PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

CRIMINAL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: criminal
law, Philippine Criminal law, principles of criminal law |

The term law refers to the set of rules and regulations or orders, usually written, created
and enacted by the people that must be abided by the people themselves. The aim of the
passage of laws is social control, that is, people binded by the laws will know what acts
should be done and what acts that should not be done.

One classification of law is the criminal law. Criminal law is defined as that branch or
division of public law which defines crimes, treats of their nature, and provides for their
punishment it.
Crime is a general term that refers to acts or omissions punishable by criminal law. An act
or omission is punishable only if there is a law prohibiting the performance of the act or a
law that commands a person to do an act but he failed to perform. In the Philippines, we
follow the legal maxim of NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE which means there is
no crime if there is no penal law punishing it. Therefore, in order for an act or omission to
be punished, there must be a law that forbids it and that law at the same time must provide
for a penalty violating it.

The sources of criminal law in the Philippines are: 1) The Revised Penal Code (RA 3815) and
its amendments; 2) Republic Acts; 3) Presidential Decrees, and 4) other Special Penal laws
passed by the Philippine Commission, Philippine Assembly, Philippine Legislature, National
Assembly, the Congress of the Philippines, and the Batasang Pambansa.

The basic of all criminal laws where some of the special laws were patterned is the Revised
Penal Code (RA 3815) that took effect on January 1, 1932. Presidential Decrees and
Republic Acts are the two (2) well known names of special criminal laws in the
Philippines. Presidential Decrees are special laws which were passed during the Martial
Law era wherein the Philippine was placed under a Parliamentary system of
government. Republic Acts are special laws which were passed after the 1987 Philippine
Constitution was enacted where the system of our government is now democratic and
republican.
At present, the national law making body of the Philippines is the (House of) Congress
which is composed of the Senators and the Representatives. Both belong to the legislative
branch of the government and they exercise legislative power, which is the authority
under the Constitution to make, amend, modify, or to repeal laws (Section 1, Article
VI). Any law passed by the Congress is national in scope and application.
The legislative power is shared by the Congress with the local legislatives or the local law
making bodies of the different political divisions of the Philippines which are the provinces,
cities, municipalities, and barangays. A law passed by a local legislative is termed as
ordinance and is only applicable within their respective political jurisdiction.
Specifically, violation of the Revised Penal Code is termed as felony while violation of
special criminal laws and ordinances is termed as offense. Any person who committed a
crime may be held liable criminally, civilly, administratively, both or all of the
above. Criminal liability means imprisonment with the duration is usually provided by the
law violated. Civil liability is the payment of damages in the form of
money. Administrative liability is a penalty associated with the principal penalty and
usually bestowed if the offender is a public official or employee like suspension in the
performance of functions, demotioninf rank, or dismissal from service
Principles of Philippine Criminal Law and the Exemptions in its Application

1. Principle of Generality Criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the
Philippine territory.

Exceptions: The following are not subject to the operation of the Philippine criminal laws
based to the well established principles of international law:

a) Sovereigns and other chiefs of state.

b) Ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charges daffaires

1. Principle of Territoriality Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within

Philippine territory.

Exceptions: The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable in the following
cases even if the felony is committed outside of the Philippines:

a) When the offender should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship.

A Philippine vessel or aircraft must be understood as that which is registered in the

Philippine Bureau of Customs.

b) When the offender should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations and securities issued by the (Philippine) Government.

c) When the offender should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into the
Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding number.

d) When the offender, while being a public officer or employee, should commit an offense
in the exercise of his functions.

Some crimes that may be committed in the exercise of public functions are direct bribery
(Art. 210), indirect bribery (Art. 211), and malversation of public funds or property (Art
217).
e) When the offender should commit any of the crimes against the national security and
the law of nations.

Some of the crimes under this title are treason (Art. 114), espionage (Art. 117) and piracy
and mutiny in the high seas (Art. 122).

3) Principle of Prospectivity Penal laws cannot make an act punishable in a manner in

which it was not punishable when committed.

Exception: A new law can be given a retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

SEARCH (AND SEIZURE) WITHOUT WARRANT, WHEN LAWFUL

Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE |
Tags: search, seizure, warrantless search |

Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and some cases decided by the Supreme Court
provide the instances when search is lawful without search warrant:
1. In times of war within the area of military operation.
(People v. de Gracia, 233 SCRA 716, Guanzon v. de Villa, 181 SCRA 623)
2. As an incident of a lawful arrest.

Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states that a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof
in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

Requisites: a) arrest must be lawful; b) search and seizure must be contemporaneous with
arrest; c) search must be within permissible area (People v. Estella, G.R. Nos. 138539 40,
January 21, 2003)
3. When there are prohibited articles open to the eye and hand of an officer (Plain
View Doctrine).

The plain view doctrine is usually applied where the police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an
incriminationatory object (People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597).

Requisites: a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; 2) the evidence was
accidentally discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; c) the
evidence must be immediately visible; and d) plain view justified the seizure of the
evidence without any further search (People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003).
4. When there is consent which is voluntary (consented search)
Requisites: a) there is a right; b) there must be knowledge of the existence of such right;
and c) there must be intention to waive (De Gracia v. Locsin, 65 Phil 689).
5. When it is incident to a lawful inspection.
Example of this kind of search is the searches of passengers at airports, ports or bus
terminals. Republic Act 6235 provides that luggage and baggage of airline passengers shall
be subject to search
6. Under the Tariff and Customs Code for purposes of enforcing the customs and
tariff laws;
The purpose is to prevent violations of smuggling or immigration laws.
7. Searches and seizures of vessels and aircraft; this extends to the warrantless
search of motor vehicle for contraband.
Examples of this is the seizure without warrant of a fishing vessel found to be violating
fishery laws and the stop and search without a warrant at military or police checkpoints
which are legal. Warrantless search and seizure in these instances are justified on the
ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicles, vessels, or
aircrafts can be moved quickly out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be
sought.
8. When there is a valid reason to stop and frisk.

Stop and frisk is defined as the particular designation of the right of a police officer to
stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he observes
unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot (Terry v.
Ohio).

Requisites: a) that there is a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct; b) that
the police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries; c) that the
police officer approached and restrained the person in order to check the latters outer
clothing for possibly concealed weapon; and d) that the apprehending officer must have a
genuine reason to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapon or contraband
concealed about him People v. Sy Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066 67, February 4, 2003)

NOTE: SEARCH AND SEIZURE SHOULD PRECEDE THE ARREST.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

SEARCH WARRANT AND ISSUES SURROUNDING ITS PROCUREMENT

AND IMPLEMENTATION
Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: search
warrant, search with warrant |

Parallel to the rule on warrant of arrest is the rule on search and seizure. These two
warrants are safeguards to the possible abuses that may be committed by public officers or
employees against the constitutional rights of every Filipino citizens or aliens who live
permanently or temporarily stay in the Philippines.

Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the right of the
people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon a probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.

The said constitutional provision simply means that search and seizure to the house and
property of a person can only be made if there is a lawful reason and if the person
conducting the search and seizure is authorized to do so, that is, if he is armed with a
search warrant.

The term search in relation to searches and seizures is an examination of a mans

dwelling or his other premises, or an examination to the man himself with the purpose of
discovering property which is considered as contraband, illegal, or stolen or which can be
used as an evidence to prove his guilt in the prosecution of a criminal offense that which he
was charged.
On the other hand, seizure is the physical taking of the property subject of a valid search
into the custody of the law.
Search warrant is defined as an order issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it before the court (Section 1).

The prime law in the Philippines in relation to search and seizure and search warrant is Rule
126 of the Rules of Court.

Section 4 provides for the requisites for issuing search warrant: 1) it must be based upon a
probable cause; 2) probable cause must be determined by the issuing judge personally; 3)
the judge must have personally examined, in the form of searching questions and answers,
the applicant and his witnesses and taken down their written depositions; 4) the search
warrant must particularly describe or identify the property to be seized as far as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow; 5) the warrant issued must particularly describe the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized; 6) it shall issue only for one
specific purpose; and 7) it must not have been issued more than 10 days prior to the search
made pursuant thereto.

The law states that one search warrant shall only be issued for one specific purpose, that is
one single warrant for one single offense committed. It shall also describe with particularity
the personal properties to be seized. A search warrant which was issued for more than one
offense is called a scatter shot warrant. A general warrant is a search warrant which
vaguely describes and does not particularize the personal properties to be seized. Both
warrants are not valid since they violate the constitutional and law provisions specifically the
fifth and the sixth requisites of a valid search warrant.

In the enforcement of the search warrant, officers implementing it must remember the
Knock and Announce Principle. They must announce their presence, identify themselves to
the accused or to the person who was given the authority to allow the officers search the
premises, show the warrant to be implemented, and explain to them said warrant in a
language or dialect known and understood by them.

The officer has the right to break door or window to effect search, if after executing the
knock and announce principle, he was refused admittance thereto (Section 7).

It is also required and mandated by law that the conduct of the search should be done in
the presence of any of the following: 1) lawful occupant of the place to be searched, or 2)
any member of his family; or 3) in their absence, in the presence of two witnesses of
sufficient age or discretion residing in the same locality. Officers conducting search without
the said requisite could be held liable for violating Article 130 of the Revised Penal Code that
is (Searching Domicile without Witnesses).

A public officer or employee who procured a search warrant without just cause or who
exceeded his authority or used unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally
procured like maliciously destroying or breaking of objects or things that do not hinder the
implementation of the search could be held liable for violating Article 129 of the Revised
Penal Code (Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse in the Service of Those
Legally Obtained).

A public officer or employee who entered without authority the dwelling and/or to make a
search for papers and for other effects could be held liable for violating Article 128 of the
Revised Penal Code (Violation of Domicile).

As a general rule, search warrants could only be served at day time (Section 7, Rule 113,
Rules of Court), except when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the property is on
the person or in the place to be searched only at night (Alvares vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil.
33).

Unlike a warrant of arrest, search warrant is only valid 10 days from its date, and could only
be used once. Thereafter, it becomes void.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

WHAT IS WARRANTLESS ARREST?

Posted on Saturday, December 26, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: arbitrary
detention, arrest without warrant, citizen arrest, illegal detention, warrantless arrest |

A deviation to the general rule that no person may be arrested without warrant of arrest is
found on Rule 113, Rule 115 of the Rules or Court. Said law enumerates the instances when
arrest without warrant is lawful (also called a warrant less arrest), to wit:

1. When, in the presence of the arresting officer or individual, the person to be

arrested HAS COMMITTED, IS ACTUALLY COMMITTING, OR IS ATTEMPTING TO
COMMIT A CRIME;
This arrest is termed under the law as in flagrante delicto (caught in the act) arrest.
This means that if the arresting officer or individual has caught in the act the suspect of
committing a crime for instance, he can arrest the suspect even without the needed warrant
of arrest. This kind of arrest is best exemplified in a buy-bust operation
1. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and the arresting officer or
individual has probable cause to believe based on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of
facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and,
This is also called doctrine of hot pursuit. Unlike the circumstances enumerated in the
preceding item, the arresting officer or individual did not see the actual commission of the
crime by the suspect. However, he can still arrest the suspect if 1) the offender just
committed the crime AND 2) the arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of fact and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed
it.

Personal knowledge is something that which will make the arresting believe that a person
has committed a crime and thus needs to be arrested. Personal knowledge can be acquired
from the testimonies or statements of eyewitnesses in a crime that was committed
describing the perpetrator and his direction after the commission of the crime. If after a
follow-up operation the arresting officer found the suspect, he can arrest the suspect even
without warrant of arrest.

However, take note of the word just in the rule. The word just means that the arrest
should be done immediately after the commission of the crime in order for the arrest under
this rule will be valid. If not, a warrant of arrest should already be secured before the
suspect could be arrested. What is immediate is left on the discretion of the court. However,
a Supreme Court decision states that the warrant less arrest of the suspect only three hours
after the commission of the crime was held valid People v. Gerente, 219 SCRA 756 while
another SC decision states that warrant less arrest after two (2) days after the discovery of
the crime was held unlawful (People vs. Olivarez, G.R. No. 77865, December 5, 1998).

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
Other instance of warrantless arrests

1. Where a person who has been lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued (Sec 13, Rule 113,
Rules of Court).

2. By the bondman for the purpose of surrendering the accused (Sec 23, Rule 114, Rules
of Court) and,

3. Where the accused attempts to leave the country without permission of the court (Sec
23, Rule 114, Rules of Court)
What is a citizen arrest?

Warrant less arrest can be effected by a private individual giving the term citizen arrest. A
warrant less arrest can also be termed as citizen arrest since it can be effected by private
individuals or citizens.

Duty of the arresting officer or individual after a warrantless arrest

Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code requires the arresting officer or individual to deliver to
the proper judicial authorities a person arrested and detained by virtue of warrant less
arrest within the prescribed hours:

1. 12 hours for offenses punishable by light penalties or their equivalent;

2. 18 hours for offenses punishable by correctional penalties or their equivalent; and

3. 36 hours for offenses punishable by afflictive penalties or their equivalent.

Deliver to the proper judicial authorities simply means that appropriate charges should be
filed in court against the accused and thus it should be within the prescribed hours
mentioned depending upon the gravity of the offense committed.

If after the prescribed hours, the arresting officer who is a public officer or employee did not
file charges against the suspect within the ambit of Article 125, he can be charged for delay
in the delivery of the proper persons to the proper judicial authorities under Article 125 of
the Revised Penal Code. If the arresting person is a private individual, the charged can be
illegal detention under Article 267 of the revised Penal Code.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

ARREST and WARRANT OF ARREST explained

Posted on Wednesday, December 16, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: arrest, warrant of
arrest |

Arrest is the taking of a person into custody of the law so that he may be bound to answer
(questions relevant to) the commission of an offense.

A person may be arrested for the commission of an offense and for other lawful reasons. In
most instances, he may only be arrested if a warrant of arrest was issued against him. The
prime law on arrest in the Philippines can be found in Rule 113 of the Rules of Court issued
by the Supreme Court.

A warrant of arrest is an order coming from a court commanding a law enforcement

officer or any public officer with the enforcement of a law to take a person named therein in
the custody of the law for matters relevant to the commission of the offense.

Thus, only the court through the judge can issue a warrant of arrest. A warrant of arrest is
valid if: 1) it was based upon a probable cause; 2) the probable cause was determined
personally by the judge himself; 3) the determination of the probable cause was done after
a careful examination by the judge of the complainant and of the witnesses he produced,
and 4) the warrant described with particularity the person to be arrested.

As herein used, probable cause may be defined as those facts or circumstances known by
the judge after a careful examination of the complainant and the witnesses the complainant
produced that induced the judge to believe without doubt that a crime was committed and a
warrant of arrest should be issued.
Only law enforcement officers and public officers charged with the enforcement of the law
are allowed to enforce a warrant of arrest but they can request other individuals to assist
them serve the warrant (Sec.10). Arrest can be made even if the arresting officer is not in
the possession of the warrant since exhibition of the warrant prior to arrest is not
necessary. However, he should show the warrant as soon as practicable after the person
arrested so requires (Mallari vs. Court of Appeals, 265 SCRA 456).

Arrest can be made by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by submission to

the custody of the person making the arrest (Sec. 2). A reasonable amount of force may be
used to effect arrest and the arresting officer is left with the discretion in determining the
degree of force that may be properly exerted. The enforcing officer has the right to break
into a building or enclosure if the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be in
said building and after announcing his authority and request for entering therein, he has
been denied admittance (Sec. 11)

A warrant of arrest should be executed within the period of ten (10) days from the receipt
thereof and at any hour of the day or night.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

STATE OF EMERGENCY in the PHILIPPINES

Posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: state of
emergency, state of emergency in the philippines |

Now that Proclamation Number 1959 (declaring martial law.in the Province of
Maguindanao, Philippines) was lifted by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, many people
and political leaders were still asking for an alternative measure to quell what they deemed
continuous existence of lawless violence in Maguindanao and in places near that area.
They are requesting, instead, that a state of emergency be declared.

A state of emergency is a declaration from a states government that may have the
effect of suspending the normal function of the national government and/or its entities and
will require its people to prepare to meet an emergency situation like the existence of war of
calamity. It may also have the effect of suspending some rights granted to its citizens or to
any people within its jurisdiction while the emergency is going on to give the national
government leeway in solving it.
The state of emergency may be declared covering the entire state or only a portion of it.
When only a portion of the state was placed under a state of emergency, the National
Government may run the affairs of the local government affected temporarily.

Of course, the declaration of a state of emergency will be subjected to the existing laws of
the concerned state. In the Philippines, the prime law covering this act of the government is
the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Section 23, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states:

1) The Congress, by vote of two thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
President, for a limited period of time and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof.

The power to declare as a state of war (or emergency) belongs to the Congress. Before they
could exercise this power, the concurrence of the two thirds of both Houses in joint
session assembled, voting separately, not jointly, is required.

Section 23 (2) however, provides that said power (also called as emergency power) of the
Congress may be delegated to the President. Because of the impracticability and
impossibility of Congress to meet instantly during emergencies (by its nature are abrupt),
the Constitution allows the Congress to grant this legislative power to the President, subject
to these certain conditions:

1) It may be granted by law only in times of war (whether declared or not) or other national
emergency (rebellion, invasion, war);

2) It must be exercised only during a limited period of time;

3) It must be exercised subject to restrictions to be prescribed by the Congress;

4) It must be exercised to carry out national policy; and

5) It shall automatically cease upon the next adjournment of the Congress, unless sooner
withdrawn.

It is only the Congress that can determine whether there is a war or a state of emergency. .
If later on in its opinion that the emergency has ceased, the declaration can be withdrawn
through a resolution.
Effects of the Declaration of a State of Emergency

Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that: In times of national
emergency, when the public interests so requires, the State may, during the emergency and
under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of
any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

(WHAT ARE NOT) THE EFFECTS OF THE PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW

Posted on Monday, December 14, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: effects of martial
law, martial law |

1. It does not suspend the Constitution.

The civil government and its entities continue its operation. The military authorities will not
take the reign of the government but only to help in the performance of its functions. The
rights of every citizen provided under the Constitution are not suspended and any
interference into must be justified in civil courts.

2. It does not replace the operation of the civil courts or legislative assemblies.

Criminal and civil actions as a result for the violation of the existing laws during martial law
should still be filed to, tried, and decided to by the regular courts. The Congress (and the
local legislatives) is not prohibited from performing their given functions like to conduct
investigations in aid of legislation or to conduct joint sessions to determine whether or not
to revoke or extend the martial law.

3. It does not authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function.

Violators of the law are still to be tried by the civil courts (municipal trial courts, regional
trails courts, Sandiganbayan, etc.) and not military courts. Warrants of arrest or search
warrants should be only be issued by and no person may be arrested and detained without
orders coming from these civil courts.

4. It does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may only be suspended upon proclamation of the
President, subject to the restrictions imposed by the Constitution. If suspended, it shall only
apply to persons who are judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion. If an arrested or detained person shall not be judicially charged
with three (3) days, he shall be released. (Section 18, Article VII, 1987 Philippine
Constituion)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE PHILIPPINE CONTEXT
Posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: habeas
corpus, habeas corpus Philippines, privilege of the writ, privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, proclamation
1959, suspension of the privilege of the writ, suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus |

Proclamation No. 1959 did not only place the Province of Mindanao under martial law but
also it suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the said place. This article
aims to explain in the most common understanding what the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is all about under the Philippine laws.

When a person was detained without legal cause, one of the legal remedies that he can
resort to is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in a court with competent jurisdiction.
Once approved, the court will issue an order known as writ of habeas corpus or privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus. These two legal terms differ in some ways.

The writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by a competent court, directed to a person
detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated
time and place, to explain the time and cause of the caption and detention, and to follow
what the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in behalf of the prisoner. The
purpose of the issuance of the writ is to inquire on the legality of the restraint or detention
without necessarily ordering the release of the prisoner.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, on the other hand, is an order coming from
the court to (immediately) release the prisoner if the court finds that the detention is
without legal cause or authority.
A return is a written explanation of the cause of the caption and detention of the prisoner.
The judge will have to study the return to determine whether the detention is authorized. If
so, the prisoner will be sent back to jail. If not, the prisoner will be freed by the judge. The
principal purpose of the writ, therefore, is to restore the liberty of the person subjected to
physical restraint.

However, there is an instance when the privilege of the writ may be suspended. Section 15,
Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion when the public safety requires
it.

What does the suspension of the privilege of the writ habeas corpus means?

When the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended, the courts are momentarily
prevented from determining the legality of a detention. This is true most especially in
martial law proclaimed areas like in Maguindanao. This means that people who have
committed the crime of rebellion (or even suspected ones) may be arrested without warrant
of arrest and objects that were used in the commission of the crime of rebellion may be
seized without search warrant.
The purpose of the law, therefore, in suspending the privilege of the writ is to hold in
preventive imprisonment persons who plotted or committed acts that endanger the
existence of the State pending their investigation and trial (Padilla vs. Ponce Enrile, L-
61388, April 20, 1983).

Grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus

Section 15, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion when the public
safety requires it.

Section 18, Article VII of the same Constitution provides that the suspension of the privilege
of the writ is one of the military powers of the President, meaning that just like martial law,
it is only the President of the Philippines who could suspend the privilege of the writ and it
must be based on the following conditions:

1) There must be invasion or rebellion; AND

2) The public safety requires it

The other conditions for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus are also
the same as that with the proclamation of martial law (please refer to the related article in
this site: Martial Law in Maguindanao [Philippines]: To Fear or Not to Fear).

However, it shall only apply to persons judicially charged for rebellion or inherent in or
directly connected with invasion and not to those who are only suspected of committing
rebellion or invasion.

A person arrested or detained must be released if not judicially charged within three (3)
days (1987 Philippine Constitution, Section 18, Article VII, last par)

The proclamation of martial law does not automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under Proclamation
No. 1959 constitutional?

My answer is NO.

Going back to the conditions before its suspension which is similar to the proclamation of
martial law, no actual case of rebellion or invasion exists in the Province of Maguindanao,
therefore, the suspension of the privilege of the writ is unconstitutional (please read related
article in this site: Defining the Crime of Rebellion in Relation to Proclamation 1959).

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

DEFINING THE CRIME OF REBELLION IN RELATION TO

PROCLAMATION 1959
Posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: martial
law, proclamation 1959, rebellion, what is rebellion |

The proclamation of martial law in Maguindanao drew negative feedbacks and comments
from different groups of people and some legal experts. According to the critics, the
proclamation is unconstitutional and unlawful because the proclamation did not meet the
criteria as set forth by the 1987 Constitution. Thus, they are calling for the immediate
revocation of the proclamation.

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution requires that before martial law
can be declared, two (2) requisites MUST be present: 1) There MUST be (actual) invasion or
rebellion, AND, 2) public safety requires the proclamation.

Note the word and between the two requisites. This means that these two requisites must
both be present in order that the proclamation will stay.

The proclamation did not meet the first requisite, that is, there MUST be (actual) invasion or
rebellion.

Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (Act No. 3815, as amended the
law that defines acts or omissions that are punishable in the Philippines that took effect on
January 1, 1932) enumerates the requisites for crime of REBELLION:

Elements:

1. That there be

a) Public uprising AND

b) Taking up of arms AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT;

1. For the PURPOSE OF

a) REMOVING from the allegiance to said Government or its laws

1. The territory of the Philippines, or any part thereof.

2. Any body of land, naval, or other armed forces, or

b) DEPRIVING the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their

powers or prerogatives.

Rebellion is an immeasurable movement of men and a multifaceted system of machinations

and conspiracy and the object is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing
government.
It is now a public knowledge that the massacre was politically motivated and an election
related incident. The primary suspects are members of a political clan who are mostly
incumbent elected government officials. The victims were relatives of another political clan,
members of the media, and other innocent persons who were just on their way to the filing
of the certificate of candidacy of a relative who will challenge the post of the incumbent
political leader of their place who is a member of the suspect clan.

Although there was public uprising and taking of arms, but is it addressed against the
government, to the Chief Executive, or Congress? Did the suspect meet any of the purpose
in committing the crime of rebellion? On the other hand, the current (local) government of
that place was the defendant, while the people were the victims.

As bright as the morning sun, my answer is NO.

No crime of rebellion was committed therefore the proclamation of martial law is uncalled
for and should be revoked because it is unconstitutional and unlawful as it did not meet the
requirements set forth by the constitution and by the Revised Penal Code, aside from other
relevant reasons. #

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

PROCLAMATION NO. 1959 (FULL TEXT)

Posted on Tuesday, December 8, 2009. Filed under: PHILIPPINE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE | Tags: proclamation no.
1959 |

PROCLAMATION NO. 1959

PROCLAIMING A STATE OF MARTIAL LAW AND
SUSPENDING THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN THE PROVINCE OF
MAGUINDANAO, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN AREAS
WHEREAS, Proclamation 1946 was issued on 24 November 2009 declaring a state of
emergency in the provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato for
the purpose of preventing and suppressing lawless violence in the aforesaid areas;
WHEREAS, Section 18 , Article VII of the Constitution provides that x x x In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public safety so requires it, (the President) may, for a period
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the
Philippines or any part thereof under martial law, x x x
WHEREAS, R.A. No. 6986 provides that the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed
by rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of xxx depriving
the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.
WHEREAS, heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established
positions to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and
prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety;
WHEREAS, the condition of peace and order in the province of Maguindanao has
deteriorated to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms
in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety;
WHEREAS, the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRP-MILF Agreement on the
General Cessation of Hostilities dated 14 November 1997 provides the following is
considered a prohibited act: x x x establishment of checkpoints except those necessary for
the GRPs enforcement and maintainance of peace and order; and for the defense and
security of the MILF in their identified areas, as jointly determined by the GRP and the MILF,
xxx
NOW, THEREFORE, I , GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, President of the Republic of the
Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby
proclaim as follows:
SECTION 1. There is hereby declared a state of martial law in the province of
Maguindanao, except for the identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as referred
to in the Implementing Operational Guidelines of the GRP-MILF Agreement on the General
Cessation of Hostilities.
SECTION 2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall likewise be suspended in the
aforesaid area for the duration of the state of martial law.

DONE in the City of Manila, this 4th day of December in the year of our Lord, Two
Thousand and Nine.

GLORIA MACAPAGAL ARROYO

By the President:

EDUARDO R. ERMITA
Executive Secretary
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Previous Entries