to Courts
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty. [Art. III, Sec. 11]
Indigent party. — A party may be authorized to litigate
his action, claim or defense as an indigent if the court,
upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied
that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic
necessities for himself and his family.
Rights of Suspects
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families. [Art. III, Sec. 12]
In Miranda v. Arizona: The Federal Supreme Court
made it clear that what is prohibited is the
"incommunicado interrogation of individuals in a police
dominated atmosphere, resulting in self- incriminating
statements without full warnings of constitutional rights.‖
MIRANDA RIGHTS
The person under custodial investigation must be
warned that:
(1) He has a right to remain silent;
(2) That any statement he makes may be used as
evidence against him; and
(3) That he has a right to the presence of an
attorney,
either retained or appointed.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement
POLICE LINE-UPS
When petitioner was identified by the complainant at the
police line-up, he had not been held yet to answer for a
criminal offense. The police line-up is not a part of the
custodial inquest, hence, he was not yet entitled to
counsel.
Thus, it was held that when the process had not yet
shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as when
police investigation does not elicit a confession the
accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer.
[Escobedo v. Illinois of the United States Federal
Supreme Court (1964)]
However, given the clear constitutional intent in the 1987
Constitution, the moment there is a move or even an
urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or
confessions or even plain information which may appear
innocent or innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he
should then and there be assisted by counsel, unless he
waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing
and in the presence of counsel. [Gamboa vs. Cruz
(1988)]

REQUISITES
Essence: Effective communication by the investigator of
rights of accused [People v. Agustin (1995)]
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
The warning is needed simply to make the person under
custodial investigation aware of the existence of the
right; This warning is the threshold requirement for an
intelligent decision as to its exercise.
More importantly, such a warning is an absolute
prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the
interrogation atmosphere.
Further, the warning will show the individual that his
interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege
should he choose to exercise it.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION UNDER ART.
III, SEC. 12
The warning of the right to remain silent must be
accompanied by the explanation that anything said can
and will be used against the individual in court.
This warning is needed in order to make him aware not
only of the privilege to remain silent, but also of the
consequences of forgoing it.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Any person arrested detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel;
otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no
effect.
RIGHTS TO VISITATION AND CONFERENCE
Any person arrested or detained or under custodial
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences
with:
(1) any member of his immediate family, or
(2) any medical doctor;
(3) priest or religious ministerchosen by him; or
(4) by his counsel; or
(5) by any national non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or
(6) by any international non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Office of the President.
(7) The person's "immediate family" shall include his or
her spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or child, brother or
sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt,
nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
WAIVER
What can be waived
The right to remain silent and the right to counsel
What cannot be waived
The right to be given the MIRANDA warnings.
RULE ON WAIVER
(1) Must be in writing
(2) Made in the presence of counsel [Art. III, Sec. 12]
Rights of the Accused
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the attendance
of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided,
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear
is unjustifiable. [Art. III, Sec. 14]
Section 1. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the
following
rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel
at every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The accused may,
however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is
specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification.
The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at
the trial of which he had notice shall be considered a
waiver of his right to be present thereat.
When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be
deemed to have waived his right to be present on all
subsequent trial dates until custody over him is
regained. Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to
defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to
the court that he can properly protect his rights without
the assistance of counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject
to cross-examination on matters covered by direct
examination. His silence shall not in any manner
prejudice him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness
against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against
him at the trial. Either party may utilize as part of its
evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased,
out of or cannot with due diligence be found in the
Philippines, unavailable, or otherwise unable to testify,
given in another case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, involving the same parties and subject
matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to
cross-examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the
attendance of witnesses and production of other
evidence in his behalf.(h) To have speedy, impartial and
public trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner
prescribed by law. [Rule 115, Rights of the Accused,
Rules of Court]
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
Requisites
(1) Accused is heard by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(2) Accused is proceeded against under the orderly
process of law;
(3) Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard;
(4) Judgment rendered is within the authority of a
constitutional law. [Mejia vs. Pamaran (1988)]
BAIL
All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of
guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as
may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be
impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required. [Art. III, Sec. 13]
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as
may be required. [Rule 114, Sec. 1, ROC]
Basis of right: Presumption of innocence
WHO MAY AVAIL
General: All persons under custody of the law
Exceptions:
(1) Those charged with capital offense when evidence of
guilt is strong
(2) Military men [People v. Reyes (1992)]
WHEN AVAILABLE
General rule:From the very moment of arrest (which may
be before or after the filing of formal charges in court) up
to the time of conviction by final judgment (which means
after appeal).
No charge need be filed formally before one can file for
bail, so long as one is under arrest. [Heras Teehankee v.
Rovica (1945)]
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a
necessary corollary of the constitutional right to be
presumed innocent. [People vs. Dramavo (1971)]
The accused cannot present evidence before the
prosecution does so, even if the accused pleads guilty. It
violates the presumption of innocence. [Alejandro vs.
Pepito (1980)]
The presumption of regularity (in official duties) cannot
by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence of the
accused. But where it is not the sole basis for conviction,
the presumption of regularity of performance of official
functions may prevail over the constitutional presumption
of innocence. [People vs. Acuram (2000)]
Equipoise Rule
Where the evidence adduced by the parties is evenly
balanced, the constitutional presumption of innocence
should tilt the balance in favor of the accused. [Corpuz
vs. People (1991)]
In order that circumstantial evidence may warrant
conviction, the following requisites must concur:
(1) There is more than one circumstance
(2) The facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven
(3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [People
v. Bato (1998)]
RIGHT TO BE HEARD
Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel. [Art. III, Sec.
12]
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
Procedural due process requires that the accused must
be informed why he is being prosecuted and what
charge he must meet. [Vera vs. People, supra]
Note: Description, not designation of offense, is
controlling
RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. [Art. III, Sec. 16]
TRIALS IN ABSENTIA
WHEN CAN TRIAL IN ABSENTIA BE DONE
3 requisites:
(1) Accused failed to appear for trial despite
postponement
and notice
(2) Failure to appear is unjustified
(3) After arraignment
If not then the right of the accused to be informed of the
nature and cause of accusation against him will be
impaired for lack of arraignment [Borja vs. Mendoza
(1977)]
Writ of Habeas Corpus
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. [Art. III, Sec. 15]
The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all
armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion.
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
law.
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in
person or inwriting to the Congress.
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the President.
Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may,
in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four
hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.
The Supreme Court may: 1) review, 2) in an appropriate
proceeding; 3) filed by any citizen, 4) the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and 5) must promulgate its decision thereon
within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies
over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor
automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
[Art. VII, Sec. 18]
RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY
Not only physical restraint, any restraint on freedom of
action is sufficient i.e (1) curtailed freedom of movement
by the condition that he must get approval of
respondents for any travel outside Metro Manila, (2)
abridged liberty of abode because prior approval of
respondent is required in case petitioner wants to
change place of residence, (3) abridged freedom of
speech due to prohibition from taking any interviews
inimical to national security, and (4) petitioner is required
to report regularly to respondents or their reps.
[Moncupa v. Enrile (1986)
Conditions for valid suspension:
(1) Presence of invasion, insurrection or rebellion
(2) Public safety requires it [Lansang v. Garcia (1971)]
Self-Incrimination Clause
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. [Art. III, Sec. 17]
Only applies to compulsory testimonial, and doesn’t
apply to material objects [Villaflor vs. Summers (1920)]
It refers therefore to the use of the mental process and
the communicative faculties, and not to a merely
physical activity.
If the act is physical or mechanical, the accused can be
compelled to allow or perform the act, and the result can
be used in evidence against him.
EXAMPLES
(1) Handwriting in connection with a prosecution for
falsification is not allowed, [Beltran v. Samson (1929);
Bermudez vs. Castillo (1937)]
(2) Re-enactment of the crime by the accused is not
allowed
(3) The accused can be required to allow a sample of a
substance taken from his body [U.S. vs. Tan The
(1912)], or be ordered to expel the morphine from his
mouth [U.S. v. OngSio Hong (1917)]
(4) Accused may be made to take off her garments and
shoes and be photographed [People v. Otadura (1950)];
compelled to show her body for physical investigation
to see if she is pregnant by an adulterous relation
[Villaflor v. Summers (1920)]
(5) Order to give a footprint sample to see if it matches
the ones found in the scene of the crime is allowed
[People v. Salas and People v. Sara]
Involuntary Servitude and Political Prisoners
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted. [Art. III, Sec. 18]
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with their
corollary peonage, all denote ―a condition of enforced,
compulsory service of one to another.‖ [Hodges v. US
(1906) in Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]
Inhuman Punishments
(1)Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. 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.
(2) 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.
[Art. III, Sec. 19]
What is Prohibited: Cruel and unusual punishment.
Unusual punishment is not prohibited especially if it
makes the penalty less severe.
What is a cruel punishment?
(1) Involves torture or lingering death [Legarda v. Valdez
(1902)]
(2) Not only severe, harsh or excessive but flagrantly
and plainly oppressive
(3) Wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense
as to shock the moral sense of the community [People v.
Estoista (1953)]
Non-Imprisonment for Debts
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment
of a poll tax. [Art. III, Sec. 20]
SCOPE
(1) Debt – any civil obligation arising from a contract. It
includes even debts obtained through fraud since no
distinction is made in the Constitution. [Ganaway v.
Quillen (1922)]
(2) Poll Tax – a specific sum levied upon any person
belonging to a certain class without regard to property
or occupation (e.g. community tax).
A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from
law. Hence, its non-payment maybe validly punished
with imprisonment.
Double Jeopardy
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and
anordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
[Art. III, Sec. 21]
WHEN SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION IS BARRED
(1) Same offense
(2) Attempt of the same offense
(3) Frustration of the same offense
(4) Offense necessarily included in the 1st offense (All
the elements of the 2nd constitute some of the elements
of the 1st offense)
(5) Offense that necessarily includes the 1st offense (All
the elements of the 1st constitute some of the elements
of the 2nd offense)

Ex Post Facto and Bills Of Attainder

No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
[Art. III, Sec. 22]

EX POST FACTO LAWS

(1) Makes an action done before the passing of the law
and which was innocent when done criminal, and
punishes such action.
(2) Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it
was committed.
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it
was committed.
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of
the commission of the offense in order to convict the
defendant. [Mekin v. Wolfe (1903)]
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only
but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right
which when done was lawful.
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. [In re Kay Villegas Kami
(1970)] The prohibition applies only to criminal legislation
which affects the substantial rights of the accused. [Phil.
National Bank v. Ruperto (1960)]

It applies to criminal procedural law prejudicial to the

accused. [US v. Gomez (1908)]

It is improper to apply the prohibition to an executive

proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. [Montenegro v. Castañeda (1952)]

BILLS OF ATTAINDER
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without judicial trial.

It is a general safeguard against legislative exercise of

the judicial function, or trial by legislature. [US v. Brown
(1965)]