II.
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
BILL OF RIGHTS
 A set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and
political rights of the individual, and imposing limitations on the
powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment
of those rights.
 Defined as a declaration and enumeration of a person’s rights
and privileges which the Constitution is designed to protect
against violations by the government, or by individual or groups
of individuals.
 It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon
the power of the State
CLASSIFICATION OF RIGHTS
1. Natural rights – they are those rights possessed by every
citizen without being granted by the state for they are conferred
upon him by God as human being so that he may live a happy
life (Example: right to love)
2. Constitutional rights – they are those rights which conferred
and protected by the Constitution. Since they are part of the
fundamental law, they cannot be modified or taken by the law-
making body
3. Statutory rights – they are those rights which are provided by
laws promulgated by the law-making body, and consequently ,
may be abolished by the same body (Example: Right to inherit
property)
CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
1. Political rights – granted by law to members of community in
relation to their direct or indirect participation in the
establishment or administration of government (Example: right
of citizenship)
2. Civil rights – rights which municipal law will enforce at the
instance of private individuals, for the purpose of securing them
the enjoyment of their means of happiness (Example: liberty of
abode)
3. Social and economic rights – this pertains to the right to self-
determination, which is the right to freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their social and cultural
development (Example: right to just compensation)
4. Human rights – rights that are inherent in our nature without
which we cannot live as human beings
5. Rights of the accused – they are the rights intended for the
protection of a person accused of any crime (Example: right to
presumption of innocence)
A. DUE PROCESS
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
· no precise definition because it might prove constricting and prevent
the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases
· responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the
dictates of justice
· embodiment of sporting idea on fair play
· guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government
Protection of Person
Covers Natural (citizen and alien) and Artificial Persons. As to the
latter, with respect only to property because its life and liberty are
derived from and subject to control of legislature
Deprivation (in Sec. 1, Art. III)
· connotes denial of right to life, liberty or property
· not unconstitutional. what is prohibited is deprivation without due
process of law.
· When the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property, the
presumption is that the action is valid.
1. Life
· It is not just a protection of the right to be alive or to the security of
one's limb against physical harm. The right to life is the right to a good
life... a life of dignity and... a decent standard of living.
2. Liberty
(1) freedom to do right and never wrong (Mabini)
(2) right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude
3. Property
· anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of contract
· all things within the commerce of man
· However, one cannot have a vested right to a public office as this is
not regarded as property. If created by statue, it may be abolished by
the legislature at any time.
· Mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore revocable at
will
Aspects of Due Process
1. Substantive Due Process
2. Procedural Due Process
· As a substantive requirement, it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws.
· As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of
procedure which government agencies must follow in the enforcement
and application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness.
Substantive due process – requires intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty or property
Requisites:
(a) There must be a valid law upon which it is based.
(b) The law must have been passed or approved to accomplish a
valid governmental objective
(c) The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner
(d) The law and the means to achieve the objective must be valid.
Procedural due process – method of procedure to be observed
before one’s life, liberty and property can be taken away.
1. Judicial Due Process
Requisites:
(a) Impartial and Competent Court
(b) Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
and/or property
(c) Hearing
· not necessarily trial-type hearing; submission of position
papers is enough
· right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a
civil case is an indispensable part of due process
· the filing of a motion for reconsideration cures the defect of
absence of a hearing
· Cases in which notice and hearing may be dispensed with
without violating due process:
◦ abatement of nuisance per se
◦ preventive suspension of a civil servant facing
administrative charges
◦ cancellation of passport of a person sought for the
commission of a crime
◦ statutory presumptions
(d) Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing (Banco Espanol Filipino
v. Palanca)
2. Administrative Due Process
Requisites:
(a) Right to a hearing
(b) Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(c) Decision must have something to support itself
(d) Evidence must be Substantial
(e) Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected
(f) Tribunal, body, or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the facts and law of the controversy
(g) Decision is rendered in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for
the decision rendered
· In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required is only
substantial evidence, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
· The law is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men
“of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and
differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two
respects:
▪ it violates due process for failure to accord persons fair notice
of conduct to avoid; and,
▪ it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions and becomes arbitrary flexing of the Government
muscle.
· In Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held that there was no
violation of due process because the nature of the charges against the
petitioner is not uncertain and void merely because general terms are
used or because it employed terms that were not defined. The Anti-
Plunder law does not violate due process since it defines the act which
it purports to punish, giving the accused fair warning of the charges
against him, and can effectively interpose a defense against on his
behalf.
· A Connecticut statute making it a crime to use any drug or article to
prevent conception violates the right of marital privacy which is within
the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights.
◦ Although the Bill of Rights does not mention ‘privacy’ the
Court ruled that that the right was to be found in the
"penumbras" of other constitutional protections. “The First
Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is penumbra
where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion.”
· In Lochner v. New York, Lochner was charged with violation of the
labor laws of New York for wrongfully and unlawfully permitting an
employee to work more than 60 hours in one week. The statute
allegedly violated mandates that no employee shall contract or agree
to work more than 10 hours per day.
Issue: Whether the statute is unconstitutional.
Ruling: Yes.
The statute is unconstitutional. The statute interferes with the liberty of
a person and the right of free contract between employer and
employee by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a
baker without reasonable ground for doing so.
The general right to make a contract in relation to one’s business is a
liberty protected by the 14th amendment.
The state may interfere with and regulate both property and liberty
rights to prevent the individual from making certain kinds of contracts
in its exercise of police power which relates to safety, health, morals
and general welfare of the society. In this instance, the 14th
amendment cannot interfere.
The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would
warrant the state’s interference with rights to labor and contract.
Doctrine: The rule must have a more direct relation, as means to an
end, and the end itself must be appropriate and legitimate, before an
act can be held to be valid which interferes with the general right of an
individual to be free in his person and in his power to contract in
relation to his own labor.
· Our cases include Court of Industrial Relations (Ang Tibay vs. CIR)
as an administrative court which exercises judicial and quasi-judicial
functions in the determination of disputes between employers and
employees. National Telecommunications Company (PHILCOMSAT
vs. Alcuaz), National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC (DBP vs.
NLRC) and school tribunals (Ateneo vs. CA-Board of Discipline,
Alcuaz vs. PSBA, Non vs. Judge Dames, Tinker vs. Des Moines
Community School District) also are clothed with quasi-judicial
function. It is a question of whether the body or institution has a judicial
or quasi-judicial function that makes it bound by the due process
clause. (Judicial function is synonymous to judicial power which is the
authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights
that are legally enforceable and demandable or the redress of wrongs
for violations of such rights. It is a determination of what the law is and
what the legal rights of the parties are with respect to a matter in
controversy).
· In Ang Tibay vs. CIR, the Court laid down cardinal requirements in
administrative proceedings which essentially exercise a judicial or
quasijudicial function. These are:
(1) the right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s
case and submit evidence in support thereof
(2) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented
(3) The decision must have something to support itself
(4) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means
such a reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion
(5) The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the
hearting or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected
(6) The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and
not simply accept the views of a subordinate
(7) The Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
B. EQUAL PROTECTION
Section 1, Art. III. No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
· The Equality Protection Clause is a specific constitutional
guarantee of the Equality of the Person. The equality it guarantees is
“legal equality or, as it is usually put, the equality of all persons before
the law.
· embraced in the concept of due process
· embodied in a separate clause to provide for a more specific
guaranty against undue favoritism or hostility from the government
Due Process Clause attacks arbitrariness in general
Equal Protection Clause attacks unwarranted partiality or
prejudice
Substantive Equality – all persons or things similarly situated should
be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed.
Equality in enforcement of the law – law be enforced and applied
equally
Requisites of Valid Classification:
(a) it must be based on substantial distinctions
(b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law
(c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only
◦ must be enforced as long as the problem sought to be
corrected exists
(d) it must apply equally well to all members of the class
◦ both as to rights conferred and obligations imposed
· In De Guzman v. Comelec, petitioners theorize that Sec. 44 of RA
8189 is violative of the equal protection clause because it singles out
the City and Municipal Election Officers of the COMELEC as
prohibited from holding office in the same city or municipality for more
than four years. The Court held that the law is valid. The singling out of
election officers in order to “ensure the impartiality of election officials
by preventing them from developing familiarity with the people of their
place of assignment.
· In Ormoc Sugar Central v. Ormoc City, Ormoc City imposes a tax
on Ormoc Sugar Central by name. Ormos Sugar Central is the only
sugar central in Ormoc City. The Court held that such ordinance is not
valid for it would be discriminatoory against the Ormoc Sugar Central
which alone comes under the ordinance.
C. SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Section 2, Art. III. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons,houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Section 2, Art. III – deals with tangibles; embodies the “castle”
doctrine (a man's house is his castle; a citizen enjoys the right against
official intrusion and is master of all the surveys within the domain and
privacy of his own home.)
· This provision applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law. It
does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures
perpetrated by private individuals.
Section 3, Art. III. (1)The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this
or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.
Section 3 (1), Art. III – deals with intangibles
Section 3 (2), Art. III – Exclusionary Rule (which embodies the
Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree)
Exclusionary Rule – evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art.III,
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Fruit of
Poisonous Tree Doctrine). (Stonehill v. Diokno)
· available to natural and artificial persons, but the latter's books of
accounts may be required to open for examination by the State in the
exercise of police power or power of taxation The right is personal
(Stonehill vs Diokno)
· General Rule: only a judge may issue a warrant.
Exception: orders of arrest may be issues by administrative
authorities but only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a
violation of a law
Valid Warrantless Searches
[NOTE: each of these requires probable cause, except stop and frisk]
1. searches incidental to lawful arrest (rule 126, Rules of Court) –
for dangerous weapons or anything that may have been used or
constitute in the commission of an offense
Requisites:
1. the item to be searched was within the arrestee's custody or
area of immediate control
2. the search was contemporaneous with the arrest
2. searches of moving vehicles
· In Aniag v. Comelec, twenty meters away from the gate of the
Batasan, a truck was stopped and searched. The motorists had not
given any evidence of suspicious behaviour nor had the searching
officers received any confidential information about the car. The Court
held that the search was not justifiable as a warrantless arrest of a
moving vehicle as there was no probable cause.
3. searches of prohibited articles in plain view
Requisites:
1. prior valid intrusion to a place
2. evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
has the right to be there
3. evidence is immediately apparent
4. there is no further search
4. enforcement of customs law
5. consented searches
6. stop and frisk (limited protective search of outer clothing for
weapons)
· In Terry v. Ohio, the stop-and-frisk rule is stated thus: “(W)here a
police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and
presently dangerous, where in the course of investigation of this
behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is
entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a
carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.”
· Stop-and-frisk rule serves a two-fold interest:
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection;
(2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation.
(Malacat)
7. routine searches at borders and ports of entry
8. searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial powers to
enforce police regulations
Valid Warrantless Arrest of witnesses released
1. in flagrante delicto Preliminary inquiry
2. hot pursuit (task of
3. the offender escaped from the penal establishment the judge) –
determination of
Requisites of a valid warrant probable cause for
Arrest Warrant Search Warrant the issuance of
warrant of arrest
1. Probable Cause Such facts and Such facts and Preliminary
must refer to one (1) circumstances which circumstances which investigation proper
specific offense would lead a would lead a (task of the
reasonably prudent reasonably prosecutor) –
man to believe that prudent man to ascertainment
an believe that an whether the offender
offense has been offense has been should be held for
committed and the committed trial or be
person sought to be and the objects
arrested had sought in the 3. After examination Not merely routinary Not merely routinary
committed it connection of the under oath or but must but must
offense are in affirmation of the be probing and be probing and
the place sought to complainant and the exhaustive exhaustive
be searched witnesses he may
2. Personal The judge personally The judge must produce
determination of determines the personally 4.Particularity of General Rule: it must General Rule: when
probable cause by existence of probable examine in the form description contain the name/s of the
the judge cause; it is not of searching the persons to be description therein is
necessary that he questions and arrested as specific
should answers... Exception: if there is as the circumstances
personally examine in writing and under some descriptio will
the complainant and oath... personae which will ordinarily allow.
his witnesses the complainants and enable the officer to Exception: when no
(Soliven vs Makasiar) his identify the accused other more
witnesses... accurate and detailed
Procedure: on facts personally description could
(1) personally known to have been
evaluate the fiscal's them... given.
report, or and attach to the
(2) if [1] is insufficient, record their · In Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa, the Court held that not all searches
disregard it and sworn statements and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
require the and affidavits. forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
submission of (Silva vs Presiding formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the case.
supporting affidavits Judge) Checkpoints are not illegal per se... Routine inspection and few
questions do not constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection
becomes more thorough to the extent of becoming a search, this can
be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the latter
situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle.
Probable Cause – facts and circumstances antecedent to the
issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a
cautious man to rely upon them.
· In Corro v. Lising, the Affidavit of Col. Castillo stated that in several
issues of the Philippine Times:”... we found that the said publication in
fact foments distrust and hatred against the government of the
Philippines. The Court held that the affidavit does not establish
probable cause, and is nothing but conclusions of law.
· In Burgos v. Chief of Staff, a search warrant for the newspaper WE
Forum is issued on the basis of a broad statement of the military that
Burgos, Jr. is “in possession of printing equipment and other
paraphernalia... used as means of committing the offense of
subversion.” The Court held that such allegation is not sufficient to
establish probable cause. It is a mere conclusion of law unsupported
by particulars.
The Court also held that the search warrant description has the
“sweeping tenor” making the document a general warrant. The search
warrant particularly states:”all printing equipment, typewriters... of the
WE Forum newspaper and any other documents...” It is not required
that the property to be searched should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient that the
property is under the control or possession of the person sought to be
searched.
· In Soliven v. Judge Makasiar, the Court clarified the meaning of
“personally” in the search and seizure clause. It stated that in arriving
at a conclusion as to the existence of existence of probable cause,
what is required is personal determination and not personal
examination.
· In Lim v. Felix, the Court held that the judge in issuing a warrant of
arrest cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a
prosecutor that probable cause exists. The judge must look at the
report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any), and
all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's certification.
· In Stonehill v. Diokno, the Court held that the following description
is insufficient for it amounts to a general warrant authorizing the officer
to pick up anything he pleases: “ Book of accounts, financial records,
vouchers...and other documents showing all business transactions....”
The Court further held that the objection to an unlawful search or
seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and
cannot be availed by third parties.
D. MIRANDA RIGHTS
Section 12, Art. III.
1. Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and
in the presence of
counsel.
2. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
4. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this Section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.
· called the “Miranda Doctrine” (Miranda vs Arizona)
Miranda Doctrine – prior to any questioning during custodial
investigation, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain
silent, that any statement he gives may be used as evidence against
him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, either
retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these
rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently.
Purpose of the Doctrine
In Miranda v Arizona, the US Supreme Court established rules to
protect a criminal defendant's privilege against self-incrimination
from the pressures arising during custodial investigation by the
police. Thus, to provide practical safeguards for the practical
reinforcement for the right against compulsory self-incrimination, the
Court held that “the prosecution may not use statements, whether
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of
the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards
effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
Requisites of the Miranda Doctrine
(1) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain
silent;
(2) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(3) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and
to have his counsel present when being questioned; and
(4) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioning if he so desires.
Custodial investigation defined
· Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person
has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way.
· Begins as soon as the investigation is no longer a general inquiry
unto an unsolved crime, and direction is then aimed upon a particular
suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the police
would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements.
· Shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any
violation of law.
Extrajudicial confession is Admissible when:
(a) Voluntary
(b)With assistance of counsel
(c) In writing, and
(d) Express
Rights Under Custodial Investigation
(a) To be informed of right to remain silent and to counsel
· Carries the correlative obligation on the part of the
investigator to explain and contemplates effective
communication which results in the subject understanding what
is conveyed. (People v. Agustin)
(b) To be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything
he says can and will be used against him
(c) To remain silent
(d) To have competent and independent counsel preferably of own
choice
(e) To be provided with counsel if the person cannot afford the
services of one
(f) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him
(g) Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar
forms of detention are prohibited
(h) Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are
inadmissible as evidence (exclusionary rule)
Rights That May Be Waived
[waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel]
(a) Right to remain silent
(b) Right to Counsel
Rights That Cannot Be Waived
(a) Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel
(b) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain
silent or to counsel
· Right to counsel de parte is not unlimited. Accused cannot
repeatedly ask for postponement. He must be provided with
counsel de oficio.
· RA 7309: victims of unjust imprisonment may file their claims
with the Board of Claims under DOJ
· Res Gestae: The declaration of the accused acknowledging guilt
made to the police desk officer after the crime was committed may be
given in evidence against him by the police officer to whom the
admission was made, as part of the res gestae.
· In People v. Galit, rights under custodial investigation may be
waived. The Constitution says; “These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.” In localities where there are
no lawyers, the State must bring the individual to a place where there
is one.
· Termination of rights under custodial investigation: When
Charges are filed against the accused (in such case, Sections 14 and
17 come into play).
· In Gutang v. People, the Court held that urine sample is admissible.
“What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the accused, but not an
inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be material. In fact, an
accused may be validly compelled to be photographed or measured,
or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to
enablke the foregoing things to be done, without running afould of the
proscription against testimonial compulsion.
E. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13, Art. III. 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.
Bail – is security given for the release of a person in custody of law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranty his appearance before
any court as may be required
Kinds of Bail
(a) Cash bond
(b) Security bond
Who May Invoke?
A person under detention even if no formal charges have yet been
filed (Rule 114, Rules of Court)
Who Are Entitled?
(a) Persons charged with offenses punishable by Reclusion Perpetua
or Death, when evidence of guilt is strong
(b) Persons convicted by the trial court. Bail is only discretionary
pending appeal.
(c) Persons who are members of the AFP facing a court martial.
· In Paderanga v. CA, all persons actually detained, except those
charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or death when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable but
sufficient sureties. One is under the custody of the law either when he
has been arrested or has surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the
court, as in the case where through counsel petitioner for bail who was
confined in a hospital communicated his submission to the jurisdiction
of the court.
Other Rights in Relation to Bail
· 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.
Factors in Fixing Amount of Bail
(a) Ability to post bail
(b) Nature of the offense
(c) Penalty imposed by law
(d) Character and reputation of the accused
(e) Health of the accused
(f) Strength of the evidence
(g) Probability of appearing at the trial
(h) Forfeiture of previous bail bonds
(i) Whether accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested
(j) If accused is under bond in other cases
Implicit Limitations on the Right to Bail
(a) The person claiming the right must be in actual detention or
custody of the law.
· In People v. Donato, charged with rebellion, a bailable offense,
Salas nevertheless agreed “to remain in legal custody during the
pendency of the trial of his criminal case.” The Court held that he does
not have the right to bail, because bu his act he has waived his right.
(b) The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g.
in deportation and extradition proceedings.
Note:
(a) Right to bail is not available in the military.
· In Comendador v. De Villa, soldier under court martial does not
enjoy the right to bail. It is because of the disciplinary structure of the
military and because soldiers are allowed the fiduciary right to bear
arms and can therefore cause great havoc... Nor can appeal be made
to the equal protection clause ebcause equal protection applies only to
those who are equally situated.
(b) Apart from bail, a person may attain provisional liberty through
recognizance.
· In US v. Puruganan, the Court held that extradition is not a criminal
proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in criminal proceedings,
a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to a bail. He
should apply for a bail in the court where he will be tried.
F. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Section 14, Art. III.
1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
2. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
The Rights of the Accused Include
1. Criminal due process;
2. Presumption of innocence;
3. Right to be heard by himself or counsel;
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him;
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial;
6. Right to meet the witnesses face to face;
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses and
production of evidence; and
8. trial in absentia
1. Criminal Due Process
Criminal process includes
a) Investigation prior to the filing of charges
b) Preliminary examination and investigation after charges are filed
c) Period of trial
Requirements of Criminal Due Process
1. Impartial and competent court in accordance with procedure
prescribed by law;
2. Proper observance of all the rights accorded the accused under the
Constitution and the applicable statutes (example of statutory right of
the accused: right to Preliminary investigation)
· Mistrial may be declared if shown that proceedings were held under
circumstances as would prevent the accused from freely making his
defense or the judge from freely arriving at his decision.
· There is violation of due process when law not published and a
person is impleaded for violation of such law.
· There is violation of due process when appeal is permitted by law but
there is denial thereof.
2. Presumption of Innocence
· Burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the
prosecution.
· Conviction depends on the strength of prosecution, not on the
weakness of the defense
· The presumption may be overcome by contrary presumption based
on the experience of human conduct. (e.g unexplained flight may lead
to an inference of guilt, as “the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but
the righteous are as bold as a lion.”)
· The constitutional presumption will not apply as long as there is some
rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact
presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not
be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. – Cooley
· No inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure
to make a statement of any sort.
· In Dumlao v. Comelec, for the purposes of disqualification in an
election, section 4 of BP Blg. 52 says that” the filing of charges for the
commission of such crimes before civil court or military tribunal after
preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact
(disqualification).” The Court held that this provision violates the
guarantee of presumption of innocence. Although filing of charges is
only prima facie evidence and may be rebutted, the proximity of
elections and consequent risk of not having time to rebut the prima
facie evidence already in effect make him suffer as though guilty even
before trial.
Equipoise Rule – evidence of both sides are equally balanced, in
which case the constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the
scales in favor of theaccused.
3. Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
· Indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the
liberty or even the life of the accused
· Assistance of counsel begins from the time a person is taken into
custody and placed under investigation for the commission of a crime.
▪ This is not subject to waiver.
· Right to counsel means the right to effective representation.
· If the accused appears at arraignment without counsel, the judge
must:
(a) Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before
arraignment;
(b) Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel;
(c) If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a
counsel de oficio must be appointed;
(d) If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court
must give him a reasonable time to get one.
4. Nature and Cause of Accusation
Purpose for the Right to be informed of the Nature and Cause of
Accusation
(1) To furnish the accused with a description of the charge against him
as will enable him to make his defenses;
(2) To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal against a further
prosecution for the same cause;
(3) To inform the court of the facts alleged.
· The description and not the designation of the offense is controlling
(The real nature of the crime charged is determined from the recital of
facts in the information. It is not determined based on the caption or
preamble thereof nor from the specification of the provision of law
allegedly violated.)
· If the information fails to allege the material elements of the offense,
the accused cannot be convicted thereof even if the prosecution is
able to present evidence during the trial with respect to such elements.
Void for Vagueness Rule – accused is denied the right to be
informed of the charge against him and to due process as well, where
the statute itself is couched in such indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts or omissions are punished and
hence, shall be avoided.
· In Estrada vs Sandiganbayan, the Court held that the Void for
Vagueness Doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of
certainty and not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.
5. The Trial
Factors in Determining Whether There Is Violation
(a) Time expired from the filing of the information
(b) Length of delay involved
(c) Reasons for the delay
(d) Assertion or non-assertion of the right by the accused
(e) Prejudice caused to the defendant.
· Effect of dismissal based on violation of this right: it amounts to
an acquittal and can be used as basis to claim double jeopardy. This
would be the effect even if the dismissal was made with the consent of
the accused
Remedy if the Right is Violated
(1) He can move for the dismissal of the case;
(2) If he is detained, he can file a petition for the issuance of writ of
habeas corpus.
Speedy trial -
1. Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
2. To relieve the accused from needless anxieties before sentence is
pronounced upon him
Impartial trial – the accused is entitled to the “cold neutrality of an
impartial judge”. It is an element of due process.
· Public trial: The attendance at the trial is open to all irrespective of
their relationship to the accused. However, if the evidence to be
adduced is “offensive to decency or public morals”, the public may be
excluded.
· The right of the accused to a public trial is not violated if the hearings
are conducted on Saturdays, either with the consent of the accused or
if failed to object thereto.
· The right to be present covers the period from arraignment to
promulgation of sentence.
· General Rule: the accused may waive the right to be present at the
trial by not showing up. However, the court can still compel the
attendance of the accused if necessary for identification purposes.
▪ Exception: If the accused, after arraignment, has stipulated
that he is indeed the person charged with the offense and
named in the information, and that any time a witness refers to
a name by which he is known, the witness is to be understood
as referring to him.
· Trial in Absentia is mandatory upon the court whenever the accused
has been arraigned.
· There is also Promulgation in Absentia
· While the accused is entitled to be present during promulgation of
judgment, the absence of his counsel during such promulgation does
not affect its validity
· The trial in absentia does not abrogate the provisions of the Rules of
Court regarding forfeiture of bail bond if the accused fails to appear at
his trial.
· A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines as this is a necessary consequence of the
nature and function of a bail bond
6. The Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
Purposes of the Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
(1) To afford the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the witness
(2) To allow the judge the opportunity to observe the deportment of the
witness
Principal Exceptions to this Right
(1) The admissibility of “dying declarations”
(2) Trial in absentia under Section 14(2)
· With respect to child testimony
· Testimony of witness who was not cross-examined is not admissible
as evidence for being hearsay.

· If a prosecution witness dies before his cross-examination can be
completed, his direct testimony cannot be stricken off the record,
provided the material points of his direct testimony had been covered
on cross.
· The right to confrontation may be waived.
7. Compulsory Process
· The accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum
and subpoena duces tecum for the purpose of compelling the
attendance of witness and the production of evidence that he may
need for his defense.
· Failure to obey – punishable as contempt of court.
· There are exceptional circumstances when the defendant may ask
for conditional examination, provided the expected testimony is
material of any witness under circumstances that would make him
unavailable from attending the trial.
8. Trial in Absentia
Trial in Absentia May Only Be Allowed If the Following Requisites
Are Met:
(1) the accused has been validly arraigned;
(2) Accused has already been arraigned;
(3) Accused has been duly notified of the trial; and
(4) His failure to appear is unjustifiable.
G. HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15, Art. III. The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion
or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.
Writ of Habeas Corpus – is a written order issued by a court, directed
to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body
of the prisoner at a designated time and place with the day and cause
of his caption and detention.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus – the right to have an
immediate determination of the legality of the deprivation of physical
liberty.
The President may suspend the privilege:
(1) in cases of invasion or rebellion
(2) when public safety requires it.
· Habeas corpus lies only where the restraint of a person's liberty has
been judicially adjudged to be illegal or unlawful (In re: Sumulong)
· The writ is a prerogative writ employed to test the validity of detention
· To secure the detainee’s release
· The action shall take precedence in the calendar of the court and
must be acted upon immediately
When available (enumeration not exclusive)
restoration of liberty of an individual subjected to physical restraint
may be availed of where, as a consequence of a judicial proceeding:
1. there has been deprivation of a constitutional right resulting
in the restraint of the person
2. the court has no jurisdiction to impose the sentence, or
3. an excessive penalty has been imposed, since such
sentence is void as to the excess.
May be extended to cases by which rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled thereto
When moral restraint is exerted (Caunca vs Salazar)
Right was accorded a person was sentenced to a longer penalty
than was subsequently meted out to another person convicted of the
same offense. (Gumabon vs Director of Prisons)
Unlawful denial of bail
When not available (enumeration not exclusive)

the person alleged to be restrained is in the custody of an officer
under a process issued by the court which has jurisdiction to do so
desaparecidos (disappeared persons) – persons could not be found;
remedy is to refer the matter to Commission on Human Rights
Procedure
Need to comply with writ; disobedience thereof constitutes contempt
Who may suspend the privilege
The President
Grounds for Suspension of the privilege
1. invasion or rebellion
2. when public safety requires it
Section 18, Art. VII. The President shall be the Commander-in-
Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In
case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it,
he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report
in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting
jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular
or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension,
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon
the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to
be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martiallaw or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three
days, otherwise he shall be released.
Lansang doctrine (Lansang vs Garcia): SC has the power to inquire
into the factual basis of the suspension of the privilege of the writ. It is
written in Article VII, Sec. 18 of the Constitution.
H. WRIT OF AMPARO
A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC
(25 September 2007)
THE RULE ON THE WRIT OF AMPARO
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy
available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof.
SEC. 2. Who May File. The petition may be filed by the aggrieved
party or by any qualified person or entity in the following order:
1. Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse, children
and parents of the aggrieved party;
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default
of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph; or
3. Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if
there is no known member of the immediate family or relative of the
aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all
other authorized parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of
the petition by an authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party
suspends the right of all others, observing the order established
herein.
SEC. 3. Where to File. The petition may be filed on any day and at
any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred, or with
the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any
justice of such courts. The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines.
When issued by a Regional Trial Court or any judge thereof, the writ
shall be returnable before such court or judge.
When issued by the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of
their justices, it may be returnable before such court or any justice
thereof, or to any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat,
act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred.
When issued by the Supreme Court or any of its justices, it may be
returnable before such Court or any justice thereof, or before the
Sandiganbayan or the Court of Appeals or any of their justices, or to
any Regional Trial Court of the place where the threat, act or omission
was committed or any of its elements occurred.
SEC. 4. No Docket Fees. The petitioner shall be exempted from the
payment of the docket and other lawful fees when filing the petition.
The court, justice or judge shall docket the petition and act upon it
immediately.
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. The petition shall be signed and
verified and shall allege the following:
1. The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
2. The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown
or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed
appellation;
3. The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated
or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the
respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with the
attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits;
4. The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal
circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or
individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation,
together with any report;
5. The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the
fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the
person responsible for the threat, act or omission; and
6. The relief prayed for. The petition may include a general prayer for
other just and equitable reliefs.
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. Upon the filing of the petition, the court,
justice or judge shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its
face it ought to issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the
seal of the court; or in case of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge
may issue the writ under his or her own hand, and may deputize any
officer or person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days from the date of its
issuance.
SEC. 7. Penalty for Refusing to Issue or Serve the Writ. A clerk of
court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized
person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court,
justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.
SEC. 8. How the Writ is Served. The writ shall be served upon the
respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court,
justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of
service. In case the writ cannot be served personally on the
respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
SEC. 9. Return; Contents. Within seventy-two (72) hours after
service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return
together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things,
contain the following:
1. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not violate or
threaten with violation the right to life, liberty and security of the
aggrieved party, through any act or omission;
2. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to determine the fate
or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the person or persons
responsible for the threat, act or omission;
3. All relevant information in the possession of the respondent
pertaining to the threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party;
and
4. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the return shall
further state the actions that have been or will still be taken:
i. to verify the identity of the aggrieved party;
ii. to recover and preserve evidence related to the death
or disappearance of the person identified in the petition
which may aid in the prosecution of the person or
persons responsible;
iii. to identify witnesses and obtain statements from them
concerning the death or disappearance;
iv. to determine the cause, manner, location and time of
death or disappearance as well as any pattern or
practice that may have brought about the death or
disappearance;
v. to identify and apprehend the person or persons
involved in the death or disappearance; and
vi. to bring the suspected offenders before a competent
court.
The return shall also state other matters relevant to the investigation,
its resolution and the prosecution of the case.
A general denial of the allegations in the petition shall not be allowed.
SEC. 10. Defenses not Pleaded Deemed Waived. All defenses shall
be raised in the return, otherwise, they shall be deemed waived.
SEC. 11. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following
pleadings and motions are prohibited:
1. Motion to dismiss;
2. Motion for extension of time to file return, opposition, affidavit,
position paper and other pleadings;
3. Dilatory motion for postponement;
4. Motion for a bill of particulars;
5. Counterclaim or cross-claim;
6. Third-party complaint;
7. Reply;
8. Motion to declare respondent in default;
9. Intervention;
10. Memorandum;
11. Motion for reconsideration of interlocutory orders or interim relief
orders; and
12. Petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition against any
interlocutory order.
SEC. 12. Effect of Failure to File Return. In case the respondent fails
to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the
petition ex parte.
SEC. 13. Summary Hearing. The hearing on the petition shall be
summary. However, the court, justice or judge may call for a
preliminary conference to simplify the issues and determine the
possibility of obtaining stipulations and admissions from the parties.
The hearing shall be from day to day until completed and given the
same priority as petitions for habeas corpus.
SEC. 14. Interim Reliefs. Upon filing of the petition or at anytime
before final judgment, the court, justice or judge may grant any of the
following reliefs:
(a) Temporary Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon
motion or motu proprio, may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved
party and any member of the immediate family be protected in a
government agency or by an accredited person or private institution
capable of keeping and securing their safety. If the petitioner is an
organization, association or institution referred to in Section 3(c) of this
Rule, the protection may be extended to the officers involved.
The Supreme Court shall accredit the persons and private institutions
that shall extend temporary protection to the petitioner or the
aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family, in
accordance with guidelines which it shall issue.
The accredited persons and private institutions shall comply with the
rules and conditions that may be imposed by the court, justice or
judge.
(b) Inspection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion
and after due hearing, may order any person in possession or control
of a designated land or other property, to permit entry for the purpose
of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or
any relevant object or operation thereon.
The motion shall state in detail the place or places to be inspected. It
shall be supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having
personal knowledge of the enforced disappearance or whereabouts of
the aggrieved party.
If the motion is opposed on the ground of national security or of the
privileged nature of the information, the court, justice or judge may
conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of the
opposition.
The movant must show that the inspection order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or
violated.
The inspection order shall specify the person or persons authorized to
make the inspection and the date, time, place and manner of making
the inspection and may prescribe other conditions to protect the
constitutional rights of all parties. The order shall expire five (5) days
after the date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable reasons.
(c) Production Order. The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion
and after due hearing, may order any person in possession, custody or
control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or
electronic form, which constitute or contain evidence relevant to the
petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying
or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.
The motion may be opposed on the ground of national security or of
the privileged nature of the information, in which case the court, justice
or judge may conduct a hearing in chambers to determine the merit of
the opposition.
The court, justice or judge shall prescribe other conditions to protect
the constitutional rights of all the parties.
(d) Witness Protection Order. The court, justice or judge, upon motion
or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the Department of Justice
for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981.
The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions
capable of keeping and securing their safety.
SEC. 15. Availability of Interim Reliefs to Respondent. Upon
verified motion of the respondent and after due hearing, the court,
justice or judge may issue an inspection order or production order
under paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding section.
A motion for inspection order under this section shall be supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge of
the defenses of the respondent.
SEC. 16. Contempt. The court, justice or judge may order the
respondent who refuses to make a return, or who makes a false
return, or any person who otherwise disobeys or resists a lawful
process or order of the court to be punished for contempt. The
contemnor may be imprisoned or imposed a fine.
SEC. 17. Burden of Proof and Standard of Diligence Required.
The parties shall establish their claims by substantial evidence.
The respondent who is a private individual or entity must prove that
ordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and regulations
was observed in the performance of duty.
The respondent who is a public official or employee must prove that
extraordinary diligence as required by applicable laws, rules and
regulations wasobserved in the performance of duty.
The respondent public official or employee cannot invoke the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed to evade
responsibility or liability.
SEC. 18. Judgment. The court shall render judgment within ten (10)
days from the time the petition is submitted for decision. If the
allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be proper
and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
SEC. 19. Appeal. Any party may appeal from the final judgment or
order to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The appeal may raise
questions of fact or law or both.
The period of appeal shall be five (5) working days from the date of
notice of the adverse judgment.
The appeal shall be given the same priority as in habeas corpus
cases.
SEC. 20. Archiving and Revival of Cases. The court shall not
dismiss the petition, but shall archive it, if upon its determination it
cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure of petitioner or
witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives.
A periodic review of the archived cases shall be made by the amparo
court that shall, motu proprio or upon motion by any party, order their
revival when ready for further proceedings. The petition shall be
dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the
lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order
archiving the case.
The clerks of court shall submit to the Office of the Court Administrator
a consolidated list of archived cases under this Rule not later than the
first week of January of every year.
SEC. 21. Institution of Separate Actions. This Rule shall not
preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or administrative actions.
SEC. 22. Effect of Filing of a Criminal Action. When a criminal
action has been commenced, no separate petition for the writ shall be
filed. The reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case.
The procedure under this Rule shall govern the disposition of the
reliefs available under the writ of amparo.
SEC. 23. Consolidation. When a criminal action is filed subsequent to
the filing of a petition for the writ, the latter shall be consolidated with
the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent
to a petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with
the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to
apply to the disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
SEC. 24. Substantive Rights. This Rule shall not diminish, increase
or modify substantive rights recognized and protected by the
Constitution.
SEC. 25. Suppletory Application of the Rules of Court. The Rules J. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
of Court shall apply suppletorily insofar as it is not inconsistent with Section 17, Art. III. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
this Rule. against himself.

SEC. 26. Applicability to Pending Cases. This Rule shall govern Based on:
cases involving extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
threats thereof pending in the trial and appellate courts. 1. Humanitarian reasons – it is intended to prevent the State, with all
its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that
SEC. 27. Effectivity. This Rule shall take effect on October 24, 2007, may convict him;
following its publication in three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
2. Practical reasons – a person subjected to such compulsion is likely
I. SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES to perjure himself for his own protection
Section 16, Art. III. All persons shall have the right to a speedy Applicable to:
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies. · Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil
actions and administrative or legislative investigations
Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases
Speedy trial Speedy disposition of cases Transactional Immunity Statute – testimony of any person or whose
Refers to trial phase only Refers to disposition of cases (All possession of documents or other evidence necessary or convenient
phases) to determine the truth in any investigation conducted is immune from
Criminal cases only Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony
Proceedings relates.

· Periods for decision for courts (Sec. 15, Art. VIII) Use and Fruit Immunity Statute – prohibits the use of the witness'
· SC: 24 months from submission compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the
· All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony
· All other lower courts: 3 months relates.

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. May be Claimed by:
IX-A)
 60 days from date of submission for decision or resolution 1. Accused – at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the
purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him
Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated
1. Length of delay 2. Witness – only when an incriminating question is asked, since the
2. Reason of delay witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the
3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it question to be put to him
4. Prejudice caused by delay
- He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:
Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution a) The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the
of a case: answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil
Dismissal through mandamus liability
 b) the question relates to past criminality for which the witness
can no longer be prosecuted
c) he has been previously granted immunity under a validly
enacted statute
· Only natural persons can invoke this right. Judicial persons are
subject to the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine
compliance with the conditions of the charter granted to them.
Scope:
(1) Testimonial Compulsion
· In Villaflor v. Summers, since the “kernel of the privilege” was the
prohibition of “testimonial compulsion”, the Court was willing to compel
a pregnant woman accused of adultery to submit to the indignity of
being tested for pregnancy. Being purely a mechanical act, it is not a
violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
(2) Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when
books of accounts are to be examined in the exercise of police power
and power of taxation.
· What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which
would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness.
· The right does not prohibit the examination of the body of the
accused or the use of findings with respect to his body as physical
evidence. Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the
right against self-incrimination. However, obtaining a sample of the
handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for
falsification.
· The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in
his possession which might tend to incriminate him. However, a third
person in custody of the document may be compelled to produce it.
Right May be Waived:
- Either:
a) Directly, or
b) By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and
unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.
Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
J. RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted.
Involuntary Servitude – the condition of one who is compelled by
force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for
another, whether he is paid or not.
Involuntary Servitude Includes
(1) Slavery –civil relation in which one man has absolute power over
the life, fortune and liberty of another;
(2) Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor
is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some
debt or obligation, real or pretended, against his will
General Rule
No involuntary service in any form shall exist.
Exceptions
1. Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly
convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)
2. Personal military or civil service in the interest of national
defense
(Sec. 4, Art. II)
3. Naval enlistment – remain in service until the end of voyage so that
the crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to
recruit new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin)
4. Posse comitatus – in pursuit of persons who might have violated
the law, the authorities might command all male inhabitants of a
certain age to assist them (US vs Pompeya)
5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest
(Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco)
6. Patria Potestas – unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their
parents so long as they are under parental power and to observe
respect and reverence to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code)
US vs Pompeya An Act providing for the method by
which the people of the town may
be called upon to render
assistance for the protection of the
public and the preservation of
peace and good order is
constitutional. It was enacted in
the exercise of the police power of
the state and does not violate the
constitutional prohibition on
involuntary servitude.
Pollock vs Williams No indebtedness warrants a
suspension of the right to be free
from compulsory service, and no
state can make the quitting of work
any component of a crime, or
make criminal sanctions available
for holding unwilling persons to
labor.
K. CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT
Section 19, Art. III.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
2. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
When is a penalty “cruel, degrading and inhuman”?
(1) A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering
suffering.
Ex. Being drawn and quartered.
(2) A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation.
Ex. Being tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout town.
Standards Used
(1) The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the
dignity of human beings.
(2) It must not be applied arbitrarily.
(3) It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
(4) It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more
effectively than a less severe punishment would.
Excessive Fine
· A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is
disproportionate to the offense.
Note: Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the
crime to which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the
punishment is cruel, degrading or inhuman.
Reason: Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.
L. NON IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT
Section 20, Art. III. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of a poll tax.
For humanitarian reasons… an added guaranty of the liberty of
persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely
private debts because of their misfortune of being poor
Debt – any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or
implied, resulting in any liability to pay in money.
Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt
· If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result
in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and
not ex contractu.
A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the
debtor if:
1. The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and
2. The accused has been duly convicted.
POLL TAX
General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment.
Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax
Poll tax – a specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a
certain class without regard to his property or occupation.
· A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law.
Hence, its non-payment maybe validly punished with
imprisonment.
M. DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 21, Art. III. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Double jeopardy – when a person was charged with an offense and
the case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other
manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with the
same or identical offense.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
1. valid complaint or information
2. filed before a competent court
3. to which defendant has pleaded, and
4. defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy
(1) When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense (1st sentence of Section 21)
(2) When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2nd
sentence of
Sec. 21)
Same Offense
Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy:
(1) First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
(2) The first jeopardy must have terminated.
(3) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the
first.
When does jeopardy ATTACH: (1st requisite)
(a) A person is charged
(b) Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance
to sustain a conviction
(c) Before a court of competent jurisdiction
(d) After the person is arraigned
(e) Such person enters a valid plea.
When does jeopardy NOT attach:
(a) If information does not charge any offense
(b) If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete
selfdefense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a
new plea of not guilty for accused.
(c) If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with
the MTC.
(d) If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.
When does first jeopardy TERMINATE: (2ND REQUISITE)
1) Acquittal
2) Conviction
3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused
4) Dismissal on the merits.
Examples of termination of jeopardy:
(a) Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial. This
amounts to an acquittal.
(b) Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence. This is a dismissal on
the merits.
(c) Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for
reinvestigation filed by the accused.
(d) Discharge of an accused to be a state witness. This amounts to an
acquittal.
When can the PROSECUTION appeal from an order of dismissal:
(a) If dismissal is on motion of the accused. Exception: If motion is
based on violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to
evidence.
(b) If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the
merits
(c) If the question to be passed upon is purely legal.
(d) If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.
(e) If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.
What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”:
(a) Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second
cases.
(b) One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other
offense.
(c) One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the
other.
· Note: where a single act results in the violation of different laws or
different provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one will not
bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply.
Same Act
· Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the
ordinance are the same. For there to be double jeopardy, it is not
necessary that the offense be the same.
Supervening Facts
1) Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
charged in the former information where:
(a) The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge.
(b) The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were
discovered only after the filing of the former information.
(c) The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
consent of the fiscal and the offended party.
2) Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the
prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecution’s
incompetence, it would not be considered a supervening event.
Effect of appeal by the accused
· If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead
double jeopardy. The whole case will be open to review by the
appellate court. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed
on the accused by the trial court.
· In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not
unreasonable; hence, there was no denial of the right to speedy trial.
Second, the dismissal was with the consent of the accused. Hence,
reinstatement did not violate the right against double jeopardy.
N. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Section 22, Art. III. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws
(1) One which makes an action done before the passing of the law,
and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such
action.
(2) One which aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it
was committed.
(3) One which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater
punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when it was
committed.
(4) One which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense in order to convict the accused.
(5) One which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only
BUT, in effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right, which, when
done, was lawful.
(6) One which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty. (In Re
Kay Villegas Kami)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
(a) Must refer to criminal matters
(b) Prejudicial to the accused
(c) Retroactive in application
· In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto
law prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal
law.... The contention that the new law diluted their right to a two-tiered
appeal is incorrect because “the right to appeal is not a natural right
but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains
only to matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute
it does not partake the nature of ex post facto law.”
· In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal
rules of evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception:
(Beazell v. Ohio) unless the changes operate only in limited and
unsubstantial manner to the disadvantage of the accused.
· In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan for estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused appealed. On
March 16, 1982, BP Blg. 195 was passed authorizing suspension of
public
officers against whom an information may be pending at any stage. On
July 22, 1982, the court suspended the accused. The Supreme Court
ruled that Art. 24 of the Revised Penal Code that suspension of an
officer during trial shall not be considered a penalty. The suspension in
the case is merely a preventive and not a penal measure which
therefore does not come under the ex post facto prohibition.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Bill of attainder – is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without
judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a
bill of pains and penalties.” (Cummings v. Missouri)
(All Bills of Attainder are Ex Post Facto Laws)
Elements of Bill of Attainder
1. There must be a law.
2. The law imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily
ascertainable members of a group.
3. There is a direct imposition of penal burden without judicial trial.
O. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
Section 3(1), Art. III. The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
prescribed by law.
Forms of Correspondences and Communication Covered
1. letters
2. messages
3. telephone calls
4. telegrams, and
5. the likes
Intrusion into the Privacy of Communication May Be Allowed
1. Upon lawful order of the court, or
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law.
· When intrusion is made without a judicial order, it would have to be
based upon a government official's assessment that public safety and
order demand such intrusion.
Public Order and Safety – the security of human lives, liberty, and
property against the activities of invaders, insurrectionists, and rebels.
· RA No. 4200 known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law provides
penalties for specific violations of private communication.
Under Sec. 3 of the Act allows court-authorized taps, under
specific conditions for the crimes of treason, espionage,
provoking war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in
the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit
sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping.
P. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
· In Ople v. Torres, the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the
government has the burden of proof to show that a statute (AO no. 308
in this case) is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is
narrowly drawn.
“In no uncertain terms, we also underscores that the right to privacy
does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not
intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that
enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that
the law be narrowly focused.” Intrusions into the right must be
accompanied by proper safeguards and well-defined standards to
prevent unconstitutional invasions.
· In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that abortions are permissible for any
reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus
becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's
womb.
(a) The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right to privacy but
the Court has recognized that such right does exist in the Constitution.
The Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United
States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it
to the standard of strict scrutiny. Where certain “fundamental rights”
are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights
may be justified only by a “compelling state interest.”
(b) The right to privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman’s
decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. But a woman’s
right to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way
and for whatever reason she alone chooses is NOT absolute. While
recognizing the right to privacy, the Court also acknowledges that
some state regulation in areas protected by a right is appropriate. A
state may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in
maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.
Q. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Writ of habeas data – is a remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
· It is governed by The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-
1-16- SC – full text), which was approved by the Supreme Court on 22
January 2008. That Rule shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.
Constitutional Basis
Section 5(5), Art. VIII. Promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such
rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and
quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved
by the Supreme Court.
· The Rule takes effect on 2 February 2008, following its publication in
three (3) newspapers of general circulation.
Who may file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data?
· General rule: The aggrieved party.
· Exceptions: In cases of extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, the petition may be filed by:
(1) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party,
namely: the spouse, children and parents; or
(2) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved
party within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default
of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Where can the petition be filed?
(1) Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or
that which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information
is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner.
(2) Supreme Court;
(3) Court of Appeals; or
(4) Sandiganbayan, when the action concerns public data files of
government offices.
· No docket and other lawful fees shall be required from an indigent
petitioner. The petition of the indigent shall be docketed and acted
upon immediately, without prejudice to subsequent submission of
proof of indigency not later than 15 days from the filing of the petition.
The verified written petition shall allege the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the petitioner and the respondent;
(b) The manner the right to privacy is violated or threatened and how it
affects the right to life, liberty or security of the aggrieved party;
(c) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to secure the
data or
information;
(d) The location of the files, registers or databases, the government
office, and the person in charge, in possession or in control of the data
or information, if known;
(e) The reliefs prayed for, which may include the updating, rectification,
suppression or destruction of the database or information or files kept
by the respondent. In case of threats, the relief may include a prayer
for an order enjoining the act complained of; and
(f) Such other relevant reliefs as are just and equitable.
When is the writ of habeas data issued?
Upon the filing of the petition, the court, justice or judge shall
immediately order the issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to
issue. The clerk of court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court
and cause it to be served within three (3) days from its issuance; or, in
case of urgent necessity, the justice or judge may issue the writ under
his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or person to serve
it. The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing of the
petition which shall not be later than ten (10) work days from the date
of its issuance.
· A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a
deputized person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by
the court, justice or judge for contempt without prejudice to other
disciplinary actions.
· The writ shall be served upon the respondent by the officer or person
deputized by the court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on
which to make a return of service. In case the writ cannot be served
personally on the respondent, the rules on substituted service shall
apply.
· The respondent shall file a verified written return together with
supporting affidavits within five (5) work days from service of the writ,
which period may be reasonably extended by the Court for justifiable
reasons.
Contents of Return
(a) The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets,
privileged communication, confidentiality of the source of information
of media and others;
(b) In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the
data or information subject of the petition:
(i) a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the
nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
(ii) the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security
and confidentiality of the data or information; and
(iii) the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and
(c) Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.
· When the respondent fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge
shall proceed to hear the petition ex parte, granting the petitioner such
relief as the petition may warrant unless the court in its discretion
requires the petitioner to submit evidence.
· Instead of having the hearing in open court, it can be done in
chambers when the respondent invokes the defense that the release
of the data or information in question shall compromise national
security or state secrets, or when the data or information cannot be
divulged to the public due to its nature or privileged character.
· The hearing on the petition shall be summary. However, the court,
justice or judge may call for a preliminary conference to simplify the
issues and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
· Upon its finality, the judgment shall be enforced by the sheriff or any
lawful officer as may be designated by the court, justice or judge within
five (5) work days.
· When a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition
for the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available
by motion in the criminal case, and the procedure under this Rule shall
govern the disposition of the reliefs available under the writ of habeas
data.
· When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed
subsequent to a petition for a writ of habeas data, the petition shall be
consolidated with the criminal action. After consolidation, the
procedure under this Rule shall continue to govern the disposition of
the reliefs in the petition.
· The introduction of the Writ of Habeas Data into Philippine Justice
System complemented several writs used in the Philippines. These
writs which protect the rights of the individual against the state are as
follows:
· The Writ of Habeas Corpus – a writ ordering a person who
detained another to produce the body and bring it before a
judge or court. Its purpose is to determine whether the
detention is lawful or not;
· The Writ of Mandamus – a writ ordering a governmental
agency to perform a ministerial function;
· The Writ of Prohibition – a writ ordering a person to prohibit
the commission of an illegal act;
· The Writ of Certiorari – a writ ordering a person to correct an
erroneous act committed with grave abuse of discretion; and
· The Writ of Amparo – a writ designed to protect the most
basic right of a human being. These are the right to life, liberty
andsecurity guaranteed by the Constitution.
R. ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION Legaspi v Civil Service Personal interest is not required in
Section 7, Art. III. The right of the people to information on Commission asserting the right to information
matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official 1987 on matters of public concern. What
records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, matters constitute “public concern”
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research should be determined by the court
data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the on a case to case basis.
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. Chavez v PCGG 1998 Public concern (def.) – writings
coming into the hands of public
· the citizenry has a right to know what is going on in the country and officers in connection with their
in his government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably official functions Ill-gotten wealth
and intelligently. is, by its nature, a matter of public
concern. Privileged
Rights Guaranteed communication: (1) national
security, (2) trade
1. Right to information on matters of public concern ; and secrets, (3) criminal matters
pending in court,
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents.
Echegaray case SC held that making the Lethal
· These are political rights that are available to citizens only (Bernas, Injection Manual inaccessible to
Philippine Constitution, p. 85). the convict was unconstitutional.

Limitations: “As may be provided by law” S. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Valmonte v Belmonte 1989
Baldoza v Dimaano 1976
The people have a right to access
official records but they can’t
compel custodians of official
records to prepare lists, abstracts,
summaries and the like, such not
being based on a demandable
legal right.
Then right to privacy belongs to
the individual and must be invoked
by the individual. A public agency
like the GSIS cannot invoke the
right to privacy.
Judges cannot prohibit access to
judicial records. However, a judge
may regulate the manner in which
persons desiring to inspect,
examine or copy records in his
office, may exercise their rights.
Freedom of Speech – “at once the instrument and the guaranty and
the bright consummate flower of all liberty.” (Wendell Philips)
Scope
· Freedom of Expression is available only insofar as it is exercised for
the discussion of matters affecting the public interest. Purely private
interest matters do not come within the guaranty (invasion of privacy is
not sanctioned by the Constitution).
· covers ideas that are acceptable to the majority and the unorthodox
view. (One of the functions of this freedom is “to invite dispute” – US
Supreme Court; “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it.” - Voltaire)
· The freedom to speak includes the right to silent. (This freedom was
meant not only to protect the minority who want to talk but also to
benefit the majority who refuse to listen. - Socrates)
Importance
The ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade in ideas –
that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself
accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only
ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.
Modes of Expression
(a) Oral and written language
(b) Symbolisms (e.g. bended knee, salute to the flag, cartoons)
Elements of Freedom of Expression
(1) Freedom from prior restraint or censorship
(2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
Freedom From Previous Restraint or Censorship
Section 4, Art. III. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom
of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
Censorship – conditions the exercise of freedom of expression upon
the prior approval of the government. Only those ideas acceptable to it
are allowed to be disseminated.
· Censor, therefore, assumes the role of arbiter for the people, usually
applying his own subjective standards in determining the good and the
not. Such is anathema in a free society.
· In New York Times v. United States, the Court held that prohibition
of “prior restraint” is not absolute, although any system of prior
restraint comes to court bearing a heavy presumption against its
constitutionality.
· In Near v. Minnesota, the exceptions to the prohibition of “prior
restraint is enumerated by the Court, thus: “When a nation is at war,
many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance
to its effort .... No one would question but that government might
prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of
sailing dates of transports or the number or location of troops.... The
security of the community life may be protected against incitements to
acts of violence and the overthrow by force of orderly government.”
· In SWS v. Comelec, Sec. 1 of RA No. 9006, the Fair Election Act
says that surveys affecting national candidates shall not be published
fifteen(15) days before an election and surveys affecting local
candidates shall not be published seven days before an election. The
provision is challenged as violative of freedom of expression. The
Court held that as prior restraint, the rule is presumed to be invalid.
The power of the Comelec over media franchises is limited to ensuring
“equal opportunity, time, space and the right to reply” as well as to
reasonable rates of charges for the use of media facilities for “public
information and forums among candidates.” Here the prohibition of
speech is direct, absolute and substantial. Nor does the rule pass the
O'Brien test for content related regulation because (1) it suppresses
one type of expression while allowing other types such as editorials,
etc. and (2) the restriction is greater than what is needed to protect
government interest because the interest can be protected by
narrower restriction such as subsequent punishment.
· In Re: Request for Radio-TV Coverage of the Estrada Trial, the
Court held that the propriety of the Estrada trial involves the weighing
out of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the
right to public information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights
of the accused, on the other hand, along with the constitutional power
of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial
trial... With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also
the very life of an accused, it behooves all to make absolutely certain
that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and
dispassionate judgment...”
· The doctrine of freedom of speech was formulated primarily for the
protection of “core speech,” i.e., speech which communicates political,
social or religious ideas. Commercial speech, however, does not.
Grosjean vs American Press Co. There need not be total
suppression; even restriction of
circulation constitutes censorship
Burgos vs Chief of Staff the search, padlocking and sealing
of the offices of Metropolitan Mail
and We Forum by military
authorities, resulting in the
discontinuance of publication of the
newspapers, was held to be prior
restraint
Mutuc vs COMELEC the COMELEC prohibition against
the use of taped jingles in the
mobile units used in the campaign
was held to be unconstitutional, as
it was in the nature of censorship
Sanidad vs COMELEC the Court annulled the COMELEC
prohibition against radio
commentators or newspaper
columnists from commenting on
the issues involved in the
scheduled plebiscite on the organic
law creating the Cordillera
Autonomous Region as an
unconstitutional restraint on
freedom of expression
But...
Gonzales vs COMELEC the Court upheld the validity of the
law which prohibited, except during
the prescribed election period, the
making of speeches,
announcements or commentaries
for or against the election of any
party or candidate for public office.
JUSTIFICATION: the inordinate
preoccupation of the people with
politics tended toward the neglect
of the other serious needs of the
nation and the pollution of its
suffrages.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs CA The Board of Review for Motion
Pictures and Television (BRMPT)
has the authority to review the
petitioner's television program.
However, the Board acted with
grave abuse of discretion when it
gave an “X-rating” to the TV
program on the ground of “attacks
against another religion.” Such a
classification can be justified only if
there is a showing that the tv
program would create a clear and
Primicias vs Fugosos
National Press Club
COMELEC
Osmeňa vs COMELEC
Adiong vs COMELEC
present danger of an evil which the
State ought to prevent.
The respondent mayor could only
reasonably regulate, not absolutely
prohibit, the use of public places
for the purpose indicated.
vs the Supreme Court upheld the
validity of Sec. 11(b), RA 6646,
which prohibited any person
making use of the media to sell or
to give free of charge print space
or air time for campaign
or other political purposes except
to the COMELEC. This was held to
be within the power of the
COMELEC to supervise the
enjoyment or utilization of
franchises for the operation of
media of communication and
information, for the purpose of
ensuring equal opportunity, time
and space, and the “right to reply,”
as well as uniform and reasonable
rates of charges for the use of such
media facilities.
SC reaffirmed validity of RA 6646
as a legitimate exercise of police
power. The regulation is unrelated
to the suppression of speech, as
any restriction on freedom of
expression occasioned thereby is
only incidental and no more than is
necessary to achieve the purpose
of promoting equality.
NOTE: This is not inconsistent
with the ruling in PPI vs
COMELEC, because in the latter,
SC simply said that COMELEC
cannot procure print space without
paying just compensation.
COMELEC's resolution prohibiting
 the posting of decals, and stickers
in mobile units like cars and other
moving vehicles was declared
unconstitutional for infringement of
freedom of
expression. Besides, the
constitutional objective of giving
the rich and poor candidates' equal
opportunity to inform the electorate
is not violated by the posting of
decals and stickers on cars and
other vehicles.
“Overbreadth doctrine” = 2. Dangerous tendency doctrine
prohibits the government from
achieving its purpose by means
that weep unnecessarily broadly,
reaching constitutionally protected
as well as unprotected activity; the
government has gone too far; its
legitimate interest can be satisfied
without reaching so broadly into
the area of protected freedom.
Gonzales vs petitioner questioned the
katigbak classification of the movie as “for
adults only.” the petition was
dismissed because the Board did
not commit grave abuse of
discretion.
Freedom From Subsequent Punishment
Section 18(1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
· Without this assurance, the individual would hesitate to speak for fear
that he might be held to account for his speech, or that he might be
provoking the vengeance of the officials he may have criticized.
· Not absolute; subject to police power and may be regulated (freedom
of expression does not cover ideas offensive to public order)
Right of students to free speech in school premises not absolute
General Rule: a student shall not be expelled or suspended solely on
the basis of articles he has written
Exception: when the article materially disrupts class work or involves
substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others, the school has the
right to discipline its students (in such a case, it may expel or suspend
the student)
Tests of valid governmental interference
(criteria in determining the liability of the individual for ideas expressed
by him) :
1. Clear and present danger rule
3. Balance of interest test
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule – when words are used in such
circumstance and of such nature as to create a clear and present
danger that will bring about the substantive evil that the State has a
right to prevent. (As formulated by Justice Holmes in Schenck v.
United States)
Clear – causal connection with the danger of the substantive evil
arising from the utterance
Present – time element; imminent and immediate danger (the danger
must not only be probable but also inevitable). (Gonzales v. Comelec)
· In ABS-CBN v. Comelec, the Comelec banned “exit polls” in the
exercise of its authority to regulate the holders of media franchises
during the lection period. It contends that “an exit poll has the tendency
to sow confusion considering the randomness of selecting
interviewees.... However, the Court said that exit polls constitute an
essential part of the freedoms of speech and of the press. Hence, the
Comelec cannot ban totally in the guise of of promoting clean, honest,
orderly and credible elections. The ban does not satisfy the clear and
present danger rule because the evils envisioned are merely
speculative.
Terminiello vs City of · (speech inside an auditorium
Chicago with 800 persons)
· speech is often provocative and
 challenging. hence, “fighting using it and to strictly observe the
words” are not sufficient to convict requirements of maximum
a person absent a clear and tolerance.
present danger of a serious Cabansag vs Fernandez It is not necessary that some
substantive evil definite or immediate acts of force
Primicias vs Fugosos The respondent mayor could only or violence be advocated. It is
reasonably regulate, not sufficient that such acts be
absolutely prohibit, the use of advocated in general terms. A
public places for the purpose mere tendency toward the evil was
indicated. enough.
· the condition of Manila at that People vs Perez Accused declared: “The Filipinos
time did not justify the mayor's like myself must use bolos for
fears. there was no clear and cutting off (Governor- General)
present danger. Wood's head for having
· decided in 1947 recommended a bad thing for the
Navarro vs Villegas (compare with Primicias case) Filipinos, for he has killed our
SC sustained respondent mayor's independence.” He was sentenced
act of refusing to issue a permit to jail.
enabling students to hold a public
rally. Mayor feared the rally would 3. Balance of Interest Test – when particular conduct is regulated in
result to public disorder. the interest of public order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
- decided in 1970 conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the courts is to
Reyes vs Bagatsing the denial of a permit to hold a determine which of the two conflicting interests demands the greater
public rally was invalid as there protection under the circumstances presented. (American
was no showing of the probability Communications Association v. Douds)
of a clear and present danger of
an evil that might arise as a result CLEAR AND DANGEROUS BALANCE OF
of the meeting. The burden of PRESENT TENDENCY RULE INTEREST RULE
proving such eventually rests on DANGER
the Mayor. RULE
liberty is preferred Authority is preferred the issue is resolved
2. Dangerous Tendency Doctrine – if the words uttered create a in the light of the
dangerous tendency of an evil which the State has the right to peculiar
prevent.(Cabansag v. Fernandez) circumstances
obtaining in each
· Justice Holmes, critique of this doctrine: Every idea is an incitement. particular case
If believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it, or
some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. · In Mutuc v. Comelec, the preferred freedom of expression calls all
the more the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the
Bayan vs Executive Secretary (f) the Calibrated Pre-emptive dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital
Ermita Response Policy is null and void. right of suffrage.
Respondents are enjoined from
When faced with border line situations where freedom (of expression)
to speak & freedom to know (to information) are invoked against (vs.)
maintaining free and clean elections- the police, local officials and
COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom.
For in the ultimate analysis, the freedom of the citizen and the State’s
power to regulate are NOT ANTAGONISTIC.
There can be no free and honest elections if in the efforts to maintain
them, the freedom to speak and the right to know are unduly curtailed.
We examine the limits of regulation. J. Feliciano shows that regulation
of election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if:
· It is too general in its terms
· Not limited in time and scope in its application
· It if restricts one’s expression of belief in a candidate or one’s opinion
of his or her qualifications,
· If it cuts off the flow of media reporting
· If the regulatory measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with
the constitutionally sanctioned objective.
The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to express his
preference and, by displaying it on his car, to convince others to agree
with him. A sticker may be furnished by a candidate but once the car
owner agrees to have it placed in his private vehicle, the expression
becomes a statement by the owner, primarily his own and not of
anybody else.
· The general rule for a speech to be considered libelous or
defamatory is:
Libel = falsity + actual malice (uttered in full knowledge of its falsity or
with reckless disregard)
Exemption: When the subject of the supposed libelous or defamatory
material is a public officer. Defamatory words may be uttered against
them and not be considered libelous. The reason is that 1) they asked
for it (“they voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye and
therefore should not be thin-skinned”); 2) it’s a matter of public interest;
and 3) public figures have the opportunity and resources to rebut
whatever is said against them. (Policarpio vs Manila Times); ( New
York Times vs Sullivan)
· In New York Times v. Sullivan, The New York Times is protected
under the freedom of speech in publishing paid advertisement, no
matter if it contained erroneous claims and facts. Said publication was
not “commercial” in the sense that it communicated information,
expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and
sought a financial support on behalf of a movement. That the Times
was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial as the fact
that newspapers and books are sold.
Newspapers do not forfeit the protection they enjoy under speech
freedom just because they publish paid advertisements. Otherwise,
newspapers will be discouraged from carrying “editorial
advertisements” and so might shut off an important outlet for the
promulgation of information and ideas by persons who do not
themselves have access to publishing facilities.
On errors: “Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use
of every thing; and in no instance is this truer than that of the press.”
Erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate.
Moreover, criticism of official conduct does not lose its constitutional
protection merely because it effective criticism and hence diminishes
their official reputations. Presence of clear and present danger of
substantive evil must be proved. Actual Malice needs to be proved if a
public official wants to recover damages for a defamatory falsehood
relating to his official conduct. “Even a false statement may be deemed
to make a valuable contribution to public debate since it brings about
the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its
collision with error.”
· In Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak, Kapit sa Patalim was classified as
“For Adults Only” by the MTRCB and was suggested to have certain
portions cut/ deleted.
Held: MTRCB do not have the power to exercise prior restraint. The
power of the MTRCB is limited to the classification of films.
The test to determine whether a motion picture exceeds the bounds of
permissible exercise of free speech and, therefore should be
censored, is the clear and present danger test.
Assembly and Petition university outside the area
permitted by the school authorities)
· The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may not be SC emphasized that the students
conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or authorization from did not shed their constitutional
the government authorities. However, the right must be exercised in rights to free speech at the
such a way that it will not prejudice the public welfare. (De la Cruz v. schoolhouse gate, and permitted
Court of Appeals) the students to re-enroll and finish
their studies.
· If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such Villar vs TIP (several students were barred from
place, and not for the assembly itself, may be validly required. Power re-enrollment for participating in
of local officials is merely for regulation and not for prohibition. demonstrations) while the Court
(Primicias v. Fugoso) upheld the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning,
· Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be held which includes the right to set
in: a private place; the campus of a government-owned or operated academic standards to determine
educational institution; and freedom park. (B.P. Blg. 880 - “The under what circumstances failing
Public Assembly Act of 1985') grades suffice for expulsion of
students, it was held that this right
· In JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing, retired J. JBL Reyes sought a permit cannot be utilized to discriminate
from the City of Manila to hold a march and rally on Oct 26, 1983 2- against those who exercise their
5pm from Luneta to gates of US Embassy, and was denied by the constitutional rights to peaceful
Mayor due to Vienna Convention Ordinance and fear of subversives assembly.
may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators. Non vs Dames SC abandons its ruling in Alcuaz
vs PSBA (that enrolment of a
Held: no justifiable ground to deny permit because Bill of Rights will student is a semester-to-semester
prevail over Vienna Ordinance should conflict exist (none proven contract and the school may not be
because 500m not measured from gate to US Embassy proper) and compelled to renew the contract)
fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech upholding the primacy of freedom
and assembly- only clear and present danger of substantive evil. of expression, because the
students do
Notes: the Court is called upon to protect the exercise of the cognate not shed theur constitutionally
rights to free speech and peaceful assembly… protected rights at the school
gate.
Tanada vs Bagatsing SC sustained the petitioner's PBM Employees Assoc vs PBM right to free assembly and petition
motion compelling the mayor of prevails over economic rights.
Manila to issue a permit to hold a
rally, but changed the meeting Tests of a lawful assembly
place to Ugarte Field, a private
park (1) Purpose Test
Malabanan vs Ramento (several students were suspended
for 1 year for conducting · ideally, the test should be the purpose for which the assembly is held,
demonstration in the premises of a regardless of the auspices under which it is organized
(2) Auspices Test T. OBSCENITY CASES

· Evengelista vs Earnshaw: the mayor of Manila prohibited the US vs Kottinger SC acquitted accused who was
members of the Communist Party from holding any kind of meeting, charged of having
revoking all permits previously granted by him on the ground that the offered for sale pictures of half-clad
party had been found (by the fiscal's office) to be an illegal association. members of
non-Christian tribes, holding that
· In People v. Bustos, Bustos and several people sent complaint he had only
letters via counsel against Justice of Peace Roman Punsalan, who presented them in their native attire
charged them with libel. People vs Go Pin Accused was convicted for
exhibiting nude
Held: Bustos and the others were acquitted, paintings and pictures,
Ratio: the guarantees of free speech and a free press include the right notwithstanding his claim
to criticize judicial conduct. And these people did so in proper channels that he had done so in the interest
without undue publicity, believing they were right. of art. SC,
noting that he has charged
Right of Association admission fees to the
Section 8, Art. III. The right of the people, including those exhibition, held that his purpose
employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, was commercial,
associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not merely artistic.
not be abridged. Pita vs CA SC declared that the determination
of what is
The Right of Association is deemed embraced in freedom of obscene is a judicial function.
expression because the organization can be used as a vehicle for the Miller vs California Test of Obscenity:
expression of views that have a bearing on public welfare. · whether the average person,
applying
SSS Employees Assoc vs CA right to organize does not carry contemporary community
with it right to strike standards, would
Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope find that the work, taken as a
Workers' Union whole, appeals to the prurient
Occena vs COMELEC right of association was not interest
violated where political parties · whether the work depicts, in a
were prohibited from participating patently
in the barangay elections to insure offensive way, sexual conduct
the non-partisanship of the specifically
candidates. defined by the applicable law
In re Edillon Bar integration does not compel · whether the work, taken as a
the lawyer to associate with whole, lacks
anyone. Integration does not serious literary, artistic, political or
make a lawyer a member of any scientific
group of which he is not already a value
member. Justice Douglas, dissent: I do not
 think we, the was limited as “harmful to minors” using the Miller V California Test.
judges, were ever given the So, it was upheld by the Supreme Court.
constitutional power to make
definitions of obscenity. Obscenity Notes: the Court’s Jurisprudence teaches that it is the publisher’s
is a responsibility to abide by that community’s standards.
hodgepodge.
- The Courts should not apply a national standard but the standard of The fact that distributors of allegedly obscene materials may be
the subjected to varying community standards in the various federal
community in which the material is being tested. judicial districts into which they transmit the materials does not render
a federal statute unconstitutional.
· In Reno v. ACLU, Communications Decency Act seek to protect
minors from obscenity on the internet. - Criticism of Official Conduct
· Held: overbroad, vague, unconstitutional. Lagunzad vs Sotto Vda. de the Court granted the petition to
· Notes: Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is Gonzales restrain the public exhibition of the
protected by the First Amendment. movie “Moises Padilla Story,”
because it contained fictionalized
The internet is not an “invasive” medium because it requires a series embellishments. Being a public
of affirmative steps more deliberate and directed than merely turning a figure does not destroy one's right
dial (tv or radio). to privacy.
Ayer Productions vs Judge the tribunal upheld the primacy of
There is no effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user Capulong freedom of
who is accessing material through email, mail exploders, newsgroups expression over Enrile's “right to
or chat rooms. privacy,” because
Enrile was a public figure and a
The Community Standard as applied to the internet means that any public figure's right
communication available to a nationwide audience will be judged by to privacy is narrower than that of
the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the an ordinary
message. The effect of CDA is such that when a site is blocked for citizen. Besides, the movie “Four
being “indecent” or “patently offensive” the remaining content even if Days of Revolution (sabi ni Cruz)”
not indecent cannot be viewed anymore. Imposition of requirements / “A Dangerous Life
(adult identification number or credit card) would bar adults who do not (sabi ni Nachura)” / “The Four Day
have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from accessing Revolution
any blocked material. It burdens communication among adults. (sabi sa case)” would not be
historically faithful
The CDA is punitive, a criminal statute. The CDA is a content- based without including therein the
blanket restriction on speech, and as such, cannot be properly participation of Enrile in the EDSA
analyzed as a form of time, place and manner regulation. revolution.
US vs Bustos SC compared criticism of official
· The CDA was replaced with Child Online Protection Act, 1. The conduct to a
scope had been limited to material displayed only on the world wide “scalpel that relieves the
web. Chat and email were not included. The classification of content abscesses of officialdom”
People vs Alarcon newspaper publications tending to
 impede,
obstruct, embarrass or influence
the courts in
administering justice in a pending
suit or proceeding constitutes
criminal contempt which is
summarily punishable by the
courts.
In re Jurado a publication that tends to impede,
embarrass or
obstruct the court and constitutes
a clear and
present danger to the
administration of justice is
not protected by the guarantee of
press freedom
and is punishable by contempt. It
is not necessary that publication
actually obstructs the
administration of justice, it is
enough that it tends to do so.
In re Sotto a senator was punished for
contempt for having
attacked a decision of SC which
he called
incompetent and narrow-minded,
and announcing
that he would file a bill for its
reorganization
In re Tulfo Tulfo's “Sangkatutak na Bobo”
column was held
contumacious. Freedom of the
press is subordinate to the
decision, authority and integrity of
the judiciary and the proper
administration of justice.
In re Laureta a lawyer was held in contempt
and suspended
from the practice of law for wrting
individual letters to members of
the SC division that decided a
case against his client, arrogantly
questioning their decision
Zaldivar vs a member of the Bar who imputed
Sandiganbayan charges of
improper influence, corruption and
other misdeeds to members of the
Supreme Court was suspended
from the practice of law as
“neither the right of free speech
nor the right to engage in political
activities can be so construed or
extended as to permit any such
liberties to a member of the bar.”
U. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5, Art. III. No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for
the exercise of civil or political rights.
Religion defined
· “any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving
a code of ethics and philosophy” (defined by Cruz)
· In Aglipay vs Ruiz religion is defined as “a profession of faith to an
active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator.
Two Guarantees Contained Section 5, Art. III of the Constitution
(1) Non-establishment clause
(2) Free exercise of religious profession and worship
1. Non-establishment Clause
· reinforces Sec. 6, Art. II on the separation of church and State
· other provisions which support this: Sec 2(5), Art. IX-C [a religious
sect or denomination cannot be registered as a political party], Sec
5(2), Art. VI [no sectoral representative from the religious sector], and
Sec 29 (2), Art. VI [prohibition against the use of public money or
property for the benefit of any religion, or of any priest, minister or
ecclsiastic], Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI [exemption from taxation of properties
actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes, Sec 4(2),
Art XIV [citizenship requirement of
ownership of educational institutions except those owned by religious
groups], Sec 29(2), Art VI [appropriation allowed where the minister is
employed in the armed forces, penal institution or government-owned
orphanage or leprosarium]
(1) Voluntarism – the growth of a religious sect as a social force must
come from the voluntary support of its members because of the belief
that both spiritual and secular society will benefit if religions are
allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit without benefit of
official patronage.
(2) Insulation of the political process from interfaith dissension –
voluntarism cannot be achieved unless the political process is
insulated from religion and unless religion is insulated politics.

Scope: The State Engel vs Vitale recitation by students in public

schools in New York of a prayer
(a) cannot set up a church; composed by the Board of
(b) cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one Regents was unconstitutional
over another; Everson vs Board of Education US Supreme Court sustained the
(c) cannot influence a person to go to or remain away from church law providing free
against his will; nor transportation for all schoolchildren
(d) force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. without discrimination, including
those attending parochial schools
Rationale: Board of Education vs Allen US Supreme Court sustained the
law requiring the
· to delineate boundaries between the two institutions; and petitioner to lend textbooks free of
· to avoid encroachment by one against the other. charge to all students from grades
7-12, including those attending
private schools
In Everson and Allen, the government aid was given directly to the
· A union of Church and State would either: student and parents, not to the church-related school
◦ tend to destroy government and to degrade religion; or Adong vs Cheong Seng Gee in line with the constitutional
◦ result in a conspiracy because of its composite strength principle of equal treatment of all
religions, the State recognizes the
· separation of church and state is not a wall of hostility validity of marriages performed in
· The Government is neutral. It protects all, but prefers none and conformity with the rites of
disparages none. Mohammedan religion
· Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion; the right to Rubi vs Provincial Board the expression “non-Christian” in
worship includes right not to worship “non-Christian tribes” was not
meant to discriminate. It refers to
degree of civilization, not to the
religious belief.
Two values sought to be protected by the non-establishment Islamic Da'wah Council of the by arrogating to itself the task of
clause: Philippines vs Office of Exec. issuing halal
Sec. certifications, the State has, in
effect, forced Muslims to accept its
 own interpretation of the Qur'an (c) Justice Frankfurter: the constitutional provision on religious
and Sunna on halal food. freedom terminated disabilities, it did not create new privileges... its
essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom
from conformity to law because of religious dogma

German vs Barangan SC found that petitioners were

· Intramural Religious Dispute – outside the jurisdiction of the not sincere in
secular authorities their profession of religious liberty
and were
Gonzales vs Archbishop of where a civil right depends upon using it merely to express their
Manila some matter pertaining to opposition to
ecclesiastical affairs, the civil the government
tribunal tries the civil right and Ebralinag vs division SC reversed Gerona vs Sec. of
nothing more. Superintendent of Schools of Educ. , and
Fonacier v CA where the dispute involves the Cebu upheld the right of petitioners to
property rights of the religious refute to
group, or the relations of the salute the Philippine flag on
members where the property account of their
rights are involved, the civil courts religious scruples. To compel
may assume jurisdiction. students to
take part in a flag ceremony
when it is against
2. Free Exercise Clause their religious beliefs will violate
their religious
Two Aspects of Free Exercise Clause: freedom.
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in
1. Freedom to Believe order to avoid military service
was brushed aside by the SC
(a) absolute Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope SC upheld the validity of RA
(b) includes not to believe Workers Union 3350, exempting
(c) “everyone has a right to his beliefs and he may not be called to members of a religious sect from
account because he cannot prove what he believes” being
compelled to join a labor union
2. Freedom to Act According to One's Beliefs American Bible Society vs City of the constitutional guarantee of
Manila free exercise
(a) happens when the individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or carries with it the right to
omissions disseminate information, and any
restraint of such right can be
(b) subject to regulation; can be enjoyed only with proper regard to justified only on the ground that
rights of others there is a clear and present
danger of an evil which the State
has the right to prevent; Hence,
 City ordinance imposing license
fees to on sale is inapplicable to
the society
Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance the free exercise clause does not
prohibit imposing a generally
applicable sales and use tax on
the sale of religious materials; the
registration fee is not imposed for
the exercise of a privilege, but
only for the purpose of defraying
part of the cost of registration
· Compelling State Interest test [Estrada vs Escritor]
· the constitution's religion clause's prescribe not a strict bu
abenevolent neutrality (which recognizes that government mustpursue
its secular goals and interests, but at the same time, strive to uphold
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible
constitutional limits
· benevolent neutrality could allow for accomodation morality based on
religion provided it does not offend the compelling state interest test.
consider this a prohibited “religious test.” Five justices said it is not a
religious test but a safeguard against the constant threat of union of
Church and State that has marked the Philippine history. (Hence,
since the majority vote needed under the 1973 Constitution to nullify a
statute was not reached, thedisqualification remains enforceable.)
People vs Zosa invocation of religious scruples in
order to avoid military service was
brushed aside by the SC
V. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 6, Art. III. The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except
upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety,
or public health, as may be provided by law.
Liberty Guaranteed by Sec. 6 Art. III
1. freedom to choose and change one's place of abode; and
2. freedom to travel both within the country and outside

· two steps (as regards the test): Limitations

▪ inquire whether respondent's right to religious freedom has · Liberty of Abode – “upon lawful order of the court”
been burdened; and · Right to Travel – “national security, public safety or public health as
▪ ascertain respondent's sincerity in her religious belief. may be provided by law”

· In Centeno vs Villalon-Pornillos, the Court held that solicitiations Caunca vs Salazar 82 Phil 851 Whether a maid had the right to
for religious purposes requires not a prior permit from DSWD as it is transfer to another residence even
not included in solicitations for “charitable or public welfare purposes.” if she had not paid yet the amount
advances by an employment
Religious Tests agency:
Yes. The fortunes of business
· Purpose: to stop government's clandestine attempts to prevent a cannot be controlled by controlling
person from exercising his civil of political rights because of his a fundamental human freedom.
religious beliefs. Human dignity and freedom are
essentially spiritual – inseparable
· In Pamil v. Teleron, Sec. 2175 of the Revised Adminsitrative Code is from the idea of eternal. Money,
questioned whether or not it is consistent with the religious clause of power, etc. belong to the
the Constitution. Said Code disqualifies an “ecclesiastic” from being ephemeral and perishable.
elected or appointed to a municipal office. Seven Justices voted to Rubi vs Provincial Board of The respondents were justified in
Mindoro 1919
Villavicencio vs Lukban 1919 Prostitutes, despite being in a
Salonga vs Hermoso 97 SCRA the case became moot and
121
Lorenzo vs Dir. of Health1927 Laws for the segregation of lepers
Manotok vs CA 1986
Marcos vs Manglapus 1989
requiring the members of certain precedent because Marcos was a
non-Christian tribes to reside in a class in himself.
reservation, for their better Philippine Association of Service Right to travel may be impaired in
education, advancement and Exporters vs Drilon the interest of national security,
protection. The measure was a 1988 public health or public order, as
legitimate exercise of police may be provided by law.
power. An order temporarily suspending
the deployment of overseas
sense lepers, are not workers is constitutional for
chattels but Philippine citizens, having been issued in the interest
protected by the same of the safety of OFWs, as
constitutional guarantee of provided by the Labor Code.
freedom of abode. They may not
be compelled to change their
domicile in the absence of a law
allowing such.
academic when the permit to
travel abroad was issued before
the case could be heard.
have been provided the world
over and is supported by high
scientific authority. Such
segregation is premised on the
duty to protect public health.
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a
valid restriction on the right to
travel. By its nature, it may serve
as a prohibition on an accused
from leaving the jurisdiction of the
Philippines where orders of
Philippine courts would have no
binding force.
The liberty of abode and the right
to travel includes the right to
leave, reside and travel within
one’s country but it does not
include the right to return to one’s
country.
NOTE: Court warned that this
case should not create a