1

Article III Bill of Rights

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secured 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 3.
1.

2.

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.

Section 6. 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.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged.

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Section 4. 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.

Section 5. 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.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Section 12.
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

2
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.

Section 15. 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.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Section 18.
Section 13. 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.

1.

No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and

aspirations.

2.

No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for

a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 19.
Section 14.
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.

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.

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

3
Section 21. 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.

government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to

ensure that this is accomplished;
7.

He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights
provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that
he understood the same;

8.

In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be

informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel,
otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his
waiver and chooses to speak;
That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any
manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be
questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police
may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the
interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

MIRANDA RIGHTS
1.

The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must

be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason
for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every
other warnings, information or communication must be in a language
known to and understood by said person;

9.

2.

He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any
statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;

3.

He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and
have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of
his own choice;

10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to
remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may
have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;

4.

He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services

of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be
engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court
upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;

5.

That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed
that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the
presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;

6.

The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to
communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio,
letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any
member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister
chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel,
or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-

11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may
be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or
exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Kinds of Ex Post Facto Law

(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense;

4
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty
or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(6) 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.

However, this prohibition is NOT absolute, for commercial speech may be

regulated if:
1.

As held in the case of GMA NETWORK, INC. vs. COMELEC, the

adoption of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (Section 9(a), with its
adoption of the aggregate-based airtime limits unreasonably
restricts the guaranteed freedom of speech and of the press.

Freedom of Expression, Press and Right to peaceably Assemble

IV. Tests for a valid interference on the Freedom of speech:
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule (IMMINENT)
when words are used in such circumstance and of such nature
as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about
substantive evil that the state has the right to prevent.
a. BP 880, Sec. 6 (a) - Action to be taken on the application It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official acting in his
behalf to issue or grant a permit unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that the public assembly will create a
clear and present danger to public order, public safety, public
convenience, public morals or public health.
Clear and Present Danger Rule is not applicable to Obscenity
cases, libel, labor laws, laws governing the use of school for non
school purposes
2. Dangerous Tendency Rule (DANGER NOT YET PRESENT BUT
THERE IS A TENDENCY TO EMERGE, THE STATE HAS THE
POWER TO CURTAIL THE SPEECH)
words uttered create a dangerous tendency of an evil which
State has the right to prevent.
3. Balancing of Interest Test (USE ONLY IN COMMERCIAL
SPEECHES)
when particular conduct is regulated in interest of public
order, and the regulation results in an indirect,
conditional, partial abridgment of speech, the duty of the
courts is to determine which of the 2 conflicting interests
demand
greater
protection
under
the
particular
circumstances presented.
V. Commercial Speech
Freedom from censorship or prior restraint does not apply to
commercial speech or the communication which no more than
proposes a commercial transaction.

the government has substantial interest to protect

2.

the regulation directly advances that interest; and

3.

it is not more extensive than is necessary to protect that interest

In the case of DISINI vs. Executive Secretary, prohibitng the

transmission of unsolicited ads would deny a person the right to read his
emails. Unsolicited advertisements are legitimate forms of expression that
must also be protected.

In PHARMACEUTICAL vs. SECRETARY OF HEALTH, public interest and

public good must trump over business interest.
vi. RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN

As held in the case of GOOGLE SPAIN v. GONZALES, a person has the

right, under certain conditions to ask search engines to remove links with
personal information about them. This applies where information is
inaccurate, inadequate, irrelevant or excessive for the purposes for
which there were collected or otherwise processed.

Q How do you balance the freedom of speech and of the press

and the right to privacy?

The other story is a wife who requested the password of his husbands
email from a certain email provided then she discovered that someone
owes his husband a sum of money in the amount of 3M.

A Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, if it invokes

of personal information of data subject, that data subject has the right
to request the removal, alternation or medication of such personal
information obtained and processed by a data processor.

The freedom of speech involves only those matters of public

concern, if it involves personal information, then the right to
privacy automatically supersede the freedom of expression.

Q Does the right to be forgotten has a basis here in the

Philippines?
A Yes, the RA 10173 of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 in which the data
subject has the right to request or demand the data processor to alter
or modify or amend any personal information which is outdated,
irrelevant, incomplete and illegally obtained.

In the discussion on Data Privacy Act, he gave emphasis on the right of

a person to inherit personal data of his decedent/s in which he can
demand data from a particular hospital to gather medical records of a
love one who is already incapable of giving authority to get such for
medical purposes

Remember the story of an anak na matagal nang hindi nakita ang

tatay, may nagtxt sa kanya na may sakit ang tatay nya. Umuwi sya at
gusto nyang ipagamot ang tatay nya pro wala syang medical history
ng tatay, so pwede nya i-demand sa hospital personal data.

1. SEC. 16. Rights of the Data Subject. The data subject is

entitled to:

(a) Be informed whether personal information pertaining to him or her

shall be, are being or have been processed;
(b) Be furnished the information indicated hereunder before the entry of
his or her personal information into the processing system of the
personal information controller, or at the next practical opportunity:
(1) Description of the personal information to be entered into the
system;
(2) Purposes for which they are being or are to be processed;
(3) Scope and method of the personal information processing;
(4) The recipients or classes of recipients to whom they are or may
be disclosed;
(5) Methods utilized for automated access, if the same is allowed by
the data subject, and the extent to which such access is
authorized;
(6) The identity and contact details of the personal information
controller or its representative;

6
(7) The period for which the information will be stored; and

(8) The designation, or name or identity and address of the

personal information controller;

(8) The existence of their rights, i.e., to access, correction, as well

as the right to lodge a complaint before the Commission.

Any information supplied or declaration made to the data subject on these

matters shall not be amended without prior notification of data subject:
Provided, That the notification under subsection (b) shall not apply should
the personal information be needed pursuant to a subpoena or when the
collection and processing are for obvious purposes, including when it is
necessary for the performance of or in relation to a contract or service or
when necessary or desirable in the context of an employer-employee
relationship, between the collector and the data subject, or when the
information is being collected and processed as a result of legal
obligation;

(c) Reasonable access to, upon demand, the following:

(1) Contents of his or her personal information that were processed;
(2) Sources from which personal information were obtained;

(d) Dispute the inaccuracy or error in the personal information and have
the personal information controller correct it immediately and
accordingly, unless the request is vexatious or otherwise
unreasonable. If the personal information have been corrected, the
personal information controller shall ensure the accessibility of both
the new and the retracted information and the simultaneous receipt of
the new and the retracted information by recipients thereof: Provided,
That the third parties who have previously received such processed
personal information shall he informed of its inaccuracy and its
rectification upon reasonable request of the data subject;

(e) Suspend, withdraw or order the blocking, removal or destruction of his

or her personal information from the personal information controllers
filing system upon discovery and substantial proof that the personal
information are incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained, used
for unauthorized purposes or are no longer necessary for the purposes
for which they were collected. In this case, the personal information
controller may notify third parties who have previously received such
processed personal information; and

(3) Names and addresses of recipients of the personal information;

(4) Manner by which such data were processed;
(5) Reasons for the disclosure of the personal information to
recipients;
(6) Information on automated processes where the data will or
likely to be made as the sole basis for any decision significantly
affecting or will affect the data subject;
(7) Date when his or her personal information concerning the data
subject were last accessed and modified; and

(f) Be indemnified for any damages sustained due to such inaccurate,

incomplete, outdated, false, unlawfully obtained or unauthorized use
of personal information.

VII. STATE REGULATION OF MASS MEDIA

Philippine jurisprudence has recognized four (4) aspects of freedom of the
press:
(1) freedom from prior restraint freedom from government censorship
(2) freedom from punishment subsequent to publication no liability for
harmless publication

7
(3) freedom of access to information; and
(4) freedom of circulation.

In the case of MTRCB vs ABS-CBN and Loren Legarda, the power of

MTRCB to review television programs under Section 3(b) of P. D. No. 1986
does not amount to prior restraint for respondent ABS-CBN and Legarda
were merely penalized for their failure to submit to petitioner the The
Inside Story for MTRCBs review and approval.

In ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP vs. COMELEC, the SC held that the

prohibition of conducting exit is an abridgement of the freedom of the
press. Exit polls do not constitute clear and present danger of destroying
the credibility and integrity of the electoral process

Q Is live telecasting of criminal proceedings allowed?

A NO for it violates the right of the accused as held in the cases of:

1. RE: LIVE TV and RADIO COVERAGE of the HEARING of

PRESIDENT CORAZON C. AQUINOS LIBEL CASE, considering the
prejudice it poses to the defendants right to due process as well as to
the fair and orderly administration of justice and considering further
that the freedom of the press and the right of the people to information
may be served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading and
prejudicial means, live radio and television coverage of court
proceedings shall not be allowed.

2.

RE: REQUEST RATIO-TV COVERAGE of the TRIAL in the

SANDIGANBAYAN of the PLUNDER CASE against FORMER
PRESIDENT JOSEPH ESTRADA, the court recognizes the
constitutionally embodied freedom of the press and the right to public

information and the fundamental rights of the accused on the other

hand, nevertheless, within the court house, when these rights race
against one another, jurisprudence tells us that the right of the
accused must be preferred to win.

3.

RE: LIVE MEDIA BROADCAST of AMPATUAN TRIAL, RES., A.M.

Nos. 10-11-5 SC, 10-11-6-SC and 10-11SC, the court partially
grants pro hac vice (for or on this occasion only) petitioners prayer
for a live broadcast of the trial court proceedings, subject to certain
guidelines as enumerated. It ruled that pervasive publicity is not per se
prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial, and that there must
be allegation and proof of the impaired capacity of a judge to render a
bias-free decision.

(NOTE: THE FIRST TWO CASES STILL PREVAILS OVER THE

AMPATUANS CASE FOR THE LATTER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
AS A JURISPRUDENCE AS STATED IN THE DECISION, IT IS PRO
HAC VICE. However, if a question in the bar will be asked
stating the AMPATUANs EXACT FACTS, then use the AMPATUAN
CASE)
VIII. ACADEMIC FREEDOM and the RIGHT OF THE SCHOOL TO
DISCIPLINE ITS STUDENTS
The freedom of speech and of expression is subject to academic freedom,
as held in the case MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC vs COURT
OF APPEALS, thus, consistent with jurisprudence, Section 7 of the
Campus Journalism Act should be read to mean that the school cannot
suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she
has written, except when such articles materially disrupt class work or
involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. From the
foregoing, it is self-evident that the school has the power to suspend or
expel student. It is an inherent part of the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution in order to
provide and maintain a safe and orderly educational environment
conducive to learning.
IX. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION
Article III, Section 4

8
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or
of the press, or the right of the people peaceable to assemble to petition
the government for redress of grievances
The right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint and may
not be conditioned upon the prior issuance of a permit or
authorization from the government authorities. However, the
right must be exercised in such a way as will not prejudice the
public welfare.
1. PB 880 (The Public Assembly Act of 1985)
The provisions of PB 880 are not an absolute ban of public assemblies but
a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the
assemblies. The Court referred to it as a content-neutral regulation for it
only regulates the time, place and manner of assembly.
Permit for public assembly is not necessary if meeting is to be
held in:
a. A private place;
b.The campus of a government-owned or operated educational institution;
c. A freedom park.

adds specific restrictions as they involve judicial independence and the

orderly administration of justice. There is thus no discrepancy between
the two sets of regulatory measures. Simply put, B.P. Blg. 880 and the
assailed resolution complement each other.
Tests of a lawful assembly
1. Purpose Test the purpose of the meeting for which it is held
regardless of the auspices under which it is organized
2. Auspices test relations of the speakers; nature of the people
composing the assembly
E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Sec 5. Art. Ill: 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.
Two guarantees contained in Sec. 5: (a) Non-establishment Clause;
and (b) Freedom of religious profession and worship.
i.

In BAYAN et al. vs. ERMITA, B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public
assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and
manner of the assemblies and not the reason for conducting such.

In the case of IBP vs. ATIENZA, it is an indispensable condition that the

outright change in the venue of a rally must indicate that such change is
because of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil might
emerged.

In RE: petition to ANNUL EN BANC RESOLUTION A.M. NO. 98-7-02SC RICARDO VALMONTES and UNION OF LAWYERS and
ADVOCATES for TRANSPARENCY in GOVERNMENT (ULAT) July 7,
1998, to insulate the judiciary from mob pressure, friendly or otherwise,
and isolate it from public hysteria, this Court merely moved away the
situs of mass actions within a 200-meter radius from every courthouse.
On the other hand, the resolution of this Court regulating demonstrations

Non-establishment clause.

G.R. The State shall not favor or establish a specific religion.

XCPNS:
Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI
charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit organization and all
lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxation
Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI
no public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid,
or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support
of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system
of religion, or any pries, preachers, minister, other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, E when such priest, preacher,
minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any
penal institution or government orphanage or leposarium.
Sec. 3(3), Art. XIV
at the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,
religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in
public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours
by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities
of the religion to which the children or ward belong, without
additional cost to the government
Sec. 4(2), Art. XIV

9
educational institutions shall be owned by Filipinos except those
established by religious groups and mission boards (e.g. UST).
NOTE: if land is NOT actually, directly or exclusive used by the
Religious Sect, it is TAXABLE. REMEMBER THE BUMABAHA
NG BEER SA BASTE EXAMPLE!
In the case of IMBONG VS. OCHOA, the RH Law mandates mandates
State-sponsored procurement of contraceptive but the SC held that this
does not violate the non-establishment clause because this is part of the
States population control program even if the promotion of contraceptive
use is contrary to the religious beliefs of e.g. the petitioners.
(CONSTITUTIONAL)
However, the provisions in the RH Law compelling non-maternity specialty
hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and
health care service providers to refer patients to other providers and
penalizing them if they fail to do so (Sections 7 and 23(a)(3)) as well
as compelling
them
to
disseminate
information
and
perform
RH procedures under pain of penalty (Sections 23(a)(1) and (a)(2) in
relation to Section 24) also violate (and inhibit) the freedom of religion.
While penalties may be imposed by law to ensure compliance to it,
a constitutionally-protected right must prevail over the effective
implementation of the law. (UNCONSTITUTIONAL)
Requiring would-be spouses to attend a seminar on parenthood, family
planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition as a condition for the
issuance of a marriage license, is a reasonable exercise of police power by
the government (Section 15). The law does not even mandate the type of
family planning methods to be included in the seminar. Those who attend
the seminar are free to accept or reject information they receive and they
retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life without the
intervention of the State. (CONSTITUTIONAL)
1. TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHERE THERE IS VIOLATION (this
was from the case of Lemon vs. Kurtzman which allowed the
state to reimburse predominantly Catholic schools for
teaching secular subjects with secular materials paid by tax
payers)
Lemon Test (if all or any these criteria are affirmed, the law in question
must be deemed unconstitutional:
a. The Statute must have a secular legislative purpose
b. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor
inhibit religious practice (also known as the Effect Prong)
c. The statute must not result in an excessive government
entaglement with religious affair (also known as the Entaglement
Prong)

ii. Free Exercise Clause

1. Dual aspect of freedom of religious belief and worship:
a) FREEDOM TO BELIEVE absolute as long as it is confined in the
realm of thought
b) FREEDOM TO ACT ON ONES BELIEF Subject to regulation where
the belief is translated into external acts that
affect the public welfare.
Q Can the State intervene when a person (lay minister) is excommunicated by their religious leader?
A No, as held in the case of DOMINADOR L. TARUC, et al. vs. BISHOP
PORFIRIO DELA CRUZ, that the State cannot meddle with the
ecclesiastical affairs of any religious sect specifically in excommunicating a member thereof -- ecclesiastical matters are outside
the province of the civil courts (ISSUE HERE IS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND ITS MEMBERS).

Can the State intervene in the secular affairs of religious sect?

Yes, as held in the case of AUSTRIA vs. NLRC, the State can
intervene on the secular affairs of a religious organization, specifically
the labor rights of Austria as an employee of the Seventh Day
Adventist (ISSUE HERE IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER
AND EMPLOYEE).

Ecclesiastical Affiar
An ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the church
and its members and relates to matters of faith, religious doctrines,
worship and governance of the congregation (e.g excommunication,
ordinations of ministers)

Secular Affairs
Non religious affairs of a church.

10

In
the
case
of
EBRALINAG
vs.
THE
DIVISION
OF
SUPRERINDTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU, the SC held forcing the
children to salute the flag violates their right to religion and will not foster
love & respect for the country and the authorities. Expelling them on the
basis of such conduct will likewise violate their right to receive education.
When general laws conflict w/ scruples of conscience, exceptions may be
granted, unless some compelling state interest gets involved.

In, INC vs. CA, the SC ruled that respondent board cannot censor the
speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other
religions, it says the remedy against bad theology is a better theology.

Two fold aspects of religious profession and worship namely:

Clause. This benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of

morality based on religion provided it does not offend compelling state
interest. This amount to a requirement that any law which conflicts with a
violator's sincerely held religious beliefs must pass a strict scrutiny test in
order to be enforceable.

Given that a free exercise claim could lead to three different results, the
question now remains as to how the Court should determine which action
to take. In this regard, it is the strict scrutiny-compelling state interest test
which
is
most
in
line
with
the benevolent
neutralityaccommodation approach
1.

2.

1. Freedom to believe (absolute)

3.
2. Freedom to act on ones belief where an individual externalizes his
beliefs in acts or omissions affecting the public, this freedom to do so
becomes subject to the regulation authority of the state.

Q Shall solicitation for religious purposes be required to secure

solicitation permit under the PD 1564 (Solicitation Permit
Law)?
A As held in the case of CENTENO vs. VILLALON-PORNILLOS, PD 1564
does NOT cover religious solicitations but only charitable and public
welfare solicitation purposes, hence they are not required to secure a
permit.
In ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR, the Court stated that our Constitution
adhere the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise

If the plaintiff can show that a law or government practice inhibits

the free exercise of his religious beliefs, the burden shifts to the
government to demonstrate that the law or practice is necessary
to the accomplishment of some important (or compelling) secular
objective and that it is the least restrictive means of achieving
that objective.
If the plaintiff meets this burden and the government does not,
the plaintiff is entitled to exemption from the law or practice at
issue.
In order to be protected, the claimants beliefs must be sincere,
but they need not necessarily be consistent, coherent, clearly
articulated, or congruent with those of the claimants religious
denomination. Only beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the
Free Exercise Clause; secular beliefs, however sincere and
conscientious, do not suffice

a. standards
i. Strict Neutrality Theory
Only secular criteria may be the basis of government action.
ii. Benevolent Neutrality Theory
The theory believes that with respect to these governmental
actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to
promote the governments favored form of religion, but to allow
individuals and groups to exercise their religion without
hindrance. The purpose of accommodations is to remove a
burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a persons or institutions
religion.
b. tests

11
1. Clear and Present Danger Test (use in freedom of
expression)
The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a
serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any
other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right to
prevent.
2. Compelling State interest Test
The application of the compelling state interest test could result to
three
situations
of
accommodation:
First,
mandatory
accommodation would result if the Court finds that
accommodation is required by the Free Exercise Clause. Second, if
the Court finds that the State may, but is not required to,
accommodate religious interests, permissive accommodation
results. Finally, if the Court finds that that establishment concerns
prevail over potential accommodation interests, then it must rule
that the accommodation is prohibited.
3. Conscientious Objector Test
A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the
right to refuse to perform military service"[1] on the grounds of
freedom of thought, conscience, disability or religion. [2] In
general, conscientious objector status is considered only in the
context of military conscription and is not applicable to volunteer
military forces.
NOTE: The Conscientious Objector Test is not applicable in the
Philippines because of Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution
(Posse Comitatus Rule) which calls upon people to serve in the
military to render either military or civil service during war.
Q. What is the Compelling State Interest test?
A. It is the test used to determine if the interests of the State are
compelling enough to justify infringement of religious freedom. It
involves a three-step process:
i.
Has the statute or government action created a burden
on the free exercise of religion? Courts often look into the
sincerity of the religious belief, but without inquiring into the
truth of the belief since the free exercise clause prohibits
inquiring about its truth.
ii.
Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to
justify this infringement of religious liberty? In this step,
the government has the right to establish that its purposes
are legitimate for the State and that they are compelling.
iii.
Has the State in achieving its legitimate purposes used
the least intrusive means possible so that the free
exercise in not infringed any more than necessary to

achieve the legitimate goal of the State? The analysis

requires the State to show that the means in which it is
achieving its legitimate State objective is the least intrusive
means, or it has chosen a way to achieve its legitimate State
end that imposes as little as possible intrusion on religious
beliefs.
Q Can an atheist invoke freedom of religion?
A Yes, he can invoke freedom of religion because the freedom of religion
includes the freedom not to believe. However, while a person is free to
believe, he is not free to act on his own belief because it is subject to
laws
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Liberty of Abode right to choose ones residence
Right to Travel (1) right to travel w/n the Philippines, (2) right to leave
the Philippines but not the right to travel back to the Philippines
As held in the case of MARCOS vs. MANGLAPUS, the right to return to
ones country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of
Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel
Q Is the liberty of abode subject to a limitation?
A Yes, as held in the case of LORENZO vs. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, the
Administrative Code, Section 1058 empowered the Director of Health to
cause to be apprehended, and detained, isolated, or confined all
leprous persons in the Philippines to prevent the spread of the disease
Q Can an alien invoke the right to travel? How about the right
against unreasonable searches and seizures?
A No, an alien cannot invoke the right to travel because all those rights
mentioned in the Bill of rights are rights of the citizens and cannot be
invoked by an alien except when there is a pronouncement from the
court or if there is a law enacted by the legislatures giving an alien the
privilege to travel to the Philippines. As to the right against, yes they
have (NISHIMURA EKIU vs. US)
Q Is the writ of amparo the right remedy in case there is a
violation of the right to travel and you want to revoke the HDO?
A No. In REYES vs. CA, the writ of amparo is available only in the extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
Q Is the OCA Circular No. 49-2003 a restriction to the right to
travel?
A No. In the case of OAS-OCA vs JUDGE IGNACIO B. MACARINE, the
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 is not a restriction but a mere regulation
providing guidelines to be complied by judges and court personnel
before they can go on leave to travel abroad.

12
Statutory limitations of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL (OCA-OAS vs
HEUSDENS)
(1) Human Security Act of 2010 (persons charged with crime of terrorism),
(2) Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (refuse issuance, restrict use of, or
withdraw a passport),
(3) Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (manage migration and curb
trafficking in persons,
(4) Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 (refuse to issue
deployment permit),
(5) RA 9262 (TPO), (6) Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 (restricting the
adoptees right to travel to protect her)
(6) Inter-Country adoption Act of 1995
(7) Destierro

expense. The exercise is also subject to reasonable regulations to

protect the integrity of public records and to minimize disruption of
government operations.
In case of BANTAY RA 7941 vs. COMELEC, the COMELEC has a
constitutional duty to disclose and release the names of nominees of the
party-list group list of party group.
Limitations (Information NOT subject to the right to information)
1. National Security matters and intelligence information such as state
secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security and
information on intergovernment exchange prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements (EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE)

Inherent limitation of the RIGHT TO TRAVEL

(1) Power of the court to prohibit persons charged with a crime to leave
the country
(2) Power of the legislative department can issue subpoena/subpoena
duces tecum requiring a person to be present in legislative
proceedings

In the case of AKBAYAN vs AQUINO, the negotiations cannot be

subjected to the citizens right to information because the negotiation
involves a State and disclosure of negotiation will prejudice the
countrys diplomatic relationship with Japan.
In NERI vs SENATE, a majority of the members of the Supreme Court
upheld the refusal of the petitioner to answer the three questions
asked during the Senate inquiry because the information sought by
the three questions are properly covered by the presidential
communications privilege, and executive privilege. First, the
communications relate to a quintessential and non-delegable
power (the power to enter into an executive agreement with other
countries) of the President; second, the communications were
received by a close advisor of the President, Secretary Neri
being a member of the Cabinet and by virtue of the proximity
test, he is covered by executive privilege; and third, there was no
adequate showing by the respondents of the compelling need
for the information as to justify the limitation of the privilege,
nor was there a showing of the unavailability of the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating
authority.

In the case of GUDANI vs. SENGA, there is a restriction on the their right
to travel
because of the commander-in-chief clause, in which the
President as the commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines,
has absolute authority over the members of the armed forces and this
authority includes he ability to restrict the travel, movement and speech
of military officers.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Scope of the RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Q What is the difference between the lending of private banks
and the lending of government financial institutions?
A The nature of the funds being lent by GFIs assumes a public character,
hence it is subject to the right of the people to information while funds
lend by private banks is not (VALMONTE vs BELMONTE)
Q Whether the Constitutional right to information includes official
information
on on-going
negotiations
before
a
final
agreement?
A Yes, as held in the case of Chavez vs. PEA and AMARI, the right to
information contemplates inclusion of negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction. Otherwise, the people can never
exercise the right if no contract is consummated, or if one is
consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its defects.
However, the right only affords access to records, documents and
papers, which means the opportunity to inspect and copy them at his

2.
3.
4.
Q

Trade secrets and banking transactions

Criminal matters (INFORMERS PRIVILEGE) the identity of the person
who provided an information regarding the commission of a crime
Other confidential information

Does the right to information on matters of public concern

include access to the terms of government negotiations prior
to their consummation or conclusion?
A In the case of CHAVEZ vs. PCGG, The Court ruled that considering the
intent of the Constitution, it is incumbent upon the PCGG and its
officers, as well as other government representatives, to disclose
sufficient public information on any proposed settlement they have

13
decided to take up with the ostensible owners and holders of ill-gotten
wealth. Such information, though, must pertain to definite
propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency or
inter-agency recommendations or communications during the stage
when common assertions are still in the process of being formulated or
are in the "exploratory" stage.
TANADA vs TUVERA, publication must be in full or no publication at all
since its purpose is to inform the public of the content of the laws.

NOTES:

The right to association includes the right NOT to associate (STA.

CLARA HOMEOWNERS ASSN, INC. vs. DIONISIO)

Members of the Civil Service (those employed in the govt) do not

have a right to strike (REASON: Imagine nagkasunod tpos lahat
ng bombero nsa strike, ano ang mangyayari?)

RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
Q Is being a communist or socialist illegal or punishable?
A NO because under our laws, the freedom to believe is absolute but if
you act on those beliefs and there is a law prohibiting such actions, then
you will be prosecuted in accordance with the law.

Q Is being a member of Hukbalahap punishable?

A Yes because the objective of Hukbalahap is to overthrow and
overthrowing the government is an act of rebellion and such is
punishable by our laws.

In the case of BEL AIR VILLAGE ASSN, INC vs. DIONISIO, there is an
annotation in the TCT, hence the spouses became an automatic member
of the association.

In the EDILLON case, the court held that the Bar integration does not
compel the lawyer to associate with anyone. He is free to attend or not
the meeting of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in its
election as he chooses. The only compulsion to which he is subjected is
the payment of annual dues. The Supreme Court in order to further the
States legitimate interest in elevating the quality of professional legal
services may require that the cost of the regulatory program the
lawyers.

Q How about being a member of the NPA?

A Yes because NPA is a subversive group.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS

Q How about being a member of the CPP?

Q When there is impairment?

A Mere membership to CPP is not punishable because the Anti-subversive

Act provided two requisites: (1) still a member (active), and (2) still
doing illegal acts of the CPP. If these two requisites are not present, then
you cannot be punished.

A When a right is taken or when a person is deprived of the means of

enforcing such right, there is impairment; when there is changes in the
terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of
performance, or imposes new conditions, or dispenses with those express,
or authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in
its terms.

14

NOTE: In every contract, there is an implied reservation that it is subject

to the police power of the State because the general welfare of the
public is superior to private rights.

As held in the case of ORTIGAS and CO. vs. FEATI BANK and TRUST
CO, while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally guaranteed, the
rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the legitimate
exercise of police power.

Custodial investigation questioning initiated by law enforcement

office after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of
this freedom of action in any significant way.
Q What are the rights in Section 12 that CAN be WAIVED?
A (1) Right to remain silent,
(2) Right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of
his own choice in all stages of the investigation
Q What are the rights that CANNOT be WAIVED?
A (1) Right to be informed of the right to remain silent and right to
counsel
(2) Right to counsel when making the waiver of the right to remain
silent of to counsel
Q What is the manner of waiving?
A in writing and in the present of counsel

In the case of YSMAEL vs. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, timber

licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal instruments by
which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of forest
resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. They may be validly
amended, modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
national interest so require.

FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICAL BODIES AND

ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE

This right is available only to natural person, as held in the RE: QUERY
OF MR. ROGER C. PRIORESCHI, RE: EXEMPTION FROM LEGAL AND
FILING FEES OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD FOUNDATION, INC. The Good
Shepherd is a judicial person and cannot be accorded the exemption from
legal and filing fees granted to indigent litigant.
RA 999 FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010 Section 5
The law granting lawyers up to 10 percent deduction from their
annual taxable income to encourage them to render free legal
services, provided that the actual free legal services herein
contemplated shall be exclusive of the minimum 60 hours
mandatory legal aid services rendered
RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

Q When these rights are available?

A The rights under Section 12, Article III are available when the
investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime but
has begun to focus on a particular suspects, as when the suspect has
been taken into police custody and the police carry out a process of
interrogation that lends itself to eliciting incriminating statements.
In the case of PEOPLE vs. MARA, the SC clarified that when the suspect
is arrested by the police and the questions propounded are general in
nature, that person is not yet in custodial investigation but when the
police officer starts to asked questions in such a manner that he is being
singled out as the suspect, then he can already invoke his rights. If he
fails to invoke such, it is as if he waived his right.
In the following cases, no custodial investigation yet because they are
pure mechanical act, hence the suspect cannot invoke right to counsel:
1. POLICE LINE UP, as held in the case of PEOPLE vs.
AMESTUZO, the suspect is not yet under custodial investigation
process because the process has not yet shifted from
investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the
complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the
course of line-up.
2. PARRAFIN TEST
3. PHOTOGRAPH
4. PRENANCY TEST
5. GIVING OF URINE SAMPLE, in the case of GUTANG vs.
PEOPLE, the Court ruled that the right to counsel begins from the
time a person is taken into custody and placed under

15
investigation for the commission of crime. Taking of urine sample
is a mechanical act, hence, he cannot invoke the right to counsel
6. MUG SHOTS
7. SHOW UPS
8. FITTING OF SHORTS

ii.

When an offense has in fact just been committed,

and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

iii.

When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who

has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to
another.

Taking of blood samples however in order to determine if the person is

the petpetrator, say in a rape case, who is infected with AIDs is prohibited.
The right to counsel is not applicable to administrative proceedings as
held in the case of FEEDER INTERNIATONAL LINE, PTS. LTD vs. CA,
the right to presumption of innocence can be invoked only by an
individual accused of a criminal offense; a corporate entity has no
personality to invoke the same. Also, a forfeiture proceeding under tariff
and customs laws is not penal in nature.
FACTORS IN RESOLVING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AND RELYING ON
OUT-OF-COURT IDENTIFICATION OF SYSPECTS (USING THE
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES TEST (O DALTS)
1. The witness opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the
crime;
2. The witness degree of attention at that time
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; and
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the
identification;
5. The length of time between the crime and the identification
6. The suggestiveness of the identification process
Q If a person violated traffic rules and was apprehended, is he
under arrest already? Is there a need to cite the Miranda
Warnings?
A No, as in the case of LUZ vs. PEOPLE, the person apprehended by
traffic enforcers are not under arrest, hence the Miranda Warnings
need not be cited because the procedure for dealing with a traffic
violation is not the arrest of the offender but the confiscation of the
drivers license of the latter. Any search made is illegal since there was
no lawful arrest because of the following rules:
G.R. No search w/o search warrant
XCPN:
Search incidental to a lawful arrest
a. There must a warrant for an arrest to be lawful
b. Arrest under Section 5, Rule 113
i.

When, in his presence, the person to be arrested

has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;

REMEMBER THIS!
1. Is the person under custodial investigation? If not, then
the right to counsel is not applicable. Miranda rights need
not be cited.
2. If it applies, was it followed? Was there a counsel given to
him?
3. If not, is there a justification not to follow it?
RIGHTS INCLUDED
In PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY, the SC laid down the guidelines and duties of
arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating officers or his companions
(refer to the UPDATED MIRANDA RIGHTS)
KINDS OF INVOLUNTARY OR COERCED CONFESSIONS
1. Those which are the product of 3rd degree method such as
torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt with
in paragraph 2 of Section 12; and
2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warning
In the case of PEOPLE vs. OBRERO, the SC stressed that the
Constitution requires that the counsel be independent.
Hence the
confession made by the suspect is inadmissible because the same was
made to a police officer who was part of the arresting team, though a
competent lawyer, he is however not independent. It is seriously doubted
whether he can effectively undertake the defense of the accused without
running into conflict of interest.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
In GAMBOA vs. CRUZ, the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel
attaches upon the start of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating
officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the respondent. At that point, the person being
interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious practice

16
of extorting false or coerced admissions from the lips of the person
undergoing investigation.
PEOPLE vs VIDUYA, a fiscal/prosecutor cannot act as a defense counsel
even during custodial investigation.
ADMISSIBILITY
1. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
PEOPLE vs JARA, the SC ruled that in order for extrajudicial confession
to be valid, it should be voluntarily given and the burden of proving that
there was valid waiver rests on the prosecution. The presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail over the
presumption of innocence.
In PEOPLE vs. BALISTEROS, the right under Section 12, Article III is
personal in nature, hence can only be invoked by the confessant himself.
2. Confession given to Media
In PEOPLE vs. ENDINO, the Supreme Court ruled that the admission of
the videotaped confession is proper. The interview was recorded on video
and it showed accused unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly
in the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part of
custodial investigation as it was not given to police officers but to media
men in an attempt to solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.
There was no showing that the interview was coerced or against his will.
However, because of the inherent danger in the use of television as a
medium for admitting ones guilt, courts are reminded that extreme
caution must be taken in further admitting similar confessions.
3. Confession given to a Municipal Mayor
In PEOPLE vs. ANDAN, the Supreme Court held that the voluntary but
uncounselled confession of the accused to the Mayor and to the media
was admissible in evidence. In this case, it was noted that it was the
accused who freely, spontaneously and voluntarily sought the Mayor for a
private meeting, and the Mayor did not know that the accused was going
to confess his guilt. Accused talked with the Mayor as a confidant, not as a
law enforcement officer. The confession made by the accused to the news
reporters was likewise free of undue influence from the police authorities.
The news reporters acted as news reporters when they interviewed the
accused; they were not acting under the direction and control of the
police. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply
to the spontaneous statements not elicited through questioning by the
authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally
admitted having committed the crime.
4. Signing of Acknowledgment receipt
PEOPLE vs. CASIMIRO, the SC ruled that the acknowledgment receipt
could not be considered evidence against the accused-appellant because
it was signed by him without the assistance of counsel.

INVESTIGATIONS NOT CONSIDERED CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION

BECAUSE THE PEOPLE CONDUCTING THE SAME ARE NOT LAW
ENFORCERS
1. Those conducted by an audit examiner
2. Those conducted by the Court Administrator
3. Those conducted by the employer
RIGHT TO BAIL
Q What is bail?
A It is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before
any court as required under the conditions hereafter specified. Bail
may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash
deposit, or recognizance (RULE 114, SECT. 1, RULES OF COURT)
Q In what situation the court may DENY the motion to bail
OUTRIGHT?
A The court may deny outright the motion to bail if following requisites
concur:
1. If the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment; and
2. Evidence of guilt is strong
Q When is bail a MATTER of RIGHT
A It is a matter of right in the following cases:
1. Before or after conviction by the MTC, MeTC, MCTC
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetual, or life imprisonment
Q Why do you think that when the case is filed before the MTC,
the right to bail is a matter for right, BEFORE or AFTER
conviction?
A Because if the case is filed before the MTC, then the offense is surely
not punishable by reclusion perpetua, death, or life imprisonment.
Section 13 provides 2 requirements: (1) offense charged is punishable
by reclusion perpetua, death, or life imprisonment and (2) evidence
of guilt is strong. In this case, even if the person is convicted (meaning
guilt is proven, hence requisite #2 is present), bail is still a matter of
right because the 1st requisite is missing.
Q Why do you think that if the case is filed before the RTC, the
right to bail is a matter of right, BEFORE conviction and does
not include AFTER?
A Because if we say before conviction then the evidence is not strong,
2nd requisite fails. After conviction, even if the case is not yet final
because there is still an appeal, there is evidence that the person has
committed a crime and he is guilty, meaning the evidence of guilt is

17
strong, hence, that person cannot avail the right to bail as a matter of
right.
Q When is bail DISCRETIONARY?
A After conviction before the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. However, if the RTC convicts
him of an offense punishable by more than 6 years, the court should
deny the bail when the following circumstances are present:
1. recidivist, quasi-redicivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed
the crime aggravated by the circumstances of reiteration;
2. escapee, evaded sentence or violated the conditions of his bail w/o
valid justification
3. that he committed an offense while under parole, probation, or
conditional pardon;
4. that he is flight risk
5. that there is an undue risk that he may commit another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.
EXTRADITION
is an international agreement whereby the contracting States
agree to surrender a person who might have committed or is
sentence of crime punishable under the domestic of law of the
requesting state.
GOVERNMENT OF THE USA vs PURGANAN, person subject of
extradition cannot invoke the right to bail as a matter of right except: (1)
when the person is not a flight risk and (2) for humanitarian reasons.
GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
vs. OLALIA, in cases of extradition, an extraditee can invoke the right to
bail, provided
(1) the extraditee is not a flight risk; or (2) for
humanitarian considerations.
Q What is the quantum of proof in granting bail in extradition
cases?
A The quantum of proof is clear and convincing evidence (meaning, lower
than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of
evidence)

Quantum of Proofs
1. proof beyond reasonable doubt criminal cases
2. preponderance of evidence civil cases
3. substantial evidence administrative cases
4. clear and convincing evidence extradition cases
DEPORTATION
Q Can the court issue an order to grant a bail in favor of person
subject of deportation?
A Yes, as held in the case of GOVERNMENT OF HK SAR vs. OLALIA,
because it is an international practice. Although such is not binding
because it is only an obiter dictum (opinion given which is not an issue
of a particular case).
GO vs. RAMOS, the Court ruled that it cannot grant bail because a
deportation case is not a criminal offense. The BI however, based on the
law that created such Board can grant bail.
NOTE: In deportation cases, granting of bail is base on a law and not the
Constitution because the latter only provides bail in criminal cases.
MILITARY
COMMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA, a military convicted by the general
court martial is not entitled to bail because it is not an ordinary criminal
proceeding and there is no provision in the Articles of War granting them
the right to bail. Their remedy is to invoke speedy trial.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN RECLUSION PERPERTUAL AND LIFE

IMPRISONMENT
RECLUSION PERPETUA
Prescribed on crimes punishable by
the RPC
Carries accessory penalty
Duration of imprisonment is definite
ranging from 20 years + 1 day but
not more than 40 years

LIFE IMPRISONMENT
Imposed on offenses punishable by
special laws
Does not carry accessory penalty
Duration is indefinite