Article III of the Philippine Constitution is the Bill of Rights.

It establishes the
relationship of the individual to the state and defines the rights of the individual by
limiting the lawful powers of the state. It is one of the most important political
achievements of the Filipinos.
The concept of the Bill of Rights, as such, is essentially an occidental product.
For a number of centuries in British, French and American political thought, there has
grown the conviction that the rights of the individual must be preserved and
safeguarded, not through the authority of an individual, not through membership in a
particular a group or party, not through reliance upon force of arms, but rather through
the accepted process of declared constitutional law.
Manifestly, such a concept places a high value in the individual in relationship to
the state. It also places a high value of the law and its validity. The emphasis that is
placed upon law carries with it a corresponding emphasis on the instruments of law. It
places procedural values, as well as limitations, on the legislative bodies that make the
laws, and it places similar values and similar structures on the judicial bodies that
interpret the law and make possible for its enforcement.
The adoption of this concept in the Philippines was not as easy as might be
supposed. There were traditional modes of thought influencing the Filipino into other
directions. The concept in the beginning was alien, and political experience and
education had to be added to the characteristic Filipino outlook before the Bill of Rights
concept could become second nature to the Filipino in his approach to the problems of
group organization.

A Bill of Rights maybe defined as a declaration and enumeration of a persons

rights and privileges which the Constitution is designed to protect against violations by
the government, or by an individual or groups of individuals. It is a charter of liberties for
the individual and a limitation upon the power of the State. Its basis is the social
importance accorded to the individual in a democratic or republican state; the lowliest in
economic or social status are equal to the richest or most influential because they, too,
are endowed with human dignity.
There are different classifications of rights that a citizen of democratic state
enjoys; rights possessed by every citizen without being granted by the state for they are
given to man by God as a human being created to his image so that he may live a
happy life, Rights which are conferred and protected by the Constitution. Since they are
part of the fundamental law, they cannot be modified or taken way by the law-making
body. And rights which are provided by laws promulgated by the law-making body and
consequently, may be abolished by the same body.
The State, as an organization, exists to promote the happiness and welfare of
both the individual and the group which he is part. It is not an end by itself for the
glorification of which the life, liberty and property, or happiness of the individual may in
all cases be sacrificed. Liberty is a blessing without which life is a misery, but should not
be made to prevail over authority because then society will fall into anarchy. The State
in modern times is an instrument to enable both the individual and society together to
attain their greater happiness, progress, and welfare. Consequently in some cases, the
individual must yield to the group; and in other cases, the group to the individual. It is for
this reason that the Constitution creates a domain of individual rights and liberties,

which is protected from encroachments whether by individuals or groups of individuals,

and even by the government itself. For the same reason, the Constitution provides,
expressly or impliedly, that in certain cases, when demanded by the necessity of
promoting the general welfare of society, the government may interfere with these rights
and liberties. The people must be strong enough to maintain its control over the
government and the government must be strong enough to maintain its existence and
protect the interests of the people. There must be an effective balancing of the claims of
the individual and of those in the community for the attainment of the legitimate
aspirations of any democratic society. There can be no absolute power whoever
exercises it, for that would be tyranny; yet there can be no absolute liberty for that would
mean license and anarchy.
Under the constitution, a person maybe deprived by the state of his life, liberty or
property provided due process of law is observed. Deprivation of life, liberty or property
by the State is with due process if it is done under the authority of a law that is valid or
of the constitution itself, and after compliance with fair and reasonable methods of
procedure prescribed by Law.
Life is something more than mere animal existence, Liberty denotes not merely
freedom from physical restraint but also embraces the right of man to use his faculties
with which he has been endowed by his Creator subject only to the limitation that he
does not violates the law or the rights of others, and Property- the thing itself or the right
over a thing, it includes the right to own, use, transmit and even to destroy, subject to
the right of the State and of other persons. The right to life is the very foundation of all
human rights. Without this right, all other human rights are empty and meaningless.

The protection from unreasonable searches and seizures applies to everybody,

to citizens as well as aliens in the Philippines, whether accused of crime or not. The
protection is not limited to dwelling houses only but extends to garage, warehouses,
shop, stores, office, and even a safety deposit vault. The protection also includes sealed
letters and packages in the mail which may be opened and examined only in pursuance
of a valid search warrant. In general, all illegal searches and seizures are unreasonable.
A search or seizure made without a search warrant is not necessarily illegal, and one
made under a search warrant is not necessarily legal. What constitutes reasonable or
unreasonable search or seizure in any particular case is a purely judicial question, only
the courts are empowered to rule upon, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstance involved.
The right of privacy is the right to be left alone. It is also the right of a person to
be free from undesired publicity, or disclosure and as the right to live without
unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not
necessarily concerned. The right of privacy is considered as belonging to that class of
rights which every human being possesses in his natural state and which he does not
lose or surrender by becoming a member of organized society. It has its foundation in
the belief in a persons inherent right to enjoy his private life without having incidents
relative thereto made public against his will. The right to privacy is accorded protection
to secure the enjoyment by a person of his private life. Without the right, one cannot
possibly live in peace and with self respect and be truly happy.
The constitutional freedom of speech and expression and of the press, otherwise
known as the freedom of expression, implies the right to freely utter and publish

whatever one pleases without previous restraint, and to be protected against any
responsibility for so doing s long as it does not violate the law or injure someones
character, reputation or business. If man is not free to communicate his ideas to others,
not only is his own moral and intellectual development stifled but his fellowmen are
deprived of the benefit and stimulation which he might impart to them. And unless
individuals are at liberty to discuss the various issues that confront the community, the
government and the whole web of social relationships, the search for truth and
perfection is impeded. Freedom of expression is, therefore, an inalienable human right
that flows from the very nature of man. It must be nurtured and protected by the State,
without the right, the full and proper growth of the individual, the nation is invariably
stunted.
Everyone has absolute right to believe whatever he wishes. A state may not
compel a religious belief and may not deny any person any right or privilege because of
his beliefs. It cannot inquire into the truth or validity of a religious doctrine. The right to
act in accordance with ones belief is not and cannot be absolute. Conduct remains
subject to regulations and even prohibition for the protection of society. Religion may not
be used to justify action or refusal to act inconsistent with the public safety, health,
morals or general welfare of society.
The liberty of abode and travel is the right of a person to have his home whatever
place chosen by him and thereafter change it at his will, and to go where he pleases,
without interference from any source. The right is qualified by the clause EXCEPT
UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT and EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST OF
NATIOAL SECURITY, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR PUBLIC HELATH AS MAY BE PROVIDED

BY LAW. The phrase means subject to the dominant police power of the State. Thus,
the law making body may by law provide for the observance of curfew hours in time of
war or national emergency.
The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. This is a cognate right, resting on the premises that informed and critical
citizens are in the best position to promote, protect and defend the values of a
democratic society. They go hand in hand with the constitutional policies of full public
disclosure by the State of all its transactions involving public interest and honesty and
integrity in the public service.
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Public use maybe identified with public benefit, public utility or public advantage. If a
private property is taken for public use, the amount for the expropriated property shall
be determined by the court, based from the fair market value at the time f the taking of
the property.
The obligation of a contract is the law or duty of the parties to perform their
agreement according to its terms or intent. Agreement must not be contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The prohibition is intended to
protect creditors, to assure the fulfilment of lawful promises, and to guard the integrity of
contractual obligations. Business problems will arise if contracts were not stable and
binding and if the legislature can pass a law impairing an obligation entered into legally,
Every criminal case is a contest between an individual and the government. It is
of necessity an unequal contest because the parties are of unequal strength. In order to

reduce the possibilities of injustice, the constitution seeks to redress the imbalance
between these parties by guaranteeing the accused the right to an impartial trial, the
privilege of cross examination, and other procedural safeguards. Moreover, experience
teaches that it is a very serious matter for the government formally to accuse a man
having committed a crime. The defendant by being merely accused may find himself in
immediate trouble, whether guilty or not. He may lose his job, or be suspended from its
pending trial. His reputation is under an immediate cloud. The accused, therefore,
needs every possible opportunity to establish his innocence, as soon, as publicly, and
decisively, as possible. The purpose then is not to coddle wrongdoers or to protect the
guilty but to assure the truth will be discovered and that justice, which is the very end of
the government, will be done. For as the roman praetor said IT IS BETTER THAT A
THOUSAND GUILTY MEN BE FREE THAN ONE INNOCENT MAN BE DEPRIVED OF
HIS LIFE OR LIBERTY.
Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing
and in the presence of counsel. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention
places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. The
law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations as well as compensation to
the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion

perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused: Provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.