Law IQ for Law Students

ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS

1987 Philippine Constitution
TZRT
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
BILL OF RIGHTS  Sec. 19 – Right against excessive fines and
cruel and degrading punishments
It is a charter of liberties for the individual
 Sec. 20 – Right against imprisonment for
and a limitation upon the power of the State
non-payment of debt or poll tax
A. PURPOSE  Sec. 21 – Right against double jeopardy
 Sec. 22 – Right against ex post facto law
To protect the people against arbitrary and and bill of attainder
discriminatory use of political power.

B. TWO KINDS OF RIGHTS embodied in RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Article III: OF THE LAWS

1. POLITICAL RIGHTS
SEC. 1. No person shall be deprived
Those that are in relation to the participation of the of life, liberty, or property without
individual, directly or indirectly, in the establishment due process of law, nor shall any
or administration of government. person be denied the equal
Ex. Freedom of Speech and assembly protection of the laws.
2. CIVIL RIGHTS
A. DUE PROCESS OF LAW
These are non-political rights of all citizens,
It is a law that hears before it condemns,
especially those relating to personal liberty
which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
Ex. Right against Involuntary Servitude, Right
against Unreasonable searches and seizures judgment only after trial.1

1. ASPECTS OF DUE PROCESS:

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE III:
 Sec. 1 – Right to due process and equal a) Substantive due process
b) Procedural due process
protection of the laws.
 Sec. 2 – Right against unreasonable 2. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
searches and seizures
a) This serves as a restriction on the
 Sec. 3 – Right to privacy of communication
government’s law and rule-making
and correspondence powers. It requires the intrinsic validity of
 Sec. 4 – Freedom of expression the law 2 in interfering with the rights of
 Sec. 5 – Freedom of religion the person to his life, liberty, or property.
 Sec. 6 – Liberty of abode and right to b) It must be a guarantee against the
travel exercise of arbitrary power even when
the power is exercised according to
 Sec. 7 – Right to information
proper forms and procedure.
 Sec. 8 – Right to form associations
c) REQUIREMENTS:
 Sec. 9 – Just compensation
 Sec. 10 – Non-impairment of obligations (1) The interests of the public in general,
as distinguished from those of a
and contracts
particular class, require the
 Sec. 11 – Free access to courts intervention of the State; and
 Sec. 12 – Rights of persons under custodial (2) The means employed are reasonably
investigation necessary for the accomplishment of
 Sec. 13 – Right to bail the purpose and not unduly
 Sec. 14 – Rights of the accused oppressive on individuals.
 Sec. 15 – Privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus
 Sec. 16 – Right to a speedy disposition of
cases 1 Ermita Hotel and Motel Operators Assn. vs. City of
 Sec. 17 – Right against self-incrimination Manila, 20 SCRA 849; Perez vs. People, G.R. No. 164763,
12 Feb. 2008
 Sec. 18 – Right against involuntary 2 Intrinsic validity of the law requires that the law itself

servitude must be constitutional and legally binding.

lawiq.weebly.com 34
2
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

 Publication of laws is part of substantive that a person owns, it includes the right to
due process.3 procure and dispose of them.
3. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS 7. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAIVABLE
a) This serves as a restriction on actions of  The right to be heard may be waived as it
judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of may be invoked, and validly so, as long as
the government. the person is given the opportunity to be
b) It concerns about the legal processes
heard on his behalf. It is sufficient that he
itself that requires notice and hearing
was given the opportunity to be heard.
before judgment.
c) REQUIREMENTS: He need not be heard.6

(1) Impartial court or tribunal clothed 8. DUE PROCESS DOES NOT ALWAYS
with judicial power to hear and REQUIRE TRIAL-TYPE PROCEEDINGS
determine the matters before it;
(2) Jurisdiction properly acquired over a) The essence of due process is found in
the person of the defendant and the opportunity to be heard and the
over property which is the subject submission of evidence. To be heard
matter of the proceeding; does not necessarily mean verbal
(3) Opportunity to be heard; and arguments in court; one may be heard
 To be heard does not mean verbal also through pleadings.7/8
arguments in court; one may be heard b) What the law prohibits is not the absence
also through pleadings. Where of previous notice but the absolute
opportunity to be heard, either through absence thereof and the lack of
oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, opportunity to be heard.9
there is no denial of due process.4 B. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

(4) Judgment rendered upon lawful  It requires that all persons or things similarly
hearing and based on evidence situated should be treated alike, both as
adduced5. to the rights conferred and liabilities
imposed.
4. LIFE
It refers to the right of an individual to his 1. What the Constitution requires is equality
body in its completeness, and extends to the among equals. If the classification is
use of God-given faculties which make life reasonable, the law may operate only
enjoyable. It also includes the right to a good on some and not all of the people
without violating the equal protection
life and have a dignified and decent
clause.
standard of living. 2. The guaranty of the equal protection
5. LIBERTY clause is not violated by a legislation
based on a reasonable classification. 10
It includes the right to exist and the right 3. A law is NOT invalid simply because of
to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or simple inequality. In the exercise of its
servitude. power to make classifications for the
purpose of enacting laws over matters
6. PROPERTY within its jurisdiction, the State is
It means anything that can come under
the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things
6 Stronghold Insurance Co., Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 88050,
Jan. 30, 1992
7 Zaldivar vs. SB; Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, Oct. 7, 1988
8 PLEADINGS – are the written statements of the
3 Tañada v. Tuvera, No. L-63915, December 29, 1986 respective claims and defenses of the parties submitted
4 Sandoval v. HRET, G.R. No. 19006, March 9, 2010 to the court for appropriate judgment.
5 Banco Español Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, 9 Samalio vs. CA, et al., G.R. No. 140079, March 31, 2005

March 26, 1918 10 People v. Cayat, No. 45987, May 5, 1939

By: TZRT 34
3
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
recognized as enjoying a wide range of B. SCOPE
discretion.
1. It is a popular right, hence, protects all
a) CLASSIFICATION persons, including aliens 13 and, to a
limited extent, artificial persons 14.
The grouping of persons or things similar 2. Available to all persons, including aliens
to each other in certain particulars and whether accused of crime or not.
different from all others in these same 3. Artificial persons are entitled to the
particulars. guaranty but they may be required to
open their books of accounts for
b) REQUIREMENTS for a VALID examination by the State in the exercise
CLASSIFICATION: of the police power or the power of
(1) Such classification rests upon
taxation. Their premises may be not be
substantial distinctions; searched nor may their papers and
(2) It is not confined to existing conditions effects be seized except by virtue of a
only; valid warrant.
(3) It applies equally to all members of  Not all searches and seizures are
the same class; and
prohibited. Those which are reasonable
(4) It must be germane to the purposes
are not forbidden15.
of the law11
 The term "unreasonable search and
seizure" is not defined in the Constitution or
RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND
in General Orders, No. 58, and it is said to
SEIZURE
have no fixed, absolute or unchangeable
meaning, although the term has been
SEC. 2. The right of the people to be
defined in general language. All illegal
secure in their persons, houses,
searches and seizures are unreasonable
papers, and effects against
while lawful ones are reasonable. What
unreasonable searches and seizures
constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable
of whatever nature and for any
search or seizure in any particular case is
purpose shall be inviolable, and no
purely a judicial question, determinable
search warrant or warrant of arrest
shall issue except upon probable from a consideration of the circumstances
cause to be determined personally involved, including the purpose of the
by the judge after examination search, the presence or absence of
under oath or affirmation of the probable cause, the manner in which the
complainant and the witnesses he search and seizure was made, the place
may produce, and particularly or thing searched, and the character of
describing the place to be searched the articles procured16.
and the persons or things to be
seized. 4. The right is personal; it may be invoked
only by the person entitled to it17. Such
A. The right against unreasonable search right may be waived either expressly or
impliedly.
and seizure is a restraint upon the
5. Waiver must be made by the person
government. It does not apply so as to whose right is invaded, not by one who
require exclusion of evidence which
came into the possession of the
Government through a search made by
a private citizen 12.
13 Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, No. L-10280,
September 30, 1963
14 Bache & Co., Inc. v. Ruiz, No. L-32409, February 27, 1971
15 Valmonte v. De Villa 173 SCRA 211 Sept. 29, 1989
11 People v. Cayat, No. 45987, May 5, 1939 16 Alvarez vs. CFI, G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937
12 People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 17 Stonehill v. Diokno, No. L-19550, June 19, 1967

lawiq.weebly.com 34
4
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

is not duly authorized to effect such  Must refer to one specific offense 24.
waiver.18
6. The constitutional viability of the a) For a search warrant:
mandatory, random, and suspicionless Such facts and circumstances which would
drug testing for students emanates lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
primarily from their waiver of their right
to believe that an offense has been committed
to privacy when they seek entry to the
and that the objects sought in connection with
school, and from their voluntary
the offense are in the place sought to be
submitting their persons to the parental searched25.
authority of school authorities 19.
7. In case of private and public b) For a warrant of arrest:
employees, the constitutional
soundness of the mandatory, random  Such facts and circumstances which
and suspicionless drug testing proceeds would lead a reasonably discreet and
from the reasonableness of the drug prudent man to believe that an offense
test policy and requirement 20. has been committed by the person sought
8. However, there is no valid justification for to be arrested.26
mandatory drug testing for persons
accused of crimes. As they are singled 2. Determination of probable cause
out and impleaded against their will. personally by the judge;
Thus, to impose mandatory drug testing
on the accused is a blatant attempt to a) For a search warrant
harness a medical test as a tool for  The judge must, before issuing a search
criminal prosecution21.
warrant, determine whether there is
9. Persons may lose the protection of the
probable cause by examining the
search and seizure clause by exposure
complainant and witnesses through
of their persons or property to the
public in a manner reflecting a LACK searching questions and answers. His
OF SUBJECTIVE EXPECTATION of failure to comply with this requirement
privacy22. constitutes grave abuse of discretion 27.

C. ARREST b) For a warrant of arrest:

It is the taking of a person into custody in order that  What the Constitution underscores is the
he may be bound to answer for the commission of exclusive and personal responsibility of the
an offense. issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. In satisfying
D. Requisites of Valid Warrant:
himself of the existence of probable cause
1. PROBABLE CAUSE for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally
Such facts and circumstances
examine the complainant and his
antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that
witnesses. Following established doctrine
in themselves are sufficient to induce a
and procedure, he shall:
cautious man to rely on them and act in  Personally evaluate the report and the
pursuance thereof;23 supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or

18 People v. Damaso, G.R. No. 93516, August 12, 1992

19 Laserna v. DDB, G.R. No. 158633, Nov. 3, 2008 24 Asian Surety v. Herrera, No. L-25232, December 20, 1973
20 Laserna v. DDB, G.R. No. 158633, Nov. 3, 2008 25 Burgos v. Chief of Staff, No. L-64261, December 26, 1984
21 Laserna v. DDB, G.R. No. 158633, Nov. 3, 2008 26 Webb v. De Leon G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995
22 People v. Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, Dec. 18, 2000 27 Silva vs. Presiding Judge of RTC, Negros Oriental, G.R.
23 People v. Syjuco, No. 41957, August 28, 1937 No. 81756, October 21, 1991

By: TZRT 34
5
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
 If on the basis thereof he finds no probable  Hearsay is not allowed. It must not be
cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report based on mere information or belief.
and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving 5. The warrant must describe particularly
at a conclusion as to the existence of the place to be searched and the
probable cause28. persons or things to be seized.

a) A description of the place to be

c) Distinction between the objectives of the
searched is sufficient if the officer with
prosecutor and the judge in determining
the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
the existence of a probable cause:
ascertain and identify the place
(1) Prosecutor intended.
 determines whether there is reasonable b) Sufficiency of the description of the
ground to believe that the accused is object is closely related with the
guilty and should be held for trial. sufficient particularity of the averments
of the offense.
c) However, it is not required that a
(2) The Judge
technical description be given32.
 determines if a warrant of arrest should be
issued to place the accused in immediate Search Warrant Warrant Of Arrest
custody so as not to frustrate the ends of The judge must It is not necessary that
justice29 personally examine in the judge should
the form of searching personally examine the
3. After personal examination under oath questions and answers, complainant and his
or affirmation of the complainant and in writing and under witnesses35;
the witnesses he may produce; oath, the complainant
and any witnesses he he would simply
a) The personal examination must not be may produce on facts personally review the
merely routinary or pro forma, but must personally known to initial determination of
be probing and exhaustive. The purpose them33; the prosecutor to see if it
of this rule is to satisfy the examining is supported by
judge as to the existence of probable The determination of substantial evidence;
cause. probable cause
b) Witnesses are not necessary when the depends to a large he merely determines
affidavit of the applicant or complainant extent upon the the probability, not the
contains sufficient facts within his finding/opinion of the certainty of the guilt of
personal and direct knowledge, it is judge who conducted the accused and, in so
sufficient if the judge is satisfied that the required doing, he need not
there exists probable cause; however examination of the conduct a de novo
when the applicant's knowledge of the applicant and the hearing36.
facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of witnesses34. (De Novo) – a new
one or more witnesses having a personal The description of “General warrants” are
knowledge of the facts is necessary30. property to be seized proscribed and
need not be unconstitutional
(1) Test of Sufficiency of Oath: Whether it technically accurate (Nolasco v. Puno, No. L-
had been drawn in such a manner nor necessarily precise, 69803, October 8, 1985);
that perjury could be charged and its nature will but, a John Doe Warrant
thereon and affiant be held liable for necessarily vary (where true name of the
damages caused.31 according to whether person to be arrested is
4. On the basis of their personal knowledge the identity of the unknown) satisfies the
of the facts they are testifying to;

32 People v. Rubio, G.R. No. 118315, June 20, 1996

33 Sec. 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court
28 Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585 November 14, 1988 34 Kho v. Judge Makalintal G.R. No. 94902-06, April 21,
29 Ho v. People, GR No. 106632 October 9, 1997 1999
30 Alvarez vs. CFI, G.R. No. 45358, January 29, 1937 35 Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No. 82585, 14 November 1998
31 Alvarez v. Court of First Instance,64 Phil 33, 1937 36 Webb v. De Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995

lawiq.weebly.com 34
6
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

property or its constitutional It is an order in writing issued in the name

character is a matter of requirement if there is of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
concern; it is required some descriptio
judge, and directed to a peace officer,
to be specific only in so personae which will
far as the enable the officer to commanding him to search for personal
circumstances will identify the accused 38. property described therein and bring it
allow37. before the court.

E. General Rule: 1. A search warrant, to be valid, must

particularly describe the place to be
 Only the judge has the power to issue a
searched and the things to be seized.
warrant after the proper procedure has
2. A search warrant is NOT a sweeping
been duly taken. authority empowering a raiding party to
undertake a fishing expedition to
F. Exceptions: confiscate any and all kinds of
evidence or articles relating to a crime.
1. The Commissioner of Immigration and
3. The search is limited in scope so as not
Deportation may issue warrants only for
to be general or explanatory.
the purpose of carrying out a final
4. Nothing is left to the discretion of the
decision of deportation39. In such case,
officer executing the warrant. 41
probable cause is not necessary.
5. Although the properties may have been
a) The constitutional guarantee set forth in seized in violation of the Constitution, it
Section 1 (3), Article III of the Constitution does not follow that its owner shall be
aforesaid, requiring that the issue of entitled to recover it immediately. If
probable cause be determined by a the said property is the subject of
judge, does not extend to deportation litigation, like a prosecution for illegal
proceedings40. possession of firearms, it will remain in
b) Warrant of arrest may be issued by custodia legis 42 until the case is
administrative authorities only for the terminated.
purpose of carrying out a final finding of 6. If the property is prohibited by law like
a violation of law and not for the sole illegal drugs, it shall be confiscated and
purpose of investigation or prosecution. destroyed.
It may be issued only after the 7. Seizure is limited to those items
proceeding has taken place as when particularly described in a valid search
there is already a final decision of the
warrant. Searching officers are without
administrative authorities.
discretion regarding what articles they
G. What may be subject to search and shall seize. Evidence seized on the
occasion of such an unreasonable
seizure?
search and seizure is tainted and
1. Property subject of the offense excluded for being the proverbial "fruit
2. Property stolen or embezzled and other of a poisonous tree." In the language
proceeds or fruits of the offense of the fundamental law, it shall be
3. Property used or intended to be used as inadmissible in evidence for any
the means of committing an offense purpose in any proceeding. 43

H. SEARCH WARRANT I. PROPER DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE

SEARCHED
1. The executing officer’s prior knowledge
as to the place intended in the warrant
is relevant.
37 Kho v. Judge Makalintal, G.R. No. 94902-06, April 21,
1999
38 Pangandaman v. Casar, No. L-71782, April 14, 1988
39 CID v. Judge De la Rosa, G.R. No. 95122-23, May 31, 41 United Laboratories, Inc. vs. Isip, et al., G.R. No. 163858,
1991 and Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. June 28, 2005
L-10280,September 30, 1963 42 Custodia legis – legal custody
40 Morano vs. Vivo, G.R. No. L-22196, June 30, 1967 43 Del Rosario v. People, G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001

By: TZRT 34
7
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
 In Yao, Sr., et al. vs. People, et al., even if
44 b) A valid arrest must precede the search;
there are several structures inside the the process cannot be reversed48.
MASAGANA compound, there was NO c) A warrantless search incidental to a
lawful arrest may be made only within
NEED to particularize the areas to be
the permissible area of search, or the
searched because the compound is place within the immediate control of
owned and used solely by MASAGANA. the person being arrested 49.
What the law merely requires is that the
3. Plain View Doctrine
place to be searched can be
distinguished in relation to the other places When there are prohibited articles open
in the community. Indubitably, the to eye and hand;50
requisite of particularity as to description of
4. When there is consent 51, subject to the ff.
the place to be searched was complied
requirements:
with in the instant case.
a) There is a right;
2. SCATTER-SHOT WARRANT b) There must be knowledge of the
existence of such right; and
a) A general or scatter-shot warrant is a
c) There must be intention to waive.52
search warrant issued for more than one
(1) specific offense. 5. When it is an incident of inspection. 53
b) It is void because it violates the
constitutional requirement that there a) Searches of vessel and aircraft for
must be particularity of the things to be violation of fishery, immigration and
seized and the places to be searched. 45 customs laws54;
c) It is a search warrant which vaguely b) Searches and seizures without warrant of
describes and does not particularize the vessels and aircraft for violation of
personal properties to be seized without customs laws have been traditional
a definite guideline to the searching exception to the constitutional
team as to what items might be lawfully requirement because the vessel can be
seized. quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the search must be
J. When searches WITHOUT WARRANT are sought before the warrant could be
permissible: secured.
c) Searches of automobiles at borders or
1. In times of war and within the area of constructive borders for violation of
military occupation; immigration and smuggling laws.
2. As an incident to a lawful arrest, Customs searches however are not
provided the search is available in dwelling places55;
contemporaneous to arrest and within d) Inspection of buildings and other
permissible area of search 46 premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations;
a) REQUISITES: e) Visual search at checkpoints56;
(1) The arrest must be lawful;
(2) The search and seizure must be
contemporaneous with arrest; AND
(3) The search must be within permissible
areas of search.47 48 People v. Chua Ho San, G.R. No. 128222, June 17, 1999
49 Espano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120431 April 1,
1998
50 Chia v. Actg. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. L-43810,

September 26, 1989);

51 People v. Malasugui, No. 44335, July 30, 1936
44 G.R. No. 168306, June 19, 2007 52 People vs. Cruz, Aug. 30, 1988
45 Leon Tambasen vs. People, et al., G.R. No. 89103, July 53 People vs. Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 145176, Mar. 30, 2004

14, 1995 54 Roldan v. Arca, No. L-25434, July 25, 1975

46 see Sec. 13, Rule 126, Revised Rules on Criminal 55 Papa v. Mago, No. L-27360, February 28, 1968

Procedure 56 Valmonte v. de Villa, G.R. No. 83988, September 29,

47 Nolasco vs. Paño, 139 SCRA 541 1989

lawiq.weebly.com 34
8
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

f) Conduct of “aerial target zoning” and 1. A warrantless search of a moving

“saturation drive” in the exercise of vehicle is justified on the ground that it
military powers of the President 57; is not practicable to secure a warrant
g) When there is a genuine reason to “stop- because the vehicle can be quickly
and-frisk” in the light of the police moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
officer’s experience and surrounding in which the warrant must be sought.
conditions to warrant a belief that the 2. However, the exception from securing a
person detained has weapons
search warrant when it comes to
concealed (Malacat v. Court of
moving vehicles does NOT give the
Appeals, G.R. No. 123595, December 1,
police authorities unbridled discretion
1997 citing Terry vs. Ohio); and
h) Doctrine of exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless search.

Under such urgency and exigency of M. “STOP AND FRISK”

the moment where a search warrant should 1. Where a police officer observes unusual
be lawfully dispensed with58 conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude that in light of his experience
K. KNOCK-AND-ANNOUNCE PRINCIPLE that criminal activity may be afoot and
1. Police officers are obliged to give that the person with whom he is dealing
notice, show their authority and may be armed and presently
demand that they be allowed entry. dangerous, where in the course of
They may only break open any outer or investigating this behavior he identifies
inner door or window of a house to himself as a policeman and makes
execute the search warrant if, after reasonable inquiries, and where
such notice and demand, such officers nothing in the initial stages of the
are refused entry to the place of encounter serves to dispel his
directed search. reasonable fear for his own or other’s
2. Exceptions: safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and of others in the area to
a) Intrusion into the premises is permissible conduct a carefully limited search of
when: the outer clothing of such persons in an
b) A party whose premises or is entitled to attempt to discover weapons which
the possession thereof refuses, upon might be used to assault him.
demand, to open it; 2. While probable cause is NOT required to
c) When such person in the premises conduct stop-and-frisk, it nevertheless
already knew of the identity of the holds that suspicion or a hunch will not
officers and of their authority and validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine
persons; reason must exist, in light of the police
d) When the officers are justified in the officer’s experience and surrounding
honest belief that there is an imminent
circumstances, to justify the belief that
peril to life or limb; and
the person detained has weapons
e) When those in the premises, aware of the
concealed.
presence of someone outside (because,
for example, there has been a knock at N. Checkpoints are NOT illegal per se
the door), are then engaged in activity
which justifies the officers to believe that 1. Under exceptional circumstances, as
an escape or the destruction of where the survival of organized
evidence is being attempted.59 government is on the balance, or
where the lives and safety of the
L. MOVING VEHICLES
people are in grave peril, checkpoints
may be allowed and installed by the
government.
2. Although the general rule is that
57 Guanzon v. de Villa, G.R. No. 80508, January 30, 1990
motorists and their vehicles as well as
58 People v. De Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994 pedestrians passing through
59 People v. Huang Zhen Hua and Jogy Lee, G.R. No. checkpoints may only be subjected to
139301, September 29, 2004

By: TZRT 34
9
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
routine inspection, vehicles may be 1. In Flagrante Delicto (Caight in the Act) -
stopped and extensively searched When person to be arrested has
when there is probable cause that committed, is actually committing, or is
which justifies a reasonable belief of the attempting to commit an offense;
men at the checkpoints that either the 2. Doctrine of Hot Pursuit - When:
motorist is a law offender or the
contents of the vehicle are or have a) An offense has just been committed; and
been instruments of some offense. b) He has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or
O. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it;
 It merely serves to supplement the prior
justification – whether it be a warrant for 3. When a person to be arrested is an
another object, hot pursuit, search as an escapee or detention prisoner 62.
incident to a lawful arrest or some  The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction,
legitimate reason. applied with a great degree of
 The objects within the sight of an officer consistency, is that "reliable information"
who has a right to be in a position to have alone is not sufficient to justify a
that view are subject to seizure and may warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a), Rule
be presented as evidence (open to the 113. The rule requires, in addition, that the
eye and hand). accused perform some overt act that
would indicate that he "has committed, is
1. The plain view doctrine is usually applied actually committing, or is attempting to
where the police officer is not searching
commit an offense." The officer arresting a
for evidence against the accused, but
person who has just committed, is
nonetheless inadvertently comes upon
committing, or is about to commit an
an incriminating object 60.
2. Elements: offense must have personal knowledge of
that fact. The offense must also be
a) A prior valid intrusion based on a valid committed in his presence or within his
warrantless arrest in which the police are view63.
legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties; (1) Membership in organizations like NPA
b) The evidence was inadvertently is a continuing offense, thus, a person
discovered by the police who have the can be arrested anytime.64
right to be where they are; (2) When the right is waived by the
c) The evidence must be immediately person arrested, provided he knew of
apparent; and such right and knowingly decided not
d) Plain view justified mere seizure of to invoke it.
evidence without further search61. (3) An application for or admission to
bail shall not bar the accused from
P. WARRANT OF ARREST
challenging the validity of his arrest,
It is an order in writing issued in the name provided that he raises them before
of the People of the Philippines, signed by a entering his plea.65
judge, and directed to a peace officer, R. WAIVER OF RIGHT AGAINST
commanding him to arrest the person UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
designated therein and bring him before the
 When one voluntarily submits to a search
court.
or consents to have it made on the person
Q. WARRANTLESS ARRESTS, when valid:

62 Sec. 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

63 People v. Noel Tudtud and Dindo Bolong. G.R. NO.
144037, September 26, 2003
60 People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177, January 27, 1993 64 Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 79731, July 9, 1990
67 People v. Bolasa, GR No. 125754, December 22, 1999 65 Sec. 26, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure

lawiq.weebly.com 34
10
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

or premises, he is precluded from later compulsion for each one to share what
complaining thereof. one knows with the other 66.
 The right to be secured may, like every
D. ANTI-WIRE TAPPING ACT (R.A. 4200)
right, be waived and such waiver may be
made either expressly or impliedly. 1. This Act prohibits any person, not being
authorized by all the parties to any
RIGHT TO PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND private communication or spoken word
to tap any wire or cable, or by using
CORRESPONDENCE
any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept or record
Section 3. (1) The privacy of the same, or to communicate the
communication and content thereof to any other person.
correspondence shall be inviolable 2. It is illegal for any person not authorized
except upon lawful order of the by all parties to any communication, to
court, or when public safety or order secretly record such communication by
requires otherwise, as prescribed by means of tape recorder.
law.
a) The law does not make any distinction,
(2) Any evidence obtained in and as such, RA 4200 may be violated
even by a party to the communication.67
violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any 3. A telephone extension line is not among
purpose in any proceeding. the devices covered by RA 4200 68.
4. The law prohibits the overhearing,
A. Section 3 means the right to be alone intercepting, or recording of private
and to be left alone in his personal communications but not those which
are public in character 69.
dealings.
5. The right to privacy of those detained is
B. Limitations: subject to Section 4 of RA 7438, stating
in part that any security officer with
1. By lawful order of the court; custodial responsibility over a detainee
2. Public safety or public order requires may undertake such measures
otherwise, as may be provided by law reasonable measures to secure his
(Sec. 3, Art. III). safety and prevent his escape. By the
very fact of their detention. Pre-trial
C. The law insures absolute freedom of detainees and convicted prisoners
communication between the spouses by have a diminished expectation of
making it privileged. privacy rights. 70

1. Neither husband nor wife may testify for  The authorities may, upon a written order
or against the other without the of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept
consent of the affected spouse while and record, with the use of any mode,
the marriage subsists. form, kind or type of electronic or other
2. Neither may one be examined without surveillance equipment or intercepting
the consent of the other as to any and tracking devices, or with the use of
communication received in confidence any other suitable ways and means for
by one from the other during the that purpose, any communication,
marriage, save for specified exceptions.
3. But one thing is freedom of
communication; quite another is a
66 Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383 February
20, 1996
67 Ramirez v. Ca, G.R. No. 93833, September 28, 1995
68 Gaanan v. IAC, No. L-69809, October 16, 1986
69 Navarro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121087, August

26, 1999
70 Trillanes III v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, Aug. 25, 2005

By: TZRT 34
11
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
message, conversation, discussion, or right of the people peaceably to
spoken or written words between assemble and petition the
members of terrorist group as defined in government for redress of
the Human Security Act of 2007. Provided, grievances.
That surveillance, interception and
recording of communications between  All the rights mentioned under this section,
lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, while not identical, are inseparable. In
journalists and their sources and every case, therefore there is a limitation
confidential business correspondence shall placed on the exercise of this right, the
not be authorized 71. judiciary is called upon to examine the
effects of the challenged governmental
E. FRUIT FROM THE POISONOUS TREE actuation76.

DOCTRINE [Sec. 3, (2)]

A. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
This means that illegally obtained
documents, articles, or effects are 1. Speech, expression and press include
every form of expression, whether oral,
inadmissible as evidence in court.
written, tape or disc recorded. It also
1. EXCLUSIONARY RULE includes movies as well as symbolic
speech such as the wearing of an arm
 Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, band as a symbol of protest, as well as
Art. III, shall be inadmissible for any peaceful picketing.
purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of 2. Sovereignty would be negated if they
Poisonous Tree Doctrine)72. were denied the opportunity to
participate in the shaping of public
2. Evidence obtained in violation of the affairs through the arbitrary imposition
search and seizure clause, whether or upon them of the ban of silence.
not it is also self-incriminating 3. The Constitutional right guaranteeing
testimonial evidence, is inadmissible. the freedom of expression is available
3. The illegally seized object must be only against government intrusion. This is
returned if it is not a prohibited object 73; apparent in the provision since it says
but if contraband, it can be “no law” shall be passed abridging the
confiscated74 freedom.
F. What are the tests to determine B. Scope
reasonableness of person's expectation
1. The Constitution guarantees the liberty
of privacy? to utter what is in his mind and also
1. Whether by his conduct, the individual guarantees him the liberty not to utter
has exhibited an expectation of privacy what is not in his mind.
2. Whether this expectation is one that 2. The Freedom also includes the right to
society recognizes as reasonable 75. an audience, in the sense that the state
cannot prohibit the people from
hearing what a person has to say,
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION whatever be the quality of his thoughts.

Section 4. No law shall be passed C. ELEMENTS OR ASPECTS OF FREEDOM OF

abridging the freedom of speech, of EXPRESSION:
expression, or of the press, or the
1. Freedom from censorship or prior
restraint

71 Sec. 7, Human Security Act of 2007

72 Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967
73 Bagalihog v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 92270, June 27, 1991
74 Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. L-59495-97, June 26, 1987
75 Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685 July 23, 1998 76 Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366, November 9, 1983

lawiq.weebly.com 34
12
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

Means freedom from official bring about the substantive evil that the
governmental restrictions on the press or State has a right to prevent79;
other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination a) Clear – causal connection with the
danger of the substantive evil arising
from the utterance questioned; and
a) Live TV coverage may be prohibited
b) Present – time element, identified with
since the right of the accused must
imminent and immediate danger; the
prevail over the right of the public to
danger must not only be probable, but
information and freedom of the press77
very likely inevitable80.
b) The doctrine of freedom of speech was
formulated primarily for the protection of 2. Dangerous tendency rule
the “core speech,” speech which
communicates political, social or Words uttered create a dangerous
religious ideas. tendency of an evil which the State has a
c) It does not apply to commercial speech right to prevent81.
or the communication which no more
than proposes a commercial  It is sufficient if the natural tendency and
transaction. probable effect of the utterance be to
(1) For commercial speech to enjoy bring about the substantive evil which the
protection, it must not be false or legislative body seeks to prevent.
misleading and should not propose
an illegal transaction78 3. Balancing of interest rule
(2) However, even truthful and lawful
When a particular conduct is regulated
commercial speech may be
regulated if: in the interest of public order, and the
(a) Government has substantial regulation results in an indirect, conditional
interest to protect; and partial abridgment of speech, the duty
(b) The regulation directly of the court is to determine which of the two
advances that interest; and
conflicting interests demands the greater
(c) It is not more extensive than is
necessary to protect that protection under the particular
interest (Central Hudson Gas circumstances presented82.
and Electric Corp v. Publifc
Service Commission of NY, No. When “speech” and “non-speech”
79-565, June 20, 1980) elements are combined in the same course
of conduct, a sufficiently important
D. Freedom from subsequent punishment
governmental interest in regulating the non-
1. A limitation on the power of the State to speech element can justify incidental
impose a punishment after publication limitations on free speech.
or dissemination.
(1) A governmental regulation is
E. Tests for Valid Government Interference sufficiently justified if:
to Freedom of Expression: (a) it is within the constitutional
power of the Government,
1. Clear and present danger rule (b) furthers an important or
substantial governmental
When words are used in such
interest unrelated to the
circumstance and of such nature as to suppression of free expression,
create a clear and present danger that will and

79 Schenck v. U.S., No. 437, 438, March 3, 1919

77 A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC 80 Gonzales v. Comelec, No. L-27833, April 18, 1969
78 Friedman v. Rogers, G.R. No. 77-1163, February 21, 1979 81 Cabansag v. Fernandez, No. L-8974, October 18, 1957

and Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Commission, 82 American Communications Association v. Douds, No.

G.R. No. 72-419, June 21, 1973 10, May 8, 1950

By: TZRT 34
13
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
(c) if the incidental restriction on teachers committed acts prejudicial to
alleged freedom is no greater the best interests of the service84.
than what is essential to that
interest. H. EXTENT OF AUTHORITY OF THE STATE TO
REGULATE PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
F. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO SPEECH:
1. Primacy of human rights
1. Clear and present danger that the
Congress has the right to prevent; a) freedom of expression, of peaceful
2. Prohibition regarding certain forms of assembly and of petition for redress of
propaganda “to prevent distortion and grievances—over property rights has
prostitution of electoral process;” been sustained 85
3. Demonstrations within a radius of 200 b) To justify limitations on freedom of
meters from the boundary of any hall of assembly there must be proof of
justice to ensure the people to an sufficient weight to satisfy the clear and
impartial and orderly administration of present danger test86
justice.83 c) The Philippine obligation under the
4. Persons organizing public meetings using Vienna Convention to protect the
public streets must procure a special premises of embassies must be honored
permit from the local authorities to but it does not preclude application of
the clear and present danger rule.
conduct the said meeting, parade,
d) If assembly is to be held at a public
procession, etc.
place, permit for the use of such place,
and not for the assembly itself, may be
Clear and Present validly required. Power of local officials is
Balancing of Interests
Danger and Dangerous merely for regulation and not for
Rule
Tendency Rules prohibition87.

Couched in terms of For legislation whose I. RULES ON ASSEMBLY AND PETITION 88

degree of evil and object is not the
proximity of evil prevention of evil 1. The applicant for a permit to hold an
measurable in terms of assembly should inform the licensing
proximity and degree authority of the date, the public place
where and the time when it will take
Evolved in the context Used for commercial place.
of prosecution for speech. 2. If it is a private place, only the consent
seditious speech of the owner or of the one entitled to its
legal possession is required.
3. Such application should be filed ahead
G. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION in time to enable the public official
concerned to appraise whether there
1. The right to assemble is not subject to may be a valid objections to the grant
prior restraint and may not be of the permit or to its grant but to
conditioned upon the prior issuance of another public place
a permit or authorization from the
government authorities. a) It is an indispensable condition to such
2. However, the right must be exercised in refusal or modification that the clear and
such a way that it will not prejudice the
public welfare.
3. When such rights were exercised on 84 De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 126183 &
regular school days instead of during 129221, March 25, 1999
the free time of the teachers, the 85 Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil.

Blooming Mills Co. Inc., G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973

86 JBL Reyes v. Mayor Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366

November 9, 1983
87 Primicias v. Fugoso, No. L-1800, January 27, 1948
88 J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L-65366 November 9,

1983)
83 Administrative Matter 98-7-02 SC

lawiq.weebly.com 34
14
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

present danger test be the standard for 1. An application for the permit to
the decision reached. assemble shall be filed before the
4. The decision of the public authority, Office of the Mayor within 5 working
favorable or adverse, must be days before the scheduled public
transmitted to the applicant at the assembly.
earliest possible opportunity so they can 2. Upon receipt, the same shall
have recourse to the proper judicial immediately be posted at a
authority. conspicuous place in the city or
municipal building.
J. Permit for public assembly is NOT 3. The mayor shall act on the application
necessary if meeting is to be held in: within 2 working days from the date the
application was filed, failing which, the
1. Private places; permit shall be deemed granted.
2. The campus of a government-owned or 4. Should for any reason the mayor or any
operated educational institution; and official acting in his behalf refuse to
3. Freedom parks 89. accept the application for a permit,
said application shall be posted by the
K. Tests of a lawful assembly applicant on the premises of the office
1. Purpose for which it is held regardless of of the mayor and shall be deemed to
the auspices under which it is organized have been filed.
2. Auspices test 5. If the mayor or any official acting in his
behalf denies the application or
Nature of the people composing the modifies the terms thereof in his permit,
assembly the applicant may contest the decision
in an appropriate court of law.
L. The provisions of BP No. 880 are not an
absolute ban of public assemblies but a a) While prudence requires that there be a
realistic appraisal not of what may
restriction that simply regulates the time, possibly occur but of what may probably
place and manner of the assemblies. occur, given all the relevant
The Court referred to it as a “content- circumstances, still the assumption –
neutral” regulation. especially so where the assembly is
scheduled for a specific public place – is
1. In view of the maximum tolerance that the permit must be for the assembly
mandated by BP No. 880, Calibrated being held there. The exercise of such a
Pre-emptive Response serves no valid right, in the language of Justice Roberts,
purpose if it means the same thing as speaking for the American Supreme
maximum tolerance and is illegal if it Court, is not to be "abridged on the plea
that it may be exercised in some other
means something else. Accordingly,
place.”91
what is to be followed is and should be
b) It is an indispensable condition to such
that mandated by the law itself,
refusal or modification that the clear and
namely, maximum tolerance, which present danger test be the standard for
specifically means “the highest degree the decision reached. If he is of the view
of restraint that the military, police and that there is such an imminent and grave
other peace keeping authorities shall danger of a substantive evil, the
observe during a public assembly or in applicants must be heard on the
the dispersal of the same.” 90 matter.92

M. Procedure under BP 880 N. DEMONSTRATIONS IN THE VICINITY OF

COURTS

89B.P. Blg. 880: The Public Assembly Act of 1985

90Bayan, et al. v. Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 91 IBP v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241,February 24, 2010
2006 92 Ibid.

By: TZRT 34
15
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
 Demonstrators, picketers, rallyists and all A. TWO-FOLD ASPECTS:
other similar persons are enjoined from
FREEDOM OF BELIEF FREEDOM TO ACT ON
holding any activity on the sidewalks and
ONE’S BELIEF
streets adjacent to, in front of, or within a
The State CANNOT The State CAN regulate
radius of 200 meters from, the outer exercise control over the acts done because
boundary of the Supreme Court Building, one’s belief of one’s belief
any Hall of Justice, and any other building Freedom is absolute NOT absolute
that houses at least 1 court sala93. Need not be contrary It must not be contrary
to law, public morals, to law, public morals,
1. Academic freedom enjoyed by public safety, public public safety, public
institutions of higher learning includes policy, public health, or policy, public health, or
the right to set academic standards to national interest. national interest.
determine under what circumstances
failing grades suffice for the expulsion Reason:
Cogitationis Poenam
of students. It cannot be utilized to
Nemo Emeret
discriminate against those students who
(No one commits a
exercise their constitutional right to
crime in his thoughts)
peaceable assembly and free speech.
B. RELIGION
O. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
1. Any specific system of belief, worship,
1. This is embraced in the freedom of
conduct, etc. often involving a code of
expression because it can be used as
ethics and philosophy; profession of
vehicle for expression of views that has
faith to an active power that binds and
a bearing on the public welfare.
elevates man to his Creator 95
2. The right to association also includes the
right not to join any organization94 a) Separation of church and state delineate
3. The constitutional right to association the boundaries between two institutions
does not preclude the imposition of to avoid encroachment by one against
relevant qualifications for membership another.
in any organization. As such, any
person who does not meet the C. NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
qualifications of a particular
1. Scope:
organization cannot invoke his right to
association if membership is denied. a) State cannot set up a church;
b) Cannot pass laws which aid one or all
FREEDOM OF RELIGION religions or prefer one over another;
c) Cannot influence a person to go to or
remain away from church against his will;
Section 5. No law shall be made
or
respecting an establishment of d) Force him to profess a belief or disbelief in
religion, or prohibiting the free any religion.
exercise thereof. The free exercise
and enjoyment of religious 2. Neither the state nor the government
profession and worship, without can set up a church, pass laws which
discrimination or preference, shall aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefer one religion over another.
forever be allowed. No religious test
Neither can openly nor secretly
shall be required for the exercise of
participate in the affairs of the religious
civil or political rights.
organizations or groups and vice
versa96.

93In re Petition to Annul 98-7-02 SC 95Aglipay v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937)
94Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union, G.R. No. L- 96Everson v. Board of Education, No. 52, February 10,
25246, September 12, 1974 1947

lawiq.weebly.com 34
16
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

D. Tests to determine when there is no the courts to exercise control over

violation of establishment clause: church authorities in the performance
of their discretionary and official
1. The statute has a secular legislative functions. Rather, it is for the members
purpose; of religious institutions/organizations to
2. Its principal or primary effect is one that conform to just church regulations 98
neither advances nor inhibits religion; 3. Benevolent neutrality recognizes that
3. It does not foster an excessive government must pursue its secular
government entanglement with religion goals and interests but at the same
time strive to uphold religious liberty to
E. Constitutionally Created Exceptions to the greatest extent possible within
the Non-Establishment Clause: flexible constitutional limits. Thus,
although the morality contemplated by
a) Article VI Sec. 29; laws is secular, benevolent neutrality
b) Article VI Section 28 (3); could allow for accommodation of
c) Article XIV Section 3 (3). morality based on religion, provided it
does not offend compelling state
F. FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND
interests.
WORSHIP
H. The COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST
1. Dual aspect of freedom of religious
involves a three-step process. The Court
belief and worship:
explained this process in detail, by
a) FREEDOM TO BELIEVE showing the questions which must be
(1) absolute as long as it is confined in answered in each step, viz:
the realm of thought
1. “Has the statute or government action
b) FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONE’S BELIEF created a burden on the free exercise
of religion?” The courts often look into
(1) Subject to regulation where the the sincerity of the religious belief, but
belief is translated into external acts without inquiring into the truth of the
that affect the public welfare. belief because the Free Exercise Clause
prohibits inquiring about its truth.
G. Freedom to believe carries with it the
2. The court asks: “Is there a sufficiently
corollary expectation that the compelling state interest to justify this
government, while it may look into the infringement of religious liberty?” In this
good faith of a person, cannot inquire step, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO
into a person’s religious pretensions. ESTABLISH THAT ITS PURPOSES ARE
LEGITIMATE FOR THE STATE AND THAT
However, the moment belief flows into THEY ARE COMPELLING.
action, it becomes subject to 3. The court asks: “Has the state in
government regulation. achieving its legitimate purposes used
the least intrusive means possible so
1. To compel students to take part in a flag that the free exercise is not infringed
ceremony when it is against their any more than necessary to achieve
religious beliefs will violate their religious the legitimate goal of the state?” The
freedom` 97. analysis requires the state to show that
2. Expulsion/excommunication of members the means in which it is achieving its
of a religious institution/organization is a legitimate state objective is the LEAST
matter best left to the discretion of the INTRUSIVE MEANS, i.e., it has chosen a
officials, and the laws and canons, of way to achieve its legitimate state end
said institution/organization. It is not for

Ebralinag v. The Division Superintendent of Schools of

97 Dominador L. Taruc, et al. v. Bishop Porfirio dela Cruz,
98

Cebu, G.R. No. 95770 March 1, 1993 G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005

By: TZRT 34
17
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
that imposes as little as possible on 3. Under the Human Security Act, cases
religious liberties 99. where EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS NOT
STRONG, and the person charged with
I. This freedom is not absolute as it is subject the crime of terrorism as therein defined
to the police power of the State. is entitled to bail and is granted the
same, the court, upon application by
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM TO TRAVEL the prosecutor, shall limit the right of
travel of the accused within the
municipality or city where he resides or
Section 6. The liberty of abode and where the case is pending, in the
of changing the same within the interest of national security and public
limits prescribed by law shall not be safety.102
impaired except upon lawful order
of the court. Neither shall the right to D. The right to return to one’s country is not
travel be impaired except in the included in the right to travel. The right
interest of national security, public to travel only includes:
safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law. 1. The right to travel from the Philippines to
another country; and
A. Concept 2. The right to travel within the
Philippines.103
1. Includes the right to choose one’s
residence, to leave whenever he While the right to travel of citizens covers both
exit from and entry into the country, aliens
pleases and to travel wherever he wills.
cannot claim the same right. Every sovereign
B. The right to travel nation has the power to forbid the entrance of
foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them
It is the right to move from one place to another100
only in such cases and upon such conditions as
C. LIMITATIONS: it may see fit to prescribe.104
A court has the power to prohibit a person
1. Liberty of abode – upon lawful order of admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines.
the court. This is a necessary consequence of the nature
2. Right to travel and function of a bail bond.105

a) In the interest of national security, public E. GENERAL RULE:

safety or public health, as may be Every person has the right to establish his home
provided by law;
and to travel to a place anywhere he likes.
b) Any person on bail 101.
Liberty of Abode Right to Travel F. EXCEPTIONS:
May be impaired only May be curtailed even 1. National interest;
upon lawful order of by administrative
2. Public safety; OR
the court and within authorities, in the interest
3. Public health.
the limits prescribed by of national security,
law public safety or public G. Watch-list and Hold-departure Orders
health as may be
provided by law 1. These do not circumvent the right to
travel as it is in the exercise of the
police power of the State.

102 See Sec. 26 of the Human Security Act of 2007

103 Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211, October 27,
1989
99 Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006 104 Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, No. 1393, January 18,

and August 4, 2003 1892

100 Reyes v. Razon G.R. No. 182161, December 3, 2009 105 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62100, May
101 Silverio vs. CA, G.R. No. 94284, April 8, 1991 30, 1986

lawiq.weebly.com 34
18
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

2. Provided, however, that these orders are 3. Criminal matters

not issued arbitrarily, whimsically, and 4. Other confidential information
exercised with grave abuse of
discretion. D. Scope
1. Contemplates inclusion of negotiations
RIGHT TO INFORMATION leading to the consummation of the
transaction. Otherwise, the people can
Sec. 7. The right of the people to never exercise the right if no contract is
information on matters of public consummated, or if one is
concern shall be recognized. consummated, it may be too late for
Access to official records, and to the public to expose its defects.108
documents and papers pertaining E. Exceptions: 109
to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government 1. The exercise is subject to reasonable
research data used as basis for regulations to project the integrity of
policy development, shall be public records and to minimize
afforded the citizen, subject to such disruption of government operations.
limitations as may be provided by 2. National Security matters. These include
law. state secrets regarding military,
diplomatic and other national security,
A. Rights guaranteed and information on inter government
exchanges prior to the conclusion of
1. Right to information on matters of public treaties and executive agreements.
concern, as well as to government 3. Trade secrets and banking transactions,
research data used as basis for policy pursuant to the Intellectual property
development; and Law, and other related laws, and to the
2. Corollary right of access to official secrecy of bank deposits act.
records and documents. 4. Criminal matters or classified law
enforcement matters, such As those
B. These are political rights that are relating to the apprehension,
available to citizens only 106. prosecution and detention of criminals,
which courts may not inquire into prior
The law may exempt certain types of
such arrest, detention and prosecution,
information from public scrutiny, such as those
5. Other confidential matters.
affecting national security. Availability of access
to a particular public record must be a) Parties to a government contract cannot
circumscribed by the nature of the information stipulate that the terms thereof should be
sought, i.e., (a) being of public concern or one considered confidential and should be,
that involves public interest, and, (b) not being open for examination by the public.110
exempted by law from the operation of the b) The right to information does not extend
constitutional guarantee. The threshold to matters recognized as “privileged
question is, therefore, WHETHER OR NOT THE information” under the separation of
INFORMATION SOUGHT IS OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR powers, by which the Court meant
PUBLIC CONCERN.107 Presidential conversations,
correspondences, and discussions in
C. RESTRICTIONS ON THE ACCESS OF TO closed-door Cabinet meetings."111
INFORMATION
F. As to Public Documents
1. National security matters and
intelligence information
2. Trade secrets and banking transactions

108 Chavez v. PEA and Amari, G.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002
106 Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution, p. 91, 2006 ed. 109 Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1998
107 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-72119, 110 AKBAYAN v. Aquino, G.R. No. 170516, July 16, 2008

May 29, 1987 111 Neri v. Senate G.R. No. 180643, September 4, 2008

By: TZRT 34
19
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
1. The right of the people to information on only, without including the right to
matters of public concern shall be strike.113
recognized. Access to official records,
and to documents and papers B. Also guarantees the right not to join an
pertaining to official acts, transactions, association. 114
or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy EMINENT DOMAIN
development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as
Sec. 9. Private property shall not be
may be provided by law.
2. Except perhaps when it is clear that the taken for public use without just
purpose of the examination is unlawful compensation.
or sheer, idle curiosity, we do not
believe it is the duty under the law of A. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
registration officers concern themselves It is the power of the State to take private property
with the motives, reasons, and objects for public use following the payment of just
of the persons seeking access to the compensation to the owner of that property.
records. The authority to regulate the
manner of examining public records B. JUST COMPENSATION
does not carry with it the power to
prohibit.112 It is “the full and fair equivalent of the property
taken from its owner by the expropriator”, and that
the gauge for computation is not the taker’s gain
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
but the owner’s loss. In order for the payment to be
“just,” it must be real, substantial, full and ample.
Sec. 8. The right of the people,
including those employed in the
public and private sectors, to form NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS OF
unions, associations, or societies for CONTRACTS CLAUSE
purposes not contrary to law shall
not be abridged. Section 10. No law impairing the
obligation of contracts shall be
A. This general provision is fortified by passed.
Article IX-B, Section 2(5) which affirms
that “the right to self-organization shall A. When is there impairment of the
not be denied to government obligations of contracts?
employees”. When a right is taken OR when a person is
deprived of the means of enforcing such right,
1. While there is no question that the there is impairment.
Constitution recognizes the right of
government employees to organize, it is B. CONTRACT
silent as to whether such recognition
Any lawful agreement on the property or property
also includes the right to strike. A
rights, whether real or personal, tangible or
reading of the proceedings of the
Constitutional Commission shows that in intangible but does not cover licenses, marriage
recognizing the right of the government contract, and public office.
employees to organize, the
commissioners intended to limit the right
C. IMPAIRMENT
to information of unions or association Anything that diminishes the efficacy of a contract.

113 SSS Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 85279 July 28, 1989
114 Sta. Clara Homeowners Assoc. v. Gaston, G.R. No.
112 Subido v. Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 1948 141961, January 23, 2002

lawiq.weebly.com 34
20
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

1. When is there impairment B. There are also private legal assistance

organizations functioning for the benefit
a) There is impairment when there is a
change in the terms of a legal contract of penurious clients who otherwise might
between parties, either in the time or be unable to resort to the courts of
mode of performance, or imposes new justice because only of their misfortune
conditions, or dispenses with those
expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction of being poor.
something different from that provided in C. Free access to the court does not mean
its terms.115
that the courts cannot impose filing
2. Degree of diminution is immaterial. As fees..
long as the original rights of either
parties are changed to their prejudice,
there is already impairment of the RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS/ RIGHT OF PERSONS UNDER
obligation of contract. CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
D. NO IMPAIRMENT
Section 12. (1) Any person under
 As long as a substantial and efficacious investigation for the commission of
remedy remains; holds true even if there is an offense shall have the right to be
remedy remained but it is the most difficult informed of his right to remain silent
to employ, the easy ones are withdrawn and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of
E. EXCEPTIONS his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of
1. Police power – public welfare is superior counsel, he must be provided with
to private rights116 one. These rights cannot be waived
2. Eminent Domain except in writing and in the
3. Taxation
presence of counsel.
In every contract, there is an implied reservation
that it is subject to the police power of the (2) No torture, force, violence,
State117. threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary,
Section 11. Free access to the incommunicado, or other similar
courts and quasi-judicial bodies and forms of detention are prohibited.
adequate legal assistance shall not
be denied to any person by reason (3) Any confession or admission
of poverty. obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be
A. The IBP provides deserving indigents with inadmissible in evidence against
free legal aid, including representation him.
in court, and similar services are
(4) The law shall provide for penal
available from the Department of and civil sanctions for violations of
Justice to litigants who cannot afford this section as well as compensation
retained counsel. to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their
families.

115 Clemons v. Nolting, No. 17959, January 24, 1922

A. Custodial Investigation
116 PNB v. Remigio, G.R. No. 78508, March 21, 1994 Questioning initiated by law
117 Ortigas & Co. v. Feati Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. L-

24670, December 14, 1979 enforcement officers after a person has

By: TZRT 34
21
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
been taken into custody or otherwise provisions of the constitution. He is not
deprived of his freedom of action in any only duty bound to tell the person the
significant way118. rights to which the latter is entitled, he
must also explain their effects in
 Time when the investigation is no longer a practical terms 121.
general inquiry into an unsolved crime but
D. RIGHT TO HAVE COMPETENT AND
has begun to focus on a particular
suspect, the suspect has been taken into INDEPENDENT COUNSEL PREFERABLY OF
police custody, the police carryout a HIS OWN CHOICE
process of interrogations that lender itself
1. "Preferably of his own choice"
to eliciting statements119.
Does not mean that the choice of a
B. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL lawyer is exclusive as to preclude other
INVESTIGATION equally competent and independent
attorneys from handling the defense.122
1. Right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to counsel; E. RIGHT TO BE PROVIDED WITH COUNSEL, IF
2. Right to be reminded that if he waives THE PERSON CANNOT AFFORD THE
his right to remain silent, anything he
SERVICES OF ONE
says can and will be used against him;
3. Right to remain silent;  While the choice of the lawyer is naturally
4. Right to have competent and lodged in the police investigators, the
independent counsel preferably of his suspect has the final choice as he may
own choice; reject the counsel chosen for him and ask
5. Right to be provided with counsel, if the for another one.123
person cannot afford the services of
one;
F. CONFESSIONS OR ADMISSIONS OBTAINED
6. No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or any other means which IN VIOLATION OF THESE RIGHTS ARE
vitiate the free will shall be used against INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE
him;
7. Secret detention places, solitary, 1. Requisites of admissible extrajudicial
confession
incommunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited; a) Voluntary
8. Confessions or admissions obtained in b) With assistance of a counsel
violation of these rights are inadmissible c) In writing
as evidence. d) Express
C. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO 2. What is sought to be avoided by the rule
REMAIN SILENT AND TO COUNSEL is the evil of extorting from the very
mouth of the person undergoing
1. It carries the correlative obligation on interrogation for the commission of an
the part of the investigator to explain, offense the very evidence with which to
and contemplates effective prosecute and thereafter to convict
communication which results in the him.124
subject understanding what is
conveyed 120.
2. As a rule, therefore, it would not be
sufficient for a police just to repeat the G. MIRANDA DOCTRINE
person under investigation the

121 People v. Roxas, GR.No. L-16960-62, January 8, 1987

118 Cruz, 2003 122 People v. Barasina, G.R. No. 109993, January 21, 1994
119 Escobedo v. Illinois, 387 U.S. 478, 1964 123 People v. Jerez, G.R. No. 114385, January 19, 1998
120 People v. Agustin, G.R. No. 110290, January 25, 1995 124 People v. Bonola, G.R. No. 116394, June 19, 1997

lawiq.weebly.com 34
22
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

1. Person in custody must be informed at applying Section 12 (1) and (3) of Article
the outset in clear and unequivocal III of the Constitution 127.
terms that he has a right to remain
silent. J. Sec. 2 of RA No. 7438 provides that
2. After being so informed, he must be told custodial investigation shall include the
that anything he says can and will be practice of issuing an invitation to a
used against him in court.
3. The right to consult with a lawyer and to person who is under investigation in
have a lawyer with him during the connection with an offense he is
interrogation. suspected to have committed.
4. If he is indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him. K. The rights under custodial investigation
5. Even if he consents to answer questions are not available in administrative
without the assistance of counsel, the proceedings 128.
moment he asks for a lawyer at any
point in the investigation, the L. What rights may be waived:
interrogation must cease until an
attorney is present. 1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to counsel
6. If the foregoing are not demonstrated,
no evidence obtained cannot be used  Waiver must be in writing and in the
against. presence of counsel.

a) When available:
M. What rights cannot be waived:
 The rights under Sec. 12, Art. III are
available when the investigation is no 1. Right to be informed of his right to
remain silent and to counsel;
longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved
2. Right to counsel when making the
crime but has begun to focus on a
waiver of the right to remain silent or to
particular suspect, as when the suspect counsel.
has been taken into police custody and
the police carry out a process of N. Rights of Person Suspected and
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting Subsequently Charged:
incriminating statements .125
1. Before case is filed for preliminary
investigation but after being put into
H. The constitutional safeguards on
custody or otherwise deprived of liberty,
custodial investigation do not apply to and on being interrogated by police:
spontaneous statements, or those not
a) The continuing right to remain silent and
elicited through questioning by law
counsel;
enforcement authorities but given in an b) To be informed thereof;
ordinary manner whereby the appellant c) Not to be subjected to force, violence,
verbally admits to having committed the threat or intimidation which vitiates free
will;
offense. 126
d) To have evidence obtained in violation of
I. A municipal mayor has "operational these rights inadmissible as evidence.

supervision and control" over the local 2. After the case is filed in court:
police and may arguably be deemed a
a) To refuse to be witness against himself;
law enforcement officer for purposes of b) Not to have prejudice imputed on him as
a result of such refusal;
c) To testify on his behalf;

People v. Mara, G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994

125

People of the Philippines v. Eric Guillermo, G.R. No.

126 127 People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997
147786, January 20, 2004 128 People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215, July 7, 1989

By: TZRT 34
23
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
d) To cross-examination; while testifying, to RIGHT TO BAIL
refuse questions which tend to
incriminate him for some crime other
than the present charge.129 Section 13. All persons, except
those charged with offenses
O. It was, therefore, wrong for the trial court punishable by reclusion perpetua
to hold that Section 12(1), Article III of when evidence of guilt is strong,
the Constitution is strictly limited to shall, before conviction, be bailable
custodial investigation and that it does by sufficient sureties, or be released
on recognizance as may be
not apply to a person against whom a
provided by law. The right to bail
criminal complaint or information has shall not be impaired even when the
already been filed because after its filing privilege of the writ of habeas
he loses his right to remain silent and to corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
counsel. If we follow the theory of the shall not be required.
trial court, then police authorities and
A. BAIL
other law enforcement agencies would
have a heyday in extracting confessions The security given for the release of a person in
or admissions from accused persons custody of law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
guarantee his appearance before any court as
after they had been arrested but before
required under conditions specified under the Rules
they are arraigned because at such
of Court134.
stage the accused persons are
supposedly not entitled to the B. The right to bail may be invoked once
enjoyment of the rights to remain silent detention commences even if no formal
and to counsel 130 charges have yet been filed. 135

P. A police line-up is not considered part of C. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of
any custodial inquest because it is habeas corpus does not suspend right to
conducted before that stage of bail 136.
investigation is reached 131 and because D. Even when the accused has previously
the process has not yet shifted from jumped bail, still he cannot be denied
investigatory to accusatory stage and it bail before conviction if it is a matter of
is usually the witness or complainant who right. The remedy is to increase the
is interrogated and who gives statement amount of bail 137.
in the course of the line up 132.
E. An extraditee has also the right to apply
Q. However, after the start of the custodial for bail.
investigation, any identification of an
uncounseled accused made in a police F. Forms of Bail:
line-up is inadmissible. 133 1. Corporate surety;
2. Property bond;
3. Cash deposit;
4. Recognizance

129 People v. Ayson, G.R. No. 85215 July 7, 1989 134 see Sec. 1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal
130 People v. Maqueda, G.R. No. 112983 March 22, 1995 Procedure
131 People v. Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999 135 Teehankee v Rovira, No. L-101, December 20, 1945
132 People v. Amestuzo, G.R. No. 140383, July 12, 2001 136 Sec.13, Art.III
133 People vs. Macam, G.R. Nos. 91011-12, November 24, 137 Sy Guan v. Amparo, G.R. No. L-1771. December 4,

1994 1947

lawiq.weebly.com 34
24
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

G. Bail is a matter of right if a person is valid justification;

 that the accused committed the offense
charged with an offense NOT punishable
while on probation, parole, or under
by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment conditional pardon;
or death.  that the circumstances of the accused or
his case indicate the probability of flight if
BAIL, A MATTER OF RIGHT138 released on bail; or
 that there is undue risk that during the
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
pendency of the appeal, the accused
matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or be
may commit another crime.
released on recognizance as prescribed by law or
this rule:
(a) Before or after conviction by
the MTC; and The exercise of discretion of the court is only
(b) Before conviction of the RTC of limited in the determination of the gravity of
an offense not punishable by guilt of the accused. If after summary hearing, it
death, reclusion perpetua or life is determined that the evidence of guilt of the
imprisonment. (Note that RA accused is strong, the court has no choice but
9346 prohibited the imposition of to deny the application for bail. Inversely, if the
death penalty). court finds that the evidence of guilt of the
accused is weak, the court has no discretion but
to grant bail.
H. Bail is discretionary when a person is
charged with an offense punishable by I. BAIL vs. RECOGNIZANCE
reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or BAIL BOND RECOGNIZANCE
death. An obligation under An obligation of record,
seal given by the entered into before
BAIL, WHEN DISCRETIONARY139 accused with one or some court or
Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not more sureties, and magistrate duly
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or made payable to the authorized to take it,
life imprisonment, the court, on application, proper officer with the with the condition to do
may admit the accused to bail. condition to be void some particular act.
The court, in its discretion, may allow the upon performance by
accused to continue on provisional liberty the accused of such
after the same bail bond during the period to acts as he may legally
be required to perform.
appeal subject to the consent of the
bondsman. J. Hearing
If the court imposed a penalty of
 Whether bail is a matter of right or of
imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more
discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is
than 20 years, the accused shall be denied
bail, or his bail previously granted shall be required to be given the prosecutor, or at
cancelled, upon showing by the prosecution, least he must be asked for his
with notice to the accused, of the following recommendation, because in fixing the
or other similar circumstances: amount of bail, the judge is required to
 that the accused is a recidivist, quasi- take into account a number of factors140.
recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the K. WHEN BAIL SHALL BE DENIED 141
circumstance of reiteracion;
 that the accused is found to have 1. No person, regardless of the stage of the
previously escaped from legal criminal prosecution, shall be admitted
confinement, evaded sentence, or has to bail if:
violated the conditions of his bail without

140 Cortes v. Judge Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387,

138 Sec. 4, Rule 114 Sec. 4, Rule 114 September 10, 1997
139 Sec. 5, Rule 114 141 SEC. 7, RULE 114

By: TZRT 34
25
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
a) Charged with a capital offense, or an Q. Traditionally, the right to bail has not
offense punishable by reclusion
been recognized and is not available to
perpetua or life imprisonment or death;
AND the military, as an exception to the Bill of
b) evidence of guilt is strong. Rights 146.
L. Standards for fixing amount of bail: R. When an alien is detained by the Bureau
of Immigration for deportation pursuant
1. Financial ability of accused;
2. Nature and circumstances of offense; to an order of deportation by the
3. Penalty for offense; Deportation Board, the Regional Trial
4. Character and reputation of accused; Courts have no power to release such
5. Age and health of accused; alien on bail even in habeas corpus
6. Weight of evidence against him;
proceedings because there is no law
7. Probability of his appearance at trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bail; authorizing it. 147
9. Whether he was a fugitive from justice
when arrested ; and RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING TRIAL
10. Pendency of other cases where he is
on bail142.
Section 14. (1) No person shall be
M. Excessive bail shall not be required 143 held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
N. When the accused is charged with an
offense punishable by reclusion (2) In all criminal prosecutions, the
perpetua or higher, a hearing on the accused shall be presumed
motion for bail must be conducted by innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard
the judge to determine whether or not
by himself and counsel, to be
the evidence of guilt is strong 144.
informed of the nature and cause of
O. Since bail is constitutionally available to the accusation against him, to have
all persons, it must be available to one a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face,
who is detained even before formal
and to have compulsory process to
charges is filed 145. It is sufficient that the secure the attendance of witnesses
person claiming the right must be under and the production of evidence in
the custody of the law either when he his behalf. However, after
has been arrested or has surrendered arraignment, trial may proceed
himself to the jurisdiction of the court. notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that he has been
P. As a general rule, the constitutional right duly notified and his failure to
to bail is available only in criminal appear is unjustifiable.
proceedings. Thus, it has been
A. Criminal Due Process
repeatedly held that respondents in
deportation proceedings, which are 1. Requisites:
administrative in nature, do not enjoy
a) Accused is heard by a court of
the right. competent jurisdiction;
b) Accused is proceeded against under the
orderly processes of law;

142 Sunga v. Judge Salud, Adm. Matter No. 2205-MJ,

November 19, 1981
143 Sec. 9, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 146 Comendador v. de Villa, G.R. No. 93177, August 2,
144 Baylon v. Judge Sison, AM No. 92-7360-0, April 6, 1995 1991
145 Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil 634, 1945 147 Go. v. Ramos G.R. No. 167569, Sept. 4, 2009

lawiq.weebly.com 34
26
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

c) Accused is given notice and opportunity 2. Right to present evidence includes the
to be heard; and right to testify in one’s favor and the
d) Judgment rendered was within the right to be given time to call witnesses.
authority of a constitutional law148. 3. If accused of two offenses, he is entitled
2. To warrant a finding of prejudicial to a trial of each case, and it is error for
publicity there must be allegation and the court to consider in one case the
proof that the judges have been unduly evidence adduced against him in
influenced, not simply that they might another.
be, by the barrage of publicity. 149 4. Right to be assisted by counsel
5. Right to counsel during the trial is not
B. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE subject to waiver153.
6. Right to compulsory process to compel
1. Every circumstance favoring the the attendance of witnesses in his
innocence of the accused must be behalf.
taken into account; 7. Right to be informed of the nature and
2. The proof against him must survive the cause of the accusation against him
test of reason; the strongest suspicion 8. Right to speedy, impartial and public
must not be permitted to sway trial
judgment 150. 9. Right to meet the witnesses face to face
3. Reasonable doubt (Right to confrontation)
It is meant that which of possibility may 10. Right to compulsory process to secure
arise, but it is doubt engendered by an attendance of witnesses and
production of evidence
investigation of the whole proof and an
inability, after such investigation, to let the E. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.151 AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION
4. Equipoise Rule AGAINST HIM

It is the evidence of both sides are 1. Description, not designation of the

equally balanced, in which case the offense, is controlling.
2. Purposes:
constitutional presumption of innocence
should tilt the scales in favor of the a) To furnish the accused with such a
accused152. description of the charge against him as
will enable him to make his defense;
C. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND b) To avail himself of his conviction or
COUNSEL acquittal for protection against a further
prosecution for the sane cause; and
 The right to be heard can be understood c) To inform the court of the facts alleged,
to mean the totality of the rights so that it may decide whether they are
embodied in an adequate criminal sufficient in law to support a conviction, if
procedural system, which can be viewed one should be had154.
as expressing both the qualities of the 3. In Soriano v. Sandiganbayan 155 , the
hearer and the manner of the hearing. petitioner claims that he cannot be
convicted of bribery under the Revised
D. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING TRIAL Penal Code because to do so would be
violative of as constitutional right to be
1. Right to present evidence and to be informed of the nature and cause of
present at the trial the accusation against him. The
Supreme Court held that the contention
is wrong because a reading of the
148 Mejia v. Pamaran, No. L-56741, April 15, 1988
149 Martelino v. Alejandro, G.R. Np. L-20707, March 30,
1970
150 People v. Austria, G.R. No. 55109, April 8, 1991 153 Flores v. Ruiz, No. L-35707, May 31, 1979
151 People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29, 1971 154 U.S. v. Karelsen, No. 1376, January 21, 1904
152 Corpus v. People, G.R. No. 74259, February 14, 1991 155 G.R. No. L-65952, July 31, 1984

By: TZRT 34
27
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
information which has been regularity and not tainted with any
reproduced clearly makes out a case impropriety157.
of bribery so that the petitioner cannot
claim deprivation of the right to be  General public may be excluded when
informed. the evidence to be presented in the
proceeding may be characterized as
F. RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC offensive to decency or public morals.
TRIAL  A public trial is not synonymous with a
1. Purpose publicized trial; it only implies that court
doors must be open to those who wish to
 To serve as safeguard against attempt to come, sit in available seats, and conduct
employ our courts as instruments of themselves with decorum and observe the
persecution. The knowledge that every trial process.158
criminal trial is subject to  The right may be waived. But waiver is not
contemporaneous review in the forum of to be inferred from mere failure of the
public opinion is an effective restraint on accused to urge the trial of the case. Such
possible abuse of judicial power. waiver or abandonment may be
presumed only when the postponement of
2. Speedy
the trial has been sought and obtained by
It means free from vexatious, capricious the accused himself or by his attorney. The
and oppressive delays; presumption is always against the waiver
of constitutionally protected rights.
 The concept of speedy trial is necessarily
relative. A determination as to whether the
G. RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES FACE TO
right has been violated involves the
weighing of several factors such as the
FACE (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION)
length of the delay, the reason for the 1. Two-fold purpose:
delay, the conduct of the prosecution and
the accused, and the efforts exerted by a) To afford the accused an opportunity to
the defendant to assert his right, as well as test the testimony of the witness by cross-
examination; and
the prejudice and damage caused to the
b) To allow the judge to observe the
accused 156. deportment of the witness .159

3. Impartial 2. Right to cross-examination may be

waived.
 The accused entitled to cold neutrality of
3. Testimony of witness who was not cross-
an impartial judge; examined is not admissible as evidence
for being hearsay160.
4. Public 4. If cross-examination actually
 To prevent possible abuses which may be commenced, but, for lack of material
committed against the accused. time, was not completed, and the
witness in the meantime died before
Public trial is when anyone interested in cross-examination could be resumed,
observing the manner a judge conducts the so much of the testimony as had
proceedings in his courtroom may do so.
There is to be no ban on such attendance.
The reason for this safeguard is the belief that
the accused is afforded further protection,
that his trial is likely to be conducted with 157 Garcia v. Domingo, G.R. No. L-30104, July 25, 1973
158 Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases Against the Former
President Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001
159 U.S. v. Javier, No. 12990, January 21, 1918
156 People v. Tee, G.R. Nos. 140546-47, January 20, 2003 160 U.S. v. Javier, G.R. No. L-8781, March 30, 1914

lawiq.weebly.com 34
28
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

already been covered by cross- appear for the purpose of identification

examination is admissible. 161 by the witnesses of the prosecution,
5. An accused is not entitled, as a matter unless he unqualifiedly admits in open
of right, to be present during the court after his arraignment that he is
preliminary examination nor to cross- the person named as the defendant in
examine the witnesses presented the case on trial.
against him before his arrest, the
purpose of said examination being J. The presence of the accused is
merely to determine whether or not mandatory:
there is sufficient reason to issue a
warrant of arrest. A preliminary 1. During arraignment and plea;
2. During trial, for identification, unless the
examination is generally a proceeding
accused has already stipulated on his
ex parte in which the person charged
has no right to participate or be identity during the pre-trial and that he
present.162 is the one who will be identified by the
witnesses as the accused in the criminal
H. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS TO case; or
SECURE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND 3. During promulgation of sentence, unless
for a light offense.
PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE
1. The accused is entitled to the issuance PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
of subpoena ad testificandum and
subpoena duces tecum for the purpose Section 15. The privilege of the writ
of compelling the attendance of the of habeas corpus shall not be
witnesses and the production of suspended except in cases of
evidence that he may need for his
invasion or rebellion when the public
defense.
safety requires it.
2. Failure to obey the process is punishable
as contempt of court; if necessary, the
A. Writ of Habeas Corpus
witness may even be arrested so he
can give the needed evidence 163. issued by the court directed to a person
3. Requirements 164: detaining another, commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at
a) That the witness is really material;
b) That he is guilty of no neglect in previously designated time and place, with the day
obtaining attendance of said witness; and cause of his capture and detention, to
c) That the witness will be available at the do, to submit to, and to receive whatever
time desired; and the court or judge awarding the writ shall
d) That no similar evidence could be
obtained. consider in his behalf166.

I. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA 1. When Available:

1. This is mandatory upon the court a) In cases of illegal detention or restraint; or

whenever the accused has been b) In custody cases
arraigned, notified of date/s of hearing, 2. Primary requisite for its availability is
and his absence is unjustified 165. actual deprivation of personal liberty,
2. The right to be present during the trial or deprivation of right of custody.
may be waived provided that after 3. Habeas corpus lies only where the
arraignment he may be compelled to restraint of a person’s liberty has been
judicially adjudged to be illegal or
unlawful 167.
161 People v. Seneris, G.R. No. L-49933. August 6, 1980
162 Marinas v. Siochi, G.R. No. L-25707, May 14, 1981
163 Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2003 ed., p 348 Nachura, Reviewer in Political Law, 2006 ed., p. 199
166
164 People v. Sandal, No. 32394, September 5, 1930 In Re: Petition for Habeas Corpus of Wilfredo S.
167
165 People v. Judge Salas No. L-66469, July 29, 1986 Sumulong-Torres, G.R. No. 122338, December 29, 1995

By: TZRT 34
29
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
4. Once a person detained is DULY RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
CHARGED in court, he may no longer
question his detention through a
Section 17. No person shall be
petition for issuance of a writ of habeas
compelled to be a witness against
corpus. His remedy would be to quash
the information and/or the warrant of
himself.
arrest duly issued. The writ of habeas
corpus should not be allowed after the A. Availability
party sought to be released had been  Not only in criminal proceedings, but also
charged before any court. The term in all other government proceedings,
“court” in this context includes quasi- including civil actions and administrative
judicial bodies of governmental or legislative investigations. May be
agencies AUTHORIZED TO ORDER THE
claimed not only by the accused (when
PERSON’S CONFINEMENT, like the
called to testify) but also by the witness to
Deportation Board of the Bureau of
Immigration168 whom an incriminating question is
addressed.
B. Purpose of the Suspension of the Writ of
Habeas Corpus: B. Effect of Violation
To enable the government to deal with  In People v. Alicando 171 , declared that
situation of an invasion or a rebellion and once the primary source is shown to have
the government must charge JUDICIALLY been unlawfully obtained, any secondary
those who are involved in the rebellion or or derivative evidence derived from it is
inadmissible.
invasion.
C. Scope
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
1. Applies only to testimonial compulsion
Section 16. All persons shall have the and production of documents, papers
right to a speedy disposition of their and chattels in court except when
cases before all judicial, quasi- books of account are to be examined
judicial, or administrative bodies. in the exercise of police power and the
power of taxation. An accused may be
A. The constitutional right to a speedy compelled to be photographed or
measured, his garments may be
disposition of cases is not limited to the
removed, and his body may be
accused in criminal proceedings but examined.
extends to all parties in all cases, 2. An order requiring the accused to write
including civil and administrative cases, so that his handwriting may be
and in all proceedings, including judicial validated with the documentary
evidence is covered by the
and quasi-judicial hearings 169.
constitutional proscription against self-
B. In case of violation of the right to a incrimination.172
speedy trial, the remedy for violation of D. Waiver of the right against self-
said right is dismissal obtained through incrimination
mandamus. 170
1. Either directly or by failure to invoke it,
See notes under Rights of the Accused During provided the waiver is certain and
Trial unequivocal and intelligently,
understandingly and willingly made.
168 Go v. Ramos, G.R. No. 167569, Sept. 4.2009
169 Lopez, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 140529, September
6, 2001 171 G.R. No. 117487, December 2, 1995
170 Roque v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129978, May 12, 1999 172 Samson v. Beltran, No. 32025, September 23, 1929

lawiq.weebly.com 34
30
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

2. The witness may be cross examined and  No involuntary servitude shall exist.
asked incriminating questions on any
matter he testified to on direct 2. Exceptions:
examination.
a) As punishment for a crime whereof one
E. Transactional Immunity Statute has been duly convicted;175
b) Service in defense of the State176;
The testimony of any person or whose c) Naval enlistment177;
possession of documents or other evidence d) Posse comitatus;178
necessary or convenient to determine the e) Return to work order in industries affected
truth in any investigation conducted is with public interest;179 and
immune from criminal prosecution for an f) Patria Potestas.180
offense to which such compelled testimony C. Slavery
relates.173
The civil relation wherein one man has
F. Use and Fruit Immunity Statute absolute power over the life, fortune and
liberty of another.
This prohibits the use of the witness’
compelled testimony and its fruits in any D. Peonage
manner in connection with the criminal
A condition of enforced servitude by
prosecution of the witness.174
which the servitor is restrained of his liberty
and compelled to labor in liquidation of
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE some debt or obligation real or pretended,
against his will.
Section 18. (1) No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his E. Restraint of the individual so he can be
political beliefs and aspirations. compelled to work for another, be it the
government or a private party, violates
(2) No involuntary servitude in any
the constitutional guaranty, subject to
form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the certain exceptions.
party shall have been duly
convicted. PROHIBITED PUNISHMENT

A. Non-Detention by Reason of Political Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall

Beliefs or Aspiration not be imposed, nor cruel,
 No man is to be interfered with because of degrading or inhuman punishment
his opinions, provided his avowal of them inflicted. Neither shall the death
does not disturb public order or
penalty be imposed, unless, for
compelling reasons involving
established law.
heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death
B. Involuntary Servitude
penalty already imposed shall be
Condition where one is compelled by reduced to reclusion perpetua.
force, coercion, or imprisonment, and
against his will, to labor for another, whether
he is paid or not.

1. General Rule: 175 Sec. 18(2), Art. III

176 Sec 4, Art. II
177 Robertson v. Baldwin, No. 334, January 25, 1897
178 U.S. v. Pompeya, No. 10255, August 6, 1915
179 Kaisahan ng Mangagawa sa Kahoy v. Gotamco
173 Sec. 18 (8), Art. XIII Sawmills, G.R. No. L-1573, March 29, 1948
174 Galman v. Pamaran, No. L-71208-09, August 30, 1985 180 Art. 211, par.(2), FC

By: TZRT 34
31
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
(2) The employment of physical, A specific sum levied upon any person
psychological, or degrading belonging to a certain class without regard
punishment against any prisoner or to property or occupation (e.g. Community
detainee or the use of substandard Tax )
or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt B. A tax is not a debt since it is an
with by law. obligation arising from law. Hence, its
non-payment maybe validly punished
A. Mere severity does not constitute cruel
with imprisonment.
or unusual punishment. To violate
constitutional guarantee, penalty must C. While debtor cannot be imprisoned for
be flagrant and plainly oppressive, failure to pay his debt, he can be validly
disproportionate to the nature of the punished in a criminal action if he
offense as to shock the senses of the contracted his debt through fraud 183.
community. 181
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
B. To be CRUEL AND UNUSUAL OR
EXCESSIVE, the penalty must be Section 21. No person shall be twice
flagrantly disproportionate to the put in jeopardy of punishment for
offense no matter under what the same offense. If an act is
circumstances the offense may be punished by a law and an
committed. ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to
C. Mere fines and imprisonment are not another prosecution for the same
violative. To be so, the penalty must be act.
inhuman and barbarous and shocking to
the conscience. A. The rule of double jeopardy means that
when a person was charged with an
D. RA 9346 prohibited the imposition of offense and the case was terminated by
death penalty. acquittal or conviction or in any other
manner without his consent; he cannot
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT again be charged with the same or
identical offense.184
Section 20. No person shall be
imprisoned for debt or non-payment B. An acquittal is final and unappealable
of a poll tax. on the ground of double jeopardy,
whether it happens in the trial court level
A. Coverage:
or before the Court of Appeals. Only
1. Debt when there is a finding of a sham trial
Any civil obligation arising from a can the doctrine of double jeopardy be
contract. It includes even debts obtained not invoked because the people, as
through fraud since no distinction is made in represented by the prosecution, were
the Constitution.182 denied due process. 185

2. Poll Tax C. Two types:

People v. Estoista, G.R. No. L-5793, August 27, 1953

181 183 Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. L-63419, 18 December 1986
Ganaway v. Quillen, G.R. No. L-18619, February 20,
182 184 Melo v. People, No. L-3580, March 22, 1950
1922 185 People v. Tria- Tirona, G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2006

lawiq.weebly.com 34
32
POLITICAL L AW REVIEWER

1. Double jeopardy of punishment for the earlier and the subsequent offenses
same offense; and charged. 188
2. Double jeopardy of punishment for the
same act H. Where one is punished by law and an
ordinance, the inquiry is on the identity
D. DISMISSAL OF ACTION, when made at
of the act.
the instance of the accused, DOES
NOT put accused in first jeopardy, I. Doctrine of Supervening Event
EXCEPT: It allows the prosecution for another
1. When the ground for dismissal is offense if subsequent development changes
insufficiency of evidence; or the character of the first indictment under
2. When the proceedings have been which he may have already been charged
unreasonably prolonged as to violate or convicted.189
the right of the accused to a speedy
trial.186 J. Double jeopardy for the same act does
not require prior conviction or acquittal
E. Requisites for double jeopardy for the
or dismissal of the first information, as
same offense:
long as the first jeopardy has already
1. Valid complaint or information; attached. 190
2. Filed before a competent court;
3. To which defendant has pleaded; and K. Double jeopardy DOES NOT attach in
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or preliminary investigations. 191
convicted or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his L. Conviction of accused shall NOT bar
express consent. 187 another prosecution for an offense
which necessarily includes the offense
F. Crimes covered:
originally charged when:
1. Same offense; or attempt to commit or
frustration thereof or for any offense 1. Graver offense developed due to
which necessarily includes or is supervening facts arising from the same
necessarily included in the offense act or omission;
charged in the original complaint or 2. Facts constituting the graver offense
information; and arose or discovered only after the filing
2. When an act is punished by a law and of the former complaint or information;
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal and
under either shall bar another 3. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense was
prosecution for the same act. made without the consent of
prosecutor or offended party.192
G. Where the offenses charged are
M. Inseparable offenses
penalized either by different sections of
the same statute or by different statutes, 1. Where one offense is inseparable from
the important inquiry relates to the another and proceeds from the same
act, they cannot be the subject of
IDENTITY OF OFFENSES CHARGED: the
separate prosecutions.
constitutional protection against double 2. However, it is possible for one act to give
jeopardy is available only where an rise to several crimes: separate
identity is shown to exist between the

188 People v. Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987

189 People v. Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23, 1992
190 People v. Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987
191 People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 44205, February 16, 1993
186 Cue v. IAC, G.R. No. 74989-90, November 6, 1989 192 People v. Judge Villarama, G.R. No. 99287, June 23,
187 People v. Ylagan, No. 38443, November 25, 1933 1992

By: TZRT 34
33
 ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
prosecutions for each crime may be  Prohibition applies only to criminal
filed provided the elements of the legislation which affects the substantial
several crimes are not identical. rights of the accused. It also applies to
criminal procedural law prejudicial to the
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER accused. But it is improper to apply the
prohibition to an executive proclamation
Section 22. No ex post facto law or suspending the privilege of writ of habeas
bill of attainder shall be enacted. corpus.

A. Ex Post Facto Law 4. Even if the law be penal and

retroactive, it will still not be ex post
It is one that would make a previous act
facto if it does not operate to the
criminal although it was not so at the time it disadvantage of the accused.
was committed. 5. If the punishment originally imposed is
retroactively made heavier, or the
 A law can never be considered ex post
method of its execution made more
facto as long as it operates prospectively
severe, then the law will be subject to
since its strictures would cover only the constitutional prohibition.
offenses committed after and not before
its enactment. B. Bill of Attainder
It is legislative act that inflicts
1. Kinds193
punishment without trial.194
a) Law making an act criminal which was
1. It substitutes legislative fiat for a judicial
not so before its passage;
determination of guilt. Thus, it is only
b) Law aggravating the penalty for a crime
when a statute applies either to named
committed before its passage;
individuals or to easily ascertainable
c) Law inflicting a greater or more severe
penalty; members of a group in such a way as
d) Law altering the legal rules of evidence to inflict punishment on them without
and allowing the receipt of less or judicial trial that it becomes a bill of
different testimony than what the law attainder.
required at the time of commission, in 2. The provision prevents the legislature
order to convict accused; from assuming judicial magistracy. It is
e) Law assuming to regulate civil rights and thus a general safeguard against
remedies only, in effect imposes a legislative exercise of the judicial
penalty of deprivation of right for function, or more simply – trial by
something which when done was lawful; legislature.
and
f) Law depriving accused of some lawful
protection to which he had been
entitled, such as protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.

2. Characteristics:
a) Refers to criminal matters;
b) Retroactive; and
c) Prejudicial to the accused.
3. Application:

193 U.S. v. Diaz-Conde, No. 18208, February 14, 1922 194 Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall 277

lawiq.weebly.com 34
34