INTRODUCTION

"The Constitution ... is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with
the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine
involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its
provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government."1
There’s nothing more heartbreaking in this world than be deprived of the rights that are
granted to you by the Constitution you’ve sworn to protect and the country you helped prosper and
develop. The Philippine Constitution, just like all the other Constitutional Republics such as the
United States’ Constitution, has its fundamental roots from the Social Contract Theory. The
government and laws in this system is based on the concept of social contract which, as old as
Philosophy itself, lays down the idea that “human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature,
and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for
their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society.”2 The social contract, in
all its simplicity, has only two basic terms: (1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision
by deliberative assembly. Under the theory of the social contract, those rights which the individual
brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the
social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are
constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights.3
Moreover, the social contract theory classifies rights: those rights which the individual
brings with him upon entering the social contract are natural, and those which arise out of the
social contract are contractual. Those contractual rights arising out of the constitution are
constitutional rights. However, natural rights are also constitutional rights. However, constitutions
grant the power to deprive persons of their rights with the observance and an operation of the due
process of law. Strictly speaking, a person may not be deprived of such rights in the sense of taking
them away.4 A person can never lose his or her natural right. Their exercise can, however, be
restricted or, to use the proper legal term, disabled. Some might question the practical distinction
between losing a right and having it disabled, that distinction is important. A right which is disabled
after the observance of due process may also be re- enabled by the removal of that disability, and
the disability is removed if the social contract is broken and persons return to the state of nature.5
Due process therefore requires that each and every right which is to be disabled be argued
separately on its merits, and the ruling or sentence of the court explicitly disable each such right.
This requirement therefore comes into conflict with legislative powers which prescribe the
disablement of certain rights for persons convicted of certain types of crimes, such as the right to
vote or to keep and bear arms, without that disablement being made an explicit part of the sentence
or the sentencing hearing. Such legislation must be considered unconstitutional, for even though
there may be due process in the case which results in the explicit disablement of the rights to
certain liberties or properties, those disablements are openly stated and argued, and the