ATTY SANDOVAL PRE-BAR BILL OF RIGHTS

ARTICLE III of the 1987 constitution

Powers of the state
• Police power
• Eminent domain
• Taxation
These are inherent powers of the state, no need of grant of these powers to the state as they are inherent.
Q: They are inherent powers, thus, what organ of the state is supposed to exercise such inherent
power?
A: They are exercised by the legislature, the congress.
However these powers can be delegated to the president, admin bodies and agencies, local governments.
With eminent domain, they can be delegated to quasi-public corporations.
Q: What are quasi-public corporations?
A: They are private corps but they render some public service like Meralco, like PLDT.
So that is with respect to the power of eminent domain.
As inherent powers, they are to be exercised by the legislature.
They may be delegated to the president, administrative bodies, local government and with respect to
eminent domain, this may be delegated to quasi-public corporations.
Take note also of with respect to LGUs, because these can be delegated to them.
Q: What are local governments?
A: Sec 1 of ART X.

SECTION 1. The territorial and political subdivisions

of the Republic of the Philippines are the provinces,
cities, municipalities, and barangays. There shall be
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras as hereinafter provided.

As you can see, based here. The local governments are territorial and political subdivisions of the republic
of the Philippines.

Q: Do they have inherent powers?

A: No. They cannot possibly have inherent powers because they are mere creatures of the legislature.
Unlike the state itself.
Whatever powers they have, they are delegated or those designated by law.
Now, with respect to the power of taxation in so far as local governments are concerned, it is delegated by
the constitution to LGUs
Sec 5 Article 10.
SECTION 5. Each local government unit shall have
the power to create its own sources of revenues and to
levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such
guidelines and limitations as the Congress may
provide, consistent with the basic policy of local
autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue
exclusively to the local governments.

This is the provision that delegates taxation to local government.

With respect to police power and eminent domain, it is congress that delegated such to the local
governments.
Under the local government code, look at section 16.
Ang title niyan is general welfare.

Section 16. General Welfare. - Every local

government unit shall exercise the powers expressly
granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well
as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its
efficient and effective governance, and those which
are essential to the promotion of the general welfare.

Within their respective territorial jurisdictions, local

government units shall ensure and support, among
other things, the preservation and enrichment of
culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right
of the people to a balanced ecology, encourage and
support the development of appropriate and self-
reliant scientific and technological capabilities,
improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity
and social justice, promote full employment among
their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

That is known as the general welfare clause, it’s there where you will find the delegation of police power.
Sec 16 has two parts
The first par is general legislative??? The second part is police power. These are the two parts of the
general welfare clause.
General legislative power – for the governance of their constituents.
On the second part is the police power.
With respect to eminent domain it’s section 19? Of the local government code.
Section 19. Eminent Domain. - A local government
unit may, through its chief executive and acting
pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of
eminent domain for public use, or purpose or welfare
for the benefit of the poor and the landless, upon
payment of just compensation, pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws:
Provided, however, That the power of eminent domain
may not be exercised unless a valid and definite offer
has been previously made to the owner, and such offer
was not accepted: Provided, further, That the local
government unit may immediately take possession of
the property upon the filing of the expropriation
proceedings and upon making a deposit with the
proper court of at least fifteen percent (15%) of the
fair market value of the property based on the current
tax declaration of the property to be expropriated:
Provided, finally, That, the amount to be paid for the
expropriated property shall be determined by the
proper court, based on the fair market value at the
time of the taking of the property.

For the LGU to exercise eminent domain, what is required is an ordinance, a mere resolution will not
do.
This is clarified in the case of municipality of Paranaque v. VM corp. Under the old govt code, they may
exercise eminent domain through resolution or ordinance. Ngayon, in the present LGC there’s a clear
intent on the part of congress na through an ordinance dapat ngayon because the word resolution was not
reenacted in the new LGC.
Q: Difference between ordinance and a resolution?
A: SC said
An ordinance is a law, whereas a resolution is a mere sentiment or opinion. Mere expression of
opinion or sentiment in a particular issue – that’s a resolution.
Second is, an ordinance is permanent but a resolution is only temporary and finally
In the enactment of ordinances, a third reading is required. That’s not true with respect to a resolution.
NOTE: in the enactment of resolutions, they can provide for different rules here
--
Q: Of the three inherent powers of the state which is the most pervasive and least limitable?
A: It’s police power. It affects even liberty, life, property etc.
The least limitable the most pervasive. For this reason, it affects not only property rights.
According to Justice Isagani cruz, any human activity may be subject to the police power from the womb
to the tomb.
Unlike the power of taxation and eminent domain, ang tinatamaan lang is property and property rights.
--
The RH law was enacted because of police power, ang pinaka purpose nito is population control. The RH
law is actually a population measure.
Yung biometrics law, nowadays even if you are a recent voter but if you don’t undergo this you cannot
vote. You have to undergo that biometrics requirement.
Remember, legislation laws are police power measures designed to ensure that only those who have the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications are possessed by the voter.
After all suffrage is a right, it is a privilege so it’s not available to everyone.
--
For the valid exercise of police power the requisites must be present
• Lawful purpose
• Lawful means

Q: What do you mean by lawful purpose?

A: It is for the interest of the people in general. The purpose must not only lawful but the means must
always be lawful and reasonable, it must not be oppressive, confiscatory
The two must go hand in hand.
We are a democratic and republican state. This is not the case of the ends justify the means unlike a
dictatorship.
Now with respect to eminent domain
Q: What are the valid requisites for the valid exercise of eminent domain?
A: There must be taking of private property and then we have the requirement also of the payment of just
compensation
ART III Section 9
SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation.

Q: What does it say here?

A: Private property cannot be taken without payment of just compensation.
Strictly speaking, it’s not really a right (section 9) it’s more of a limitation of the power of eminent
domain of the state.
Not any kind of compensation will do, it must be just compensation
Also there must be observance of due process.
Q: What do you mean observance of due process?
A: If you have private land and then the govt wants to get it ura urada, kukunin ito ng govt hindi pwede.
May procedure yan. Rule 67 on the rules of court, you follow the expropriation proceedings
Hindi porke kailangan niya yun for private use, papaalisin ka na ng gobyerno.
The government must pay just compensation and there must be observance of due process.
Rule 67 is a special civil action.
Q: How do you distinguish police power from the power of eminent domain?
A: Because actually police power also involves taking.
Ganito ‘yan ah, in police power any kind of property can be taken even public property. So any kind of
property
Q: What is the purpose of taking?
A: In police power, the purpose is to destroy or demolish the property because the property is harmful to
the public
In eminent domain, only private property can be taken.
The purpose in ED is to convert the property. That is how you distinguish police power from eminent
domain. Both involved the taking of property.
In eminent domain, there must be payment of just compensation,
This can be tricky sometimes.
Because the government takes and says it’s police power but it’s really eminent domain, ayaw lang nila na
magbayad ng just comepensation.
With the respect to the element of taking…
There is an old building on the verge of collapsing. Now that building will be taken even if it’s
government property
Q: why?
A: Because it imposes a risk to the passer bys so, that will have to be taken
Under the police power the purpose is to demolish the building.
Q: Now, will the owner of the building be paid just compensation?
A: No. The only compensation he has is that he contributed to the common good.
--
Going back to the element of taking in eminent domain, because the first requisite is that there must be
taking of private property to be converted to public use, and then payment of just compensation.
Remember the two kinds of taking:
In City of Manila and Mosqueda:
The court here clarified the two kinds
 • Possessory taking
• Regulatory taking
Yung possessory taking, a good example of that is that you own a piece of land, and then the government
says kailangan ko lupa mo, tapos magtatayo ng school. So because of that, mandatory payment of just
compensation. Kaya possessory, kasi pagkuha ng lupa mo there will be a transfer of ownership from you
to the government. There will be transfer of ownership from you to the government and because of that
mandatory payment of just compensation
Pero halimbawa, yung mga zoning ordinances. Police power yan, halimbawa, you happen to live in a
residential area, so titled yung property mo.
Q: Pwede ka ba magtayo ng factory diyan?
A: No. Under zoning orders bawal yan. Bawal ang motorshop, bawal ang night club kasi residential area
yan so may limitation na ngayon. Although the property is yours, diba lupa mo ‘yan pero hindi ka pwede
mag tayo ng kung ano anong negosyo diyan like junk yard, factory etc kasi may mga zoning ordinances
nga na nagbabawal niyan. So may limitation on the use of the property. THIS IS REGULATORY
TAKING.
Now, pagdating sa regulatory taking
Q: Is payment of just compensation mandatory?
A: It depends.
If it’s regulatory taking, if you are deprived of the beneficial use of the property that’s eminent domain.
If you are totally deprived – you are entitled to just compensation because it’s eminent domain not
really police power anymore.
BUT
If you still have beneficial use, mapapakinabangan mo pa you are not entitled to the payment of just
compensation.
In cosby??? v. US: There is a property owner, his property is devoted to poultry. Layers and growers???
Ang problema katabi ng property niya nag tayo yung government ng airport. Such when the airport
became operational, if the airplane takes off sa ingay non nagugulat yung mga manok niya ayaw na
mangitlog. Bumababa yung timbang nung mga manok niya.
Q: Is he entitled to just compensation?
A: if you analyze, he is still the owner but remember here yung land niya is devoted to poultry. Eh yung
katabi is an airport. He is affected by this, ayaw na mangitlog ng mga manok niya.
SC said yes. He suffered losses because of the airport. He is entitled to just compensation.
--
When you talk about taking in the constitutional sense, it may include impairment of the use of the real
property for which it was intended not just actual physical taking
In taxation, remember that taxes are burdens. They are impositions on the people that’s why, in the
interpretation of tax laws.
Tax laws are strictly construed against the government and liberally interpreted in favor of the
taxpayer.
Kaya lang when it comes to tax exemptions, baliktad yan.
Tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer, the one claiming exemption and in favor of
the state.
Q: Why?
A: Because of the life blood doctrine – the taxes are the lifeblood of the nation, the govt will not
operate without them
Q: how do you distinguish taxes from licenses?
A: Taxes are imposed pursuant to the power of taxation, on the other hand licenses are imposed based on
police power and the purpose is for regulation.
The amount of taxes are unlimited, for licenses the amount to imposed to regulate is to cover only the cost
of regulation.
Q: May taxes be subject to offsetting and compensation?
A: No. the taxpayer and govt are not mutual creditor and debtor to each other.
THIS IS AN OVERVIEW OF THE POWERS OF THE STATE.
--
Now an overview of the bill of rights.
ART III of the constitution
Q: Three parts of a written constitution?
A:
• Government
• Liberty
• Sovereignty
These are the three important parts.
The second one, liberty. Actually when you talk about the constitution of liberty you refer to the bill of
rights.
Because of that, the Bill of rights is actually the limitation of the powers of the state. Remember, without
the bill of rights the state can do anything and we cannot complain.
The state is powerful and omnipotent and because of the bill of rights we are protected. It’s the limitation
of the powers of the state.
To illustrate:
Look at section 2 of the BOR
SECTION 2. 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.

Q: What right is involved here?

A: Right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Without this, we can be arrested or searched at any time of day and night and we cannot complain.
But since we have section 2, the state/agents of the state they cannot do that.
It says there that a search warrant/warrant of arrest is needed before the search, ONLY THE JUDGE
CAN ISSUE THIS even the president cannot issue this and before he issues this there are stringent
requirements.
Q: Requirements?
A: probable cause, to be determined by the judge, personal examination by the judge of the witnesses,
particular description of the place to be searched, the things to be seized, description of the person
Another example, under section 9 kung wala yan all of us here if you happen to own a piece of land,
taops the govt wants it all of us, ura urada pwedeng kunin ‘yan papaalisin ka..
Hindi ka pa babayaran.
But since you have section 9, you are guaranteed to the payment of just compensation.
The state must also observe due process, hindi pwede basta basta na papaalisin ka and again there
is a procedure involved rule 67.
Another example, without section 4. Freedom of expression.

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.

Q: Yung pa rally rally ka sa Mendiola, pwede natin gawin yan?

A: Hindi.
But since it’s guaranteed under the bill of rights we can express our views, even contrary views.
Yang ginagawa natin sa pilipinas yang pa rally rally na ‘yan, subukan mong gawin yan sa china or north
korea I assure you maganda kalalagyan mo diyan bak agawin kang fertilizer diyan. That’s how important
the bill of rights are.
ARTICLE III – IT LIMITS THE POWER OF THE STATE.
Q: What kind of rights are found in the Bill of rights?
A: They are the civil and political rights.
They are limitations of the power of the state.
As in Oposa v. Factoran: they invoked section 16 article 2.
SECTION 16. The State shall protect and advance the
right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology
in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.

‘Yan ang ininvoke nila eh. The petitioners here are even minors, they filed the petition in court to compel
the DENR to cancel existing timber agreements issued to logging concessionaires and to stop issuances
pa. in order to preserve the remaining forests.
This section is not under the bill of rights, it’s under article II.
Q: That’s why it was asked here, since art 2 sec 16 is not included in the bill of rights, does this
mean that this right is less important than any of the bill of rights?
A: There, the SC said NO. This is because the rights found in the bill of rights are civil and political rights
they are limitations of the powers of the state.
Yung nasa sec 16 art ii, it belongs to a different category and involves self preservation.
SC said here pa na this basic right need not even be under the constitution, it’s assumed to exist from the
time of birth. Further it protects even generations yet unborn.
The right here may even prevail over all governments and constitutions.
The rights under the BOR are civil and political rights and they are limitations of the powers of the states.
--
BILL OF RIGHTS
If you analyze, there are only 22 sections there.
Q: Meron bang binabanggit na right to appeal?
A: Diba wala. Walang right to appeal diyan.
Appeal is not a constitutional right it’s merely statutory. Hence if there is no law granting that, you
cannot appeal and you cannot claim the denial of the right to due process.
Q: Why no?
A: Because it is not found in the bill of rights.
It is merely statutory.
On the 22 sections, merong bang right to privacy?
A: SECTION 3 – but this is a limited right, privacy of communication and correspondence
SECTION 3.

(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.

Q: So is there a constitutional right to privacy?

A: This issue is settled in Ople v. Torres yes there is. After all, the essence of privacy is the right to be left
alone.
It is not express under section 3 but, sections 1, 2, 6 8 and 7 it is those sections that the right to privacy is
also present.
Section 2 – the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, there is a privacy component here
6 – right to travel, liberty of abode: merong privacy dito when you travel you are not monitored by the
government.
8 – freedom of association, remember it also includes the freedom not to associate.
17 – the right against self incrimination. You may not be compelled to testify against yourself.
So meron talagang constitutional right to privacy. Because the essence of the right to privacy is the right
to be let alone.
Sa US unang narecognize yung right to privacy in Griswold??? Hahahaah it was in 1965, in 1968 our SC
adopted in morfe v muttoc: that indeed there is a right to privacy because the essence of privacy is the
right to be let alone.
BUT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO APPEAL.
Now, analyze the 22 sections. You better familiarize yourself with this.
Section 1.
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.

Q: What are the 2 important rights here?

A: This is the catch all provision.
• Right to due process of law
• Right to equal protection of laws
Ang counterpart is article 19 of the new civil code.
Kapag wala ka na masagot sa constitutional law, use this.
3 – the right to privacy of communication and correspondence
Section 2 – right against unreasonable searches and seizures
4 – right to freedom of expression which is a preferred right, this is accorded with utmost protection
with section
5 which is freedom of religion

4 rights in section 4

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.

• Freedom of speech
• Expression
• Freedom of the press
• Freedom of assembly
You can include section 8 to section 4. 8 which is freedom of association.
S5 freedom of religion: another preferred freedom, preferred right.
So 4 & 5 they are preferred freedoms.
If you read section 5

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.

Those are 3 sentences.

The first sentence there, that’s the non-establishment clause.
The second sentence “the free exercise…” this is the free-exercise clause.,
The third sentence… “no religious test” this is the no religious test clause.
These are the three important clauses here.
Relate this to ART II SEC 6.

SECTION 6. The separation of Church and State shall

be inviolable.
This is the separation of church and state doctrine.
In the case of Everlina??? Yung inexpel na children kasi ayaw mag salute ng flag. The free exercise
clause was used here. The second sentence.
But remember, the case Ang ladlad Comelec disapproved their participation on the ground of immorality
citing verses from the bible and Koran. SC said this is grave abuse of discretion.
As a government agency, the govt is not supposed to rely on religious standards. That violated the non-
establishment clause. Under here, the state should not establish any religion or support any religion. The
state should remain neutral.
Section 6. There are 3 important rights there.

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.

Q: What are the rights involved here?

A:
Tatlo ‘yan. The right to liberty of abode, changing abode, right to travel.
Sa America they call SECTION 6 freedom of locomotion, movement.
By the way sa right to travel you have to distinguish between travel within the country and abroad.
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 7 is a collective right. The right of people to information on the matters of public concern.
Not all matters are covered by section 7 only matters of public concern.

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 8 freedom of association, closely linked to 5.

• Includes freedom not to associate
Section 9. limitation of the power of eminent domain.

SECTION 9. Private property shall not be taken for

public use without just compensation.

Section 10. non-impairment clause

SECTION 10. No law impairing the obligation of
contracts shall be passed.

• The non-impairment clause always yields to the police power and taxation and eminent domain
for as long as the subject matter of contract is imbued with paramount public interest

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.
Sec. 11 – access to court and quasi-judicial bodies.
Section 12-22: these are the rights of the accused.
12 - rights during custodial investigation

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 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 and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.

Section 13 is the right to bail

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.

14 – The right to trial ***criminal due process***

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.

15 – right to habeas corpus

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.

16 – right to speedy disposition of cases

SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a

speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial,
quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

17 – right against self incrimination

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

18 – right against involuntary servitude

SECTION 18. (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.

19 – right against imposition of cruel punishment

SECTION 19. (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.

20 – right against imprisonment for failure to pay poll tax and debt
SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt
or non-payment of a poll tax.

21 – right against double jeopardy

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.

SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of

attainder shall be enacted.
 • Two rights:
• Right against ex post facto law
• Right against bill of attainder
The first half are the civil and political rights, from section 12 the focus on the rights of the accused.
--
4 sections of the BOR are covered by the exclusionary rule in evidence so that any evidence obtained in
violation of the four is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding because its excluded by the
constitution and this is incompetent evidence
Under the rules on evidence, for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant, material and competent.
Q: What is competent evidence?
A: Evident is competent if it is not excluded by evidence or by law.
Meaning to say, if it’s excluded then it becomes incompetent. So it may be material, relevant but if it’s
excluded by the law or the rules it’s incompetent.
Now if you look at section 2, paragraph 2.
It says that any evidence obtained in violation of section 3 or 2 will not be admissible for any purpose or
any proceeding so this is excluded by the constitution. It’s incompetent evidence.
This becomes the fruit of the poisonous tree. This is section 3.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

In relation to section 12, par. 3 “admission or confession in violation of section 12” or “section 17”- right
against self incrimination is also inadmissible.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation
of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.

Q: What is an admission/confession?
A: It’s testimonial evidence.
Q: So what provisions are covered by the exclusionary rule on evidence?
A:
Sec 2 (right against unreasonable searches and seizures)
Sec. 3 (right to privacy of communication and correspondence)
Sec 12 (rights in custodial investigation)
Sec 17 (right against self incrimination)
Those four provisions, they are governed by the exclusionary rule on evidence.
LAGI INAASK YANG 4 SECTIONS NA YAN SA BAR EXAM.
--
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
Section 12 – the custodial investigation rights.
During custodial investigation, you are not yet an accused there is no case filed against you. You are
merely a suspect. Dinampot ka ng police or they claim you are invited. They take you to prison. You will
be questioned, you will be interrogated. But you are not yet an accused.
Do not confuse section 12 with section 14. In section 14, these are the rights during trial.
Q: What are the custodial investigation rights under section 12?
A:
Miranda rights
The right to be informed (your first right is to be informed of the miranda rights) this kind of information
must be understandable by the accused, so it cannot be just a mechanical act of reading the bill of rights.
It’s incumbent upon the police for them to inform you of these rights.
In section 12 it must be meaningful information conveyed to the suspect in a language or dialect
known or understood by him
You must be informed of the right to remain silent, that any statement you give will be used in evidence
against you, you have the right to independent & competent counsel preferably of your own choice and if
you cannot afford it, you must be provided for by one. You can waive these rights in writing in the
presence of counsel.
Do not forget R.A. 7438 in relation to section 12. – rights of persons detained, during custodial
investigation
In the last par. of section 12, penal and civil sanctions in violation of these section etc. it is because of this
that 7438 was made, a special law which is malum prohibitum
Q: So how many rights under here?
A: 5.
Q: Ano ano yun?
A:
• Right to be informed itself
• Right to remain silent that any statement you give will be used in evidence against you
• Right to independent and competent counsel preferably of your own choice
• Independence + competence must concur
• A fiscal/prosecutor may be very competent but he is not independent as under section 12
because by the nature of his function he represents an interest adverse to the accused.
 • A PAO lawyer, pwede ‘yan. But not the prosecutor because the counsel in section 12 must be
independent and competent and the two must concur, they must go hand in hand
• Right to be informed that if you cannot afford counsel, you will be provided for by one
• Right to be informed that you can waive these rights in writing in the presence of counsel
These are different from the rights under section 14. In section 14 you are already an accused and the case
is about to be tried already. Kaya section 14, these are the rights during trial.
Q: In section 14, ilan yan?
A: The first par. is criminal due process.
SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due process of law

Q: Pero yung paragraph 2, ‘yan na yung rights of the accused during trial. Again, if you analyze
ilan yan?
(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.

The right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

The right to be represented by counsel
• The role of counsel in custod is to advice, here is to represent
The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
Q: At what stage of the trial are you informed by this?
A: During arraignment.
Arraignment is not an idle ceremony it’s an important part of the criminal proceeding.
It’s when the information is read to the accused, and the accused enters his plea.
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

This is trial in absentia

Trial may take place only if the accused has already been arraigned, if you have not yet been arraigned
there can be no trial in absentia.
If you have not yet been arraigned, your case will just be archived.
The right against double jeopardy, naka depend ito sa arraignment. There can be no double jeopardy if the
accused has not yet been arraigned.
Requisites for double jeopardy
There was a judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction with finality after the accused has entered his
plea and he was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed without his consent
--
Q: For example if trial proceeded without the accused having been arraigned and he was convicted,
what happens now?
A: The trial proceeding is a complete nullity and it may be a ground for new trial. Look at the grounds for
new trial.
Section 2. Grounds for a new trial. — The court shall
grant a new trial on any of the following grounds:

(a) The errors of law or irregularities prejudicial to

the substantial rights of the accused have been
committed during the trial;

(b) The new and material evidence has been

discovered which the accused could not with
reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at
the trial and which if introduced and admitted would
probably change the judgment. (2a)

This takes place during arraignment. Arraignment is thus, very important in a criminal proceeding.
So section 14.
• Right to be presumed innocent
• Right to be represented by counsel
• Right to be informed of the nature and accusation against him
• The right to speedy trial
• Right to impartial trial
• Right to public trial
• Right to meet the witnesses face to face (In US, you call this the confrontation clause)
• Right to compulsory process to secure presence of witnsses and to present evidence on his behalf
(dito papasok yung subpoena: 2 kinds: ad testificandum & deuces tecum)
The accused in a criminal case kahit na may testigo ka that will prove your innocence, maniwala ka hindi
pupunta yan sa trial. Yung human nature na ayaw madamay. Ayaw mag testify niyan on behalf of the
accused, the inconvenience of testifying in court so that’s the proper time for you to apply for a subpoena
to compel him to testify on your behalf.
2 kinds of subpoena
• Subpoena deuces tecum (production of documents)
• Birth certificate, death certificate – sa civil registrar ito, hindi naman maglalakad yang mga
‘yan sa court, so you apply for this subpoena to compel the official custodian of the
documents to bring it before the court.
• Land titles – you compel the register of deeds, kasi again hindi naman maglalakad yan
papuntang court

• Subpoena ad testificandum (production of testimonies)

Section 13 – the right to bail

If you read this section, that may be invoked only before conviction.
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.

After conviction pending appeal, do not invoke section 13 of the bill of rights it finds no application.
Highlight the phrase, before conviction it means that all of it shall be bailable, except when the charge is
punishable by reclusion perpetua and when evidence of guilt is strong.
BUT you may invoke section 5, rule 114 of the rules of court when pending appeal

Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction

by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The
application for bail may be filed and acted upon by the
trial court despite the filing of a notice of appeal,
provided it has not transmitted the original record to the
appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court
convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense
from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can
only be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.

Should the court grant the application, the accused may

be allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the
pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the
consent of the bondsman.

If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment

exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail,
or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the
prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following
or other similar circumstances:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or

habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal

confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under

probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate

the probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit

another crime during the pendency of the
appeal.

The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of

any party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial
Court after notice to the adverse party in either case. (5a)

Q: When is bail a matter of right, when is it a matter of discretion before conviction?

A:

RULE 114, Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception.

— All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a
matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or released on
recognize as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or
after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b) before
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment. (4a)

In the MTC, bail is a matter of right before and after conviction because in the MTC only yung crimes
punishable below 6 years.
Sa RTC, iba na ‘yan.
--
But if lower than reclusion perpetua bail is a matter of right. (as in section 13 of the bill of rights)
If the case is homicide, the penalty is reclusion temporal so it’s lower than reclusion perpetua
Q: Can you post bail as a matter of right here?
A: Yes even if the evidence of guilt is strong. It is a matter of right.
Q: Pero halimbawa, the case is murder. What is the penalty for murder?
A: Reclusion perpetua to death.
You cannot post bail as a matter of right here, in this case it’s a matter of discretion.
There must be a bail hearing conducted to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong.
For simple rape, it’s reclusion perpetua so again you cannot post bail as a matter of right, only as a matter
of discretion, so the court must conduct a bail hearing.
So, after conviction in the RTC pending appeal. The penalty imposed is imprisonment for not less than 6
but not more than 20 years, here bail is discretionary that’s section 5 of rule 114 but the situation is after
RTC but the imprisonment is not less than 6 years but not more than 20 years. Here, there must be a
hearing to determine if the 5 circumstances are present

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual

delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by
the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal

confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the conditions
of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation,

parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the

probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another

crime during the pendency of the appeal.

Q: In the case of Jalosjos he was convicted of rape in the RTC but he was able to appeal. So the
question is, during the appeal should bail be granted? Is bail a matter of right or discretion?
A: the two requisites for the denial of bail are present. He was convicted so the evidence of guilt is strong
and the penalty is reclusion perpetua. Thus, BAIL MUST NOT BE GRANTED.
--
In section 13 take note of the phrase before conviction
Now after conviction or pending appeal, section 13 of the BOR is N/A, You use rule 114 section 5.
In the MTC, bail is always a matter of right before and after conviction because the jurisdictional limit is
6 years. This is section 4 rule 114 of the rules of court.
Q: What are the rights involved in section 16?
A: Right to speedy disposition of cases.
Q: Difference with speedy trial?
A: Right to speedy disposition of cases applies to civil, admin cases, criminal cases
Speedy trial: in criminal cases. Sec 14 par. 2
(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.
Only the accused may invoke this right.
In section 16 it is available to any person in all kinds of proceedings whether civil, criminal
administrative proceedings.
Labor case – the proceedings are delayed, you cannot invoke the right to speedy trial here. Rather the
right to speedy disposition of cases should be invoked here.
“DO NOT INVOKE A RIGHT THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO YOU”
SECTION 17 – The right against self incrimination, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
Any evidence obtained here in violation of the rules on evidence, it shall be deemed incompetent
evidence and thus inadmissible.
Q: How did this evolve?
A: Itong right na ito, in a criminal case the real protagonists: the state and the accused.
The accused is alone as against the state so it’s uneven, he is alone and he is pitted against the machinery
of the state so from the very beginning the fight is uneven and the worst part of it, hindi na nga parehas
ang laban tapos yung evidence used to pin him down taken from him? THAT’S TOO UNFAIR NA.
So if the state will convict you, kailangan makakuha siya ng evidence other than that taken from your
own lips.
The right against self incrimination is a humanist law to level the playing field because this is how the
right to self incrimination evolved.
Section 18 – right against involuntary servitude
When you read this, it appears na isa lang ang exception. Except for the punishment of a crime. Actually,
madami pang exceptions diyan.
For defense of the state, one may be compelled to render military service. Article II section 4. This is an
exception.
SECTION 4. The prime duty of the Government is to
serve and protect the people. The Government may
call upon the people to defend the State and, in the
fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under
conditions provided by law, to render personal
military or civil service.

You are a pilot, sa gitna ng flight ayaw mo na tatalon ka na sabihin mo I cannot be compelled. Hindi din
pwede yan, patapusin mo muna yung voyage. This is another exception.
Yung anak mo inutusan mo na bumili sa tindahan, sabi niya I invoke my right against involuntary
servitude, batukan mo hindi pwede ‘yan it will not apply to children under the patria potestas of their
parents.
--
The prohibition against imposition of cruel, inhuman degrading punishment – section 19
• One that is shocking to the conscience of man by contemporary standards
• This is what is inflicted upon the convict
Halimbawa convicted ka na and the penalty is death by crucifixion, hindi pwede yun. Yung burning at the
stake. Hindi din pwede yan.
But, the death by lethal injection when we used to implement the death penalty law. This is the case of
Echegaray. He challenged the death penalty law and said it’s unconstitutional and constitutes cruel,
degrading punishment. The SC said mere extinguishment of life is not cruel, degrading inhuman
punishment. To constitute such there must be prolonged agony and suffering, it’s the nature of the
punishment, it must be shocking to the standards of the conscience of man. Basta kapag tulog na daw
tsaka iinject yung lethal substance, bale papatulugin muna.
Section 20 – constitutional right ng mga mahilig mangutang ng di nagbabayad hahahah
Section 21 – the right against double jeopardy.
When you read it.
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.

Yung first sentence: the double jeopardy for the same offense.
Yung second sentence: double jeopardy for the same act.
There are two kinds of double jeopardy under section 21. These are the two kinds.
Q: What are the requisites for double jeopardy for the same offense?
A: Judgment on the merits from a court that has competent jurisdiction, the accused entered his plea
(during arraignment – the plea should also be a valid plea), the judgment has attained finality he was
convicted or acquitted, or dismissed without his express consent.
If double jeopardy is present, it is susceptible to a motion to quash.
RULE 117
Section 3. Grounds. — The accused may move to quash
the complaint or information on any of the following
grounds:

(i) That the accused has been previously convicted or

acquitted of the offense charged, or the case against him
was dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent.

In the US they call this, res judicata in prison grey.

Res judicata is invoked in a civil case. In a criminal case ang counterpart is double jeopardy.
In section 22, 2 rights. Right against ex post facto law and bill of attainder
Q: What is an ex post facto law?
A: It is a penal law given retroactive effect and is prejudicial to the accused.
Q: characteristics of criminal law?
A:
Generality, territoriality & prospectivity.
In prospectivity – criminal laws shall only be given prospective application, but it may be given
retroactive effect if favorable to the accused.
***so ‘yan reason kung bakit hindi pwede ang ex post facto law because it’s not prejudicial to the
accused***

Q: What is a bill of attainder?

A: applying penalty without judicial trial.
There was no judicial trial is the key phrase here, there was no judicial proceeding.
DAY 2
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.

This is the due process clause: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law and equal protection clause: nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
Q: When do you invoke these, in general?
A: If what is involved is an act of government that appears to be arbitrary, whimsical, oppressive
unreasonable – that’s the proper time to invoke the due process clause. Any act of government that
appears to be like this, even confiscatory and you want to challenge that it’s the proper time to invoke due
process
If what is invoked is an act that is DISCRIMINATORY that’s when you invoke the equal protection
clause. This is a guaranty against any kind of discrimination/discriminatory conduct of the government.
Kapag na segregate na from the rest, and given a different treatment it’s an equal protection issue.
In the EPC, persons or things which are similar must be treated similarly. If they are not the same, they
should not be treated similarly.
Q: What are the two aspects of due process?
A: Procedural due process and substantive due process.
Procedural due process: refers to the method or matter where it is imposed.
• Notice and hearing or opportunity to be heard
Substantive due process : requires that the law itself is fair, reasonable
VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: The law should be declared void because it is vague. It’s
vague because the law lacks comprehensible standards. Layman’s term, for greater clarity and
understanding. The law could refer to an enactment of congress, admin relation, ordinances by locals.
Q: Why is it vague?
A: Because according to the court, it requires comprehensible standards.