BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1:
registration of land under the Torrens System; zoning regulations; anti-graft
laws designed to curb activities of public officials
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BILL OF RIGHTS?
The significance of Bill of Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a
person’s life, liberty and property which governmental powers may not touch.
Fundamental powers of the State (police power, eminent domain, taxation)
1.
POLICE POWER is the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of
powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs. It is the power
vested in the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all
manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either
with penalties or without not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall
judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the
subject of the same.
SCOPE:
Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right
of the state and of the public to self-protection.
2.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN is the ultimate right of the sovereign
power to appropriate, not only the public but private property of all citizens
within the territorial sovereignty to public purpose.
3.
POWER OF TAXATION is the power to raise revenue for governmental
purposes.
TO WHAT AREAS OF LIEE POLICE POWER HAS PERVASIVE REACH?
Police power has been used to justify enactments in the fields of:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Public health measures like make house repairs; compulsory connection to
sewerage system; license to practice medicine; regulation of cattle imports;
sale of meat.
Public safety measures like building regulations; regulation of carrying
deadly weapons; participation in rotational patrol duty; regulation of
gasoline stations and movie theaters; use of city roads.
Public moral like regulating the operation of public dance halls;
prohibiting gambling; licensing of cock-pits; prohibiting the operation of
pinball machines; regulating the operation of motels and hotel; regulating
establishment of massage parlors.
General (public) welfare like regulating slaughter of carabaos; provisions
for the suppression of agricultural pests; regulating nuisances; rules for the
deportation of aliens; regulating building construction; prescribing
Requisites for valid exercise of Inherent Powers:
The yardsticks for the exercise of the inherent powers of the government are:
1. Due Process Clause
2. Equal Protection Clause
GIVE THE TWO ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS AND DISCUSS EACH.
The two aspects of due process are:
1) Substantive due process simply means that the law be reasonable and not
arbitrary.
2) Procedural due process meant a law that hears before it condemns; that
proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.
DO LIFE AND PROPERTY ENJOY IDENTICAL PROTECTION FROM THE
CONSTITUTION?
NO. The primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. Property rights
can be lost through prescription while human rights is imprescriptible.
DOES EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW PROHIBIT CLASSIFICATION?
NO, but the classification must be reasonable. To be reasonable, it; KEY: RGLA
1) Must rest on substantial distinction;
2) Must be germane to the purpose of law;
3) Must not be limited to existing conditions only;
4) Must apply equally to all members of the same class.
GIVE THE MEANING/RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS ACCORDING TO
THE CASE OF US v. LING SU FAN
In the case of U.S. v. Ling Su Fan due process simply means:
1)
That there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers
of the legislative department of the Government;
2)
That this law shall be reasonable in its operation;
3)
That it shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and
4)
It shall be applicable alike to all citizens of a state or to all of a class.
GIVE THE ESSENTIALS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING TO THE CASE OF BANCO ESPANOL v.
PALANCA
In the case of Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca, the essentials of procedural due
process in JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS are:
1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it;
2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the
person of the defendant or over the property
which is the subject of the proceedings;
3) The defendant must be given opportunity to be
heard; and
4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
5) The evidence must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
Constitutional and statutory due process
“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” (Section 1, Art. III).
GIVE
THE
CARDINAL
PRIMARY
REQUIREMENTS
OF DUE
PROCESS
IN
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Statutory due process: “Laws shall take effect after fifteen
(15) days following the completion of their publication
either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation, unless it is otherwise provided” (Art. 2 Civil
Code of the Philippines).
In the case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations,
the
“Cardinal
primary
requirements
in
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS were summarized
as follows:
1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one’s case and submit evidence thereof;
2) The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
3) The decision must have something to support
itself;
4) The evidence must be substantial (such
reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion).
5) The decision must be based on evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act
on its independent consideration of the law and
facts of the controversy, and not simpy accept the
views of a subordinate; and
7) The Board or body should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the
various issues involved, and the reason for the
decision rendered.
EXPLAIN VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
In People v. Nazario 186, 195-196 (1088) the Supreme
Court said:
“As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it
lacks comprehensible standards that men “of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ in its application.”
It is repugnant to the Constitution in two aspects:
1)
it violates due process for failure to accord
persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair
notice of the conduct to avoid; and
2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an
arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
Concept of Equal protection
In Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy), the Supreme Court
said: “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.”
GIVE THE MINIMUM STANDARS WHICH MUST
BE MET BY THE SCHOOLS TO SATISFY THE
DEMANDS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Standards of judicial review on equal protection:
1) Rational Basis Test
“A law that touches on a constitutionally
protected interest must be rationally related to
furthering a legitimate government interest. In
applying the rational basis test, courts begin with
a strong presumption that the law or policy under
review is valid.
2) Strict scrutiny test
To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must
satisfy three (3) tests:
1)
It must be justified by a compelling
governmental interest;
In Guzman v. National University, the Supreme Court
provided the guidelines for the handling of disciplinary
cases in schools:
1) The students must be informed in writing of the
nature and cause of an accusation against them;
2) They shall have the right to answer the charges
against them, with the assistance of counsel, if
desired;
3) They shall be informed of the evidence against
them;
4) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in
their own behalf; and
2
2)
The law or policy must be narrowly
tailored to achieve the goal or interest;
and
The law or policy must be the least
restrictive means for achieving that
interest, that is, there cannot be a less
restrictive way to effectively achieve
the compelling government interest.
to believe that an offense has been committed by the
person sought to be arrested.
Search and seizures
Section 2. Art. III. “The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable search 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.”
“Personally examine the complainant and his
witnesses” meant the exclusive and personal
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause
3)
Probable cause for a search meant 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.
Particularity of description meant “description that
expresses a conclusion of fact – not – law by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
seizure, or when the things described are limited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued”
Concept: It protects the privacy and sanctity of the
person himself. It is a guarantee of the right of the people
to be secure in their persons against unreasonable search
and seizures. It is a guarantee against unlawful arrest and
other forms of restraint on the physical liberty of the
person.
“John Doe” satisfies the requirement of particularity of
description provided it contains a descriptio personae such
as will enable the officer to identify the accused”
Warrantless searches
IS EVERY WARRANTLESS SEARCH AN ILLEGAL
SEARCH?
Warrant Requirement
Requisites of a valid warrant:
NO. Not every warrantless search is illegal search. As a
general rule searches and seizures must be accompanied
with a valid warrant except:
1) It must be issued upon “probable cause”;
2) probable cause must be determined personally by
a judge;
1) When the right is voluntarily waived;
2) When there is valid reason to “stop and frisk”;
3) such judge must examine under oath or
affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he
may
3) When the search is incidental to a lawful arrest;
4) Search of vessels and aircraft;
produce;
5) Search of moving vehicle;
4) the warrant must particularly describe the place
to be searched and person to be seized.
6) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of sanitary and building regulations;
Probable cause meant such reasons, supported by facts
and circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man in the
belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it,
are legally just and proper.
7) When prohibited articles are in plain view;
8) Search and seizure under exigent and emergency;
Probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest mean such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
9) “Areal target zoning” or “saturation drive” (valid
exercise of military powers of the President;
3
10) Searches of passengers at airport. R.A. 6235
provides that every airline ticket shall contain a
condition that hand-carried luggage, etc., shall be
subject to search and this condition shall form
part of the contract between the passenger and
the air carrier.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.”
What is the writ of habeas data?
It is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened
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.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas data?
DO
THE
ORDINARY RIGHTS
AGAINST
UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
APPLY TO SEARCHES CONDUCTED AT THE
AIRPORT PURSUANT TO ROUTINE AIRPORT
SECURITY PROCEDURES?
The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party.
However, in cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
NO. Searches of passengers at airport. R.A. 6235
provides that every airline ticket shall contain a condition
that hand-carried luggage, etc., shall be subject to search
and this condition shall form part of the contract between
the passenger and the air carrier.
1) Any member of the immediate family of the
aggrieved party, namely: the spouse, children
and parents;
2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative
of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of
those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Warrantless arrest
A peace officer or private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
1) When, in his presence the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or
attempting to commit an offense’;
Where can the petition be filed?
1)
Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or
respondent resides, or that which has
jurisdiction over the place where the data or
information is gathered, collected or stored,
at the option of the petitioner;
2)
Supreme Court;
3)
Court of Appeals; or
4)
Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns
public data files of government offices.
2) When an offense has in fact been committed, and
he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
3) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving a final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
Privacy of communication and correspondence
Freedom of expression
Section 3 Article III.
“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” (Section 4,
Article III).
(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.
4
EXPLAIN PRIOR RESTRAINT AND SUBSEQUENT
PUNISHMENT
unprotected may nevertheless challenge a statute by
showing that it substantially abridges the First
Amendment rights of other parties not before the court.”
PRIOR RESTRAINT means governmental restrictions on
the press or other forms of expression in advance of actual
publication like licensing, judicial restraint in the form of
injunction or taxes measured by gross receipts for the
privilege or flat license fee for the privilege of selling
religious books.
Commercial speech
The Supreme Court of the United States has prescribed the
four-prong Central Hudson test to determine whether a
governmental regulation of commercial speech is
constitutional. This test asks initially:
SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT is an assurance so that an
individual may not hesitate to speak for fear that he might
be held to account for his speech or that he may suffer the
retaliation of the officials he may have criticized or cited.
1)
Tests: EXPLAIN DANGEROUS TENDENCY RULE,
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER, AND THE
BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST
whether the commercial speech at issue is
protected by the First Amendment (that is,
whether it concerns a lawful activity and is
not misleading) and
2)
Dangerous Tendency Rule – For speech to be punishable,
there should be a rational connection between the speech
and the evil apprehended. Simply put, the determination
by the question: Is the statute reasonable?
whether the asserted governmental interest in
restricting it is substantial. “If both inquiries
yield positive answers,” then to be
constitutional the restriction must;
3)
“directly advance the governmental interest
asserted,” and
4)
be “not more extensive than is necessary to
serve that interest.
Clear and Present Danger Rule: “The question in every
case is whether the words used in
such circumstances are of such
nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a
right to prevent. It is a question of
proximity and degree.
Private vs. Government speech
Balancing of Interest test – “If on balance it appears that
the public interest served by
restrictive legislation is of such a
character that it outweighs the
abridgment of freedom, then the
Court will find the legislation valid”
The Government Speech doctrine establishes that the
government may advance its own speech without
requiring viewpoint neutrality when the government itself
is the speaker.
Facial Challenge and the over breadth doctrine
Freedom of religion
The rule prohibits one from challenging the
constitutionality of the statute based solely on the
violation of the rights of third persons not before the court.
This rule is also known as the prohibition against thirdparty standing.
“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” (Section 5,
Article III).
The over breadth doctrine is an exception to the
prohibition against third-party standing.
It permits
aperson to challenge a statute on the ground that it violates
the First Amendment (free speech) rights of third parties
not before the court, even though the law is constitutional
as applied to that defendant. In other words, the over
breadth doctrine provides that: “Given a case or
controversy, a litigant whose own activities are
Non-establishment clause means that the State cannot
establish or sponsor an official religion. The
non-establishment clause prohibits the State
5
from passing “laws which aid one religion, aid
all religions, or prefer one religion over
another”
that it occupies a preferred position, and that
the Court will not permit encroachments
upon this liberty, whether direct or indirect,
unless required by clear and compelling
government interest ‘of the highest order’”
The values non-establishment seeks to protect are
voluntarism and insulation of the political process from
interfaith dissension. Such voluntarism cannot be achieved
unless the political process is insulated from religion and
unless religion is insulated from politics. Benevolent
neutrality is summarized into four propositions or
tests:
1)
Government must not prefer one religion over
another religion or irreligion because such
preference would violet voluntarism and breed
dissension;
2)
Government funds must not be applied to
religious purposes because this too would violate
voluntarism and breed interfaith dissension;
3)
Government action must not aid religion because
this too can violate voluntarism and breed
interfaith dissension; and
4)
Government action must not result in excessive
entanglement with religion because this too can
violate voluntarism and breed interfaith
dissension.
Benevolent neutrality
With religion looked upon with benevolence and not
hostility, benevolent neutrality allows accommodation of
religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations
are government policies that take religion specifically into
account not to promote the government’s favoured form of
religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise
their religion without hindrance. Their purpose or effect
therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the
exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion.
Balancing of Interests
In weighing the state’s interest and religious freedom,
when these collide,. three questions are answered in this
process.
First, “has the statute or government action created a
burden on the free exercise of religion?” The courts often
look into the sincerity of the religious belief, but without
inquiring into the truth of the belief because the Free
Exercise Clause prohibits inquiring about its truth;
Second, the court asks: “is there a sufficiently compelling
state interest to justify this infringement of religious
liberty?” In this step, the government has to establish that
its purposes are legitimate for the state and that they are
compelling; and
Free exercise clause
Third, the court asks: “has the state in achieving its
legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means possible
so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than
necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state?” The
analysis requires the state to show that the means in which
it is achieving its legitimate state objective is the least
intrusive means, i.e., it has chosen a way to achieve its
legitimate state end that imposes as little as possible on
religious liberties.
“Freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to such
religious
organization or form of worship as the
individual may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the
other hand, it safeguards the free exercise of the chosen
for of religion. Thus the Amendment embraces two
concepts – freedom to believe and freedom to act.
The judicial task in free exercise cases is one of balancing
the secular interest of the state with the interest of religion.
The tests are:
1)
2)
Strict neutrality
Strict neutrality holds that government should base public
policy solely on secular considerations, without regard to
the religious consequences of its actions.
Clear and present danger test - The
question in every case is whether the action
used in such circumstances and are of such
nature as to create a clear and present danger
that they will bring about the substantive
evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
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 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”(Section 6, Art. III).
Compelling state interest test effectuates
the First Amendment’s command that
religious liberty is an independent liberty,
6
The elements of the taking which could be the subject
of judicial review are:
1) taking of private property’
2) taking must be for public use;
3) there must be just compensation
The limitations on the right to travel are for the
interest of:
a) national security
b) public safety; and
c) public health
The circumstances for taking are:
1) entry upon the private property by the
expropriator
2) entry must be permanent;
3) entry under warrant or colour of legal
authority
4) public use
5) ousted the owner of his beneficial use or
enjoyment of the property
Right to information
“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” (Section 7,
Art. III)
Kinds of expropriation (keyword: ONE)
1) Ordinary expropriation (Section 9, Article III)
Private property for public use.
2) Natural expropriation - Private property
permanently inundated by water like change of
river course.
3) Extraordinary expropriation (Section 4, Article
XIII) Private property for distribution to private
persons in the interest of agrarian reform.
The standards that have been developed for the regulation
of speech and press and assembly and petition and of
association are applicable to the right of access to
information. Those are the dangerous tendency rule, the
clear and present danger and the balancing of interest test.
Right of Association
“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” (Section 8, Article III).
Exercise of local government expropriation requires an
ORDINANCE( not a resolution) passed by the council
empowering the mayor to exercise expropriation and at
the same time appropriating budget thereof. Prior to the
exercise of eminent/inferior domain, the government
must make a prior offer to buy the land. If the owner
refused, the local government may initiate
expropriation proceedings. The requirements are:
Eminent Domain
“Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation” (Section 9, Art. III)
1)
An ordinance passed by the council
authorizing the mayor, in behalf of the LGU,
to exercise the power of eminent domain;
2)
The power is exercised for public use, or
public welfare, or for the benefit of the poor
and the landless;
3)
Payment of just compensation;
4)
A valid and definite offer has been
previously made but said offer was refused
(Jesus is Lord School v. Municipality of
Pasig, G.R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005)
Contract Clause
Just compensation
“The compensation given to the owner is just if he
receives for his property a sum equivalent to its “market
value”. “Market value” is the price fixed by the buyer
and seller in the open market in the usual and ordinary
course of legal trade and competition; the price and
value of the article established or shown by sale, public
or private, in the ordinary way of business; the fair
value of property between one who desires to purchase
and one who desires to sell; the current price; the
general or ordinary price for which property may be
sold in that locality. To the market value must include
“CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES”.
From
the
consequential damages must be deducted the
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS, which is the increase
in the value of the other interests of the owner that can
be attributed to the new use to which his former
property will be put by the expropriating authority
(Manila Railroad Co. v. Rodriguez 13 Phil. 347 (1909).
“No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
passed” Section 10, Article III).
The law impairs the obligation of contracts when:
1)
it changes the terms of a legal contract
between the parties, either in time or mode
of performance;
2)
it imposes new conditions or dispenses with
those expressed; and
7
3)
it authorizes for its satisfaction something
different from that provided in the terms.
2)
Legal assistance and free access to courts
“Free access to courts, quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty” (Section 11, Article III).
3)
Rights of suspects (Section 12, Art. III)
4)
(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 a
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.
5)
6)
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation of
any other means which vitiates the free will shall be
used against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar form 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.
7)
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims of torture of similar
practices, and their families.”
8)
The rights available to a person under investigation
are:
9)
1) the right to remain silent
2) the right to competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice;
3) the right to be informed of such rights.
10)
“Custodial investigation” shall include the practice of
issuing an INVITATION to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed without prejudice to the
liability of the “inviting officer” for any violation of
law (Republic Act 7438; People vs. Dumantay, G.R.
No. 130612, May 11, 1999)
11)
Guidelines for arresting officers
1) The person arrested, detained, invited or under
custodial investigation must be informed in a
language known to and understood by him of the
8
reason for the arrest and he must be shown the
warrant of arrest, if any;
He must be warned that he has a right to remain
silent and that any statement he makes may be
used as evidence against him;
He must be informed that he has the right to be
assisted at all times and have the presence of an
independent and competent lawyer, preferably of
his own choice;
He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or
cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be
provided to him;
That whether or not the person arrested has a
lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial
investigation in any form shall be conducted
except in the presence of his counsel or after a
valid waiver has been made;
The person arrested must be informed that, at any
time, he has the right to communicate or confer
by the most expedient means, e.g., by telephone,
radio, letter or messenger, with his lawyer (either
retained or appointed), any member of his
immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest
or minister chosen by him or by anyone of his
immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited
by/confer with duly accredited national or
international non-government organization;
He must be informed that he has the right to
waive any of said rights provided it is made
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, and
ensure that he understood the same;
In addition, if the person arrested waives his right
to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be
done i writing and in the presence of counsel,
otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is
void even if he insists on his waiver and chooses
to speak;
The person arrested must be informed that he
may indicate in any manner at any time or stage
of the process that he does not wish to be
questioned with a warning that once he makes
such indication the police may not interrogate
him if the same had not yet commenced, or the
interrogation must cease if it has already begun;
The person arrested must be informed that his
initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the
right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar
him from invoking it at any time during the
process, regardless of whether he may have
answers some questions or volunteered some
statements; and
He must be informed that any statement or
evidence, as the case may be, obtained in
violation of any of the foregoing, whether
inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part,
shall be inadmissible in evidence (People v.
Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999).
The right to have compulsory process for the
attendance of witnesses.
In order to establish the right to continuance by reason
of the absence of witnesses the accused must show:
Rights of the accused
Section 14, Article III “No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law”.
1)
Factors to consider in determining bail:
1) Nature of the offense;
2) Ability of the accused to post bail;
3) Penalty imposed by law;
4) Strength of the evidence;
5) Character and reputation of the accused;
6) Health of the accused;
7) Probability of the accused appearing for trial;
8) The forfeiture of bonds;
9) whether the accused is a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
10) whether the accused is under bond in other cases
that the witness is really material;
2) that he is not guilty of any
neglect in previously obtaining
attendance of said witness;
3) that the witness will be available
at the time desired; and
4) that no similar evidence could
be obtained (U.S. v. Ramirez,
39 Phil 738 (1919).
Habeas Corpus
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when
public safety requires it” (Section 15, Article III).
Presumption of innocence
Writ of habeas corpus is a writ issued by a 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 caption and detention,
to do, to submit to and to receive whatever the court or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf.
“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 the failure to appear
is unjustifiable.”
The ultimate purpose of the writ is to relieve a person
from unlawful restraint.
Grounds for suspension of the privilege of habeas
corpus; duration; power of Congress; review power of
the Supreme Court; application of suspension; martial
law and suspension of the privilege.
Ingredients of due process as applied in criminal
proceedings:
1) the accused has been heard in a
court of competent jurisdiction;
2) the accused is proceeded
against under the orderly
processes of law;
3) the accused has been given
notice and the opportunity to be
heard; and
4) the judgment was within the
authority of a constitutional law
“In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, the President may for a period not exceeding
sixty (60) days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus x x x.
Significant number of days in case of the suspension of
the privilege of habeas corpus:
1) President to suspend the
privilege of habeas corpus – 60
days any extension is upon the
initiative of the President the
period of which is subject to
determination by the Congress
on persistence of invasion or
rebellion and public safety
requires it.
2) President to report in person or
in writing to the Congress – 48
hours from the suspension of
The basic rights of the accused are:
1)
the right to be presumed innocent;
2)
to be heard by himself and counsel;
3)
to be informed of the nature and cause of the
charge
4)
to have a speedy, impartial and public trial;
5)
the right of confrontation; and
6)
the right to have compulsory process
9
the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus
3) The Supreme Court may
review and render decision
thereon within 30 days from
filing
4) Any person arrested should be
judicially charged within 3
days if not, shall be released.
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself” (Section 17, Article III).
It was established on the ground of public policy and
humanity: Of policy, because, if the party were
required to testify, it would place the witness under the
strongest temptation to commit perjury;
The right against self-incrimination is available not only in
criminal prosecutions but also in other government
proceedings, civil actions, and administrative or legislative
investigations. It may be claimed not only by the accused
but any witness to whom the incriminating question is
directed. It may be invoked only by “natural individuals”.
Note: To revoke either the proclamation of
martial law or suspension of the
privilege
of
habeas
corpus
CONGRESS HAS TO MEET AND
VOTE JOINTLY BY A VOTE OF
MAJORITY of all its members in
regular or special session Section
18, Art. VII).
The guarantee/immunity of the witness may be
transactional immunity and “use and fruit immunity”
(Immunity statutes)
a) Transactional immunity is one granted by
the Commission on Human Rights to
any person whose testimony or whose
possession of documents or other
evidence is necessary or convenient to
determine the truth in any investigation
conducted by CHR which makes the
witness immune from criminal
prosecution for an offense to which his
compelled testimony relates (Art XIII,
Section 18 (8).
Writ of Amparo
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available
to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof
(Section 1)
Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the
aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in
the following order:
b) Use and Fruit immunity is one which
prohibits
the
use
of
the
witness’compelled testimony and of its
fruits in any manner in connection with
the criminal prosecution of the witness
(Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274)
(a) Any member of the immediate family,
namely: the spouse, children and parents
of the aggrieved party;
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral
relative of the aggrieved party within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, in default of those mentioned in
the preceding paragraph;
(c) Any concerned citizen, organization,
association or institution, if there is no
known member of the immediate family
or relative of the aggrieved party.
Waiver of right against self-incrimination
There are two ways of waiving this right :
a) Directly done – an accused who takes the witness stand
voluntarily and offers testimony in his behalf may be
cross-examined and asked incriminating questions on any
matter he testified to on direct examination;
b) Failure to invoke it.
Where to File. – The petition may be filed on any day and
at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of
its elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of
such courts.
Involuntary Servitude and political prisoners
“No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs or aspirations” (Section 18 (1), Art.
III).
Self-Incrimination clause
Exceptions are:
a) punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been convicted’
10
b) service in defense of the State (Section 4,
5) defendant was previously acquitted or
convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his
express consent.
Art II);
c) naval (merchant marine) enlistment
d) posse comitatus
e) return to work order in industries affected
with public interest
f) patria potestas
Doctrine of supervening event. The accused may still be
prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent
development changes the character of the first indictment
under which the accused may have already been charged
or convicted. Thus, under Section 7, rule 117, Rules of
Court, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily
includes the offense charged in the original complaint or
information when:
Proscribed punishments
“(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death 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.
1) the graver offense developed due to
supervening facts arising from the
same act or omission;
2) the facts constituting the graver
offense arose or were discovered
only after the filing of the former
complaint or information; or
3) the plea of guilty to a lesser offense
was made without the consent of
the fiscal or the offended party
(People v. Villarama, 210 SCRA
246).
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against prisoner or detainee, or
the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law”
(Section 19, Art. III).
Non-imprisonment for debts
“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax” (Section 20, Art. III).
Double jeopardy
Ex post facto law and bill of attainder
“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” (Section 21, Art. III ).
“No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted” (Section 22, Art. III).
Kinds of ex post facto law:
1) Every law that makes criminal an action
done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and
punishes such action (“Nulla poena
sine lege”, there is no crime when there
is no law punishing it). Art. 21 of RPC
provides: “No crime of misdemeanour
shall be punished by a penalty which
was not established by law prior to its
commission.”
2) Every law that aggravates a crime, or
makes it greater than it was when
committed
3) Every law that changes punishment, and
inflicts a greater punishment than the
law annexed to the crime when
committed;
4) Every law that 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
To raise the defense of double or second jeopardy,
three (3) requisites must be shown:
1) a first jeopardy must have attached
prior to the second (fjaps)
2) the first jeopardy must have terminated
(fjt)
3) the second jeopardy must be for the
same offense as that of the first
(sjsoaf)
For jeopardy to attach
Jeopardy attaches:
1) upon good indictment (gi) or valid
complaint
2) filed before a competent court (cc)
3) after arraignment (aa)
4) after plea (ap)
11
(Mekin v. Wolfe, 2 Phil. 74, 77-8
(1903);
5) Every law which, assuming to regulate
civil rights and remedies only in effect
imposes a penalty or the deprivation of
a right for something which when done
was lawful (In re Kay Villegas Kami,
35 SCRA 429, 431 October 22, 1970).
6) Every law which deprives persons
accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which they have become
entitled such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or of a
proclamation of amnesty.
Bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishment without judicial trial (Cummings v. Missouri)
If the penalty be less than death, the act is termed bill of
pains and penalties.
12