Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bill of Rights Lecture Reviewer
Bill of Rights Lecture Reviewer
To some extent, customary law also forms part of the Filipino legal system.
Art XIV, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides that ‘the State shall recognise,
respect, and protect the rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and
develop their cultures, traditions and institutions’.
Source: Council of ASEAN Chief Justices. (n.d.). Overview. CACJ. Retrieved May 2,
2022, from https://cacj-ajp.org/philippines/legal-system/sources-of-law/overview/
• The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the
states. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals.
Source: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/what-are-human-
rights
• It thus seems to closely identify the term to the universally accepted traits
and attributes of an individual, along with what is generally considered to be
his INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS, encompassing almost all aspects
of life.
Although the 1973 Constitution had been “ratified” in this manner, opposition
against it continued. Chief Justice Roberto V. Concepcion in his dissenting
opinion in the case of Javellana v. Executive Secretary, exposed the fraud
that happened during the citizen’s assembly ratification of the 1973
Constitution on January, 10 – 15, 1973. However, the final decision of this
case was that the ratification of the 1973 Constitution was valid and was in
force.
When democracy was restored in 1986, President Corazon C. Aquino issued
Proclamation No. 3, suspending certain provisions of the 1973 Constitution
and promulgating in its stead a transitory constitution. A month later,
President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 9, s. 1986, which created a
Constitutional Commission tasked with writing a new charter to replace
the 1973 Constitution. National Plebiscite was held on February 2, 1987,
ratifying the new constitution. On February 11, 1987, by virtue of
Proclamation No. 58, President Aquino announced the official canvassing of
results and the ratification of the draft constitution. The 1987 Constitution
finally came into full force and effect that same day with the President, other
civilian officials, and members of the Armed Forces swearing allegiance to the
new charter.
Source: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/constitution-day/
Specific Purposes
The study finds that people who live in countries that promote greater social
justice tend to be happier.
Article III contains the chief protection for human rights but the
body of the Constitution guarantees other rights as well.
1. Civil Rights
• Rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a state
or community
• E.g. rights to property, marriage, freedom to contract, equal
protection, etc.
2. Political Rights
• Rights that pertain to an individual's citizenship vis-a-vis the
management of the government
• E.g. right of suffrage, right to petition government for redress, right to
hold public office, etc.
3. Social and Economic Rights
• Rights which are intended to insure the well-being and economic
security of the individual
B. DUE PROCESS OF LAW
b. Liberty
The right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal restraint
or servitude. It includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties
in all lawful ways.
(Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 1919)
c. Property
Anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the
right to secure, use and dispose of them.
(Torraco v. Thompson,1923).
E.g.
Publication of laws
Before a person may be bound by law, he must be officially and specifically
informed of its contents. For the publication requirement, “laws” refer to all
statutes, including those of local application and private laws.
Lawful subject i.e. the interests of the public in general (as distinguished
from those of a particular class) require the intervention of the State, and
Lawful means i.e. means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
General Rule: The minimum requirements of due process are notice and
hearing.
Exceptions: However, notice and hearing are not required in every case,
for there are an admitted number of exceptions in view of the nature of the
property involved or the urgency of the need to protect the general welfare
from a clear and present danger.
E.g.
Source: https://business.inquirer.net/238983/dealing-with-
nuisances#ixzz7RrKwlY00
The passport of a person sought for a criminal offense may be
cancelled without hearing, to compel his return to the country he has fled
(Suntay Y Aguinaldo vs. People of the Philippines, 1957).
• The equal protection clause is not infringed by legislation which applies only
to those persons falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all
persons within such class, and reasonable grounds exists for making a
distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not.
E.g.
Valid Classification
Land-Based v. Sea-Based Filipino Overseas Workers
There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety, danger to life and
limb, and accessibility to social, civil and spiritual activities
(Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA, 1995)
Ordinance
In upholding the constitutionality of an ordinance imposing curfew
upon minors in Quezon City
• The Supreme Court resorted to the strict scrutiny test and ruled that
under our legal system's own recognition of a minor's inherent lack of
full rational capacity, and balancing the same against the State's
compelling interest to promote juvenile safety and prevent juvenile
crime, it finds that the curfew imposed is reasonably justified with its
narrowly drawn exceptions and hence, not constitutionally infirm
(SPARK v. Quezon City, 2017)
Section 2
To whom is it directed?
Against the State; the right cannot be invoked against a private individual.
Types of Warrants
1. A Search Warrant is an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him
to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court
(Sec 1, Rule 126, Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules of Court]
Warrantless Searches
Probable cause (warrantless searches) must be “based on reasonable ground of
suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed”
[People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 (1998)].
The plain view doctrine only applies where a police officer is not searching
for evidence against the accused but inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object [People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177 (1993)].
5. Customs search
Sec. 219 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act states that no warrant
is required for police or authorized persons to pass, enter, search any land,
enclosure, building, warehouse, vessels, aircrafts, vehicles but not dwelling.
6. Stop and Frisk (The “frisk” is permitted to search for weapons for the
protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is
dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of probable
cause for a crime. )
Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on the street and pat him for a
weapon in the interest of protecting himself from the person with whom he
was dealing by making sure that he is not armed.
The raid and seizure of firearms and ammunition at the height of the 1989
coup d’état, was held valid, considering the exigent and emergency
situation. The military operatives had reasonable ground to believe that a
crime was being committed, and they had no opportunity to apply for a
search warrant from the courts because the latter were closed. Under such
urgency and exigency, a search warrant could be validly dispensed with
[People v. de Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10 (1994)].
a. In flagrante delicto
When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The person must be arrested
after the offense has been committed and in the presence of a police officer
[People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059 (1992)].
E.g.
Buy-Bust
A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrante arrest. The subsequent search of the
person arrested and the premises within his immediate control is valid as an
incident to a lawful arrest [People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662 (2001)].
b. Hot Pursuit
When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it
Personal knowledge
Experience of an officer which gives the idea that there is probable cause that the
person caught is responsible. It has been ruled that “personal knowledge of facts”
in arrests without a warrant must be based on probable cause, which means an
actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion [Cadua v. CA, G.R. No. 123123
(1999)].
E.g.
Warrantless arrest of accused for selling marijuana 2 days after he escaped is
invalid [People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805 (2004)].
c. Escaped Prisoners
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 is temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another
Exclusionary Rule
All evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Art. III shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding [Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L- 19550 (1967)].
Section 3
When can there be a valid intrusion into a person's privacy of communication and
correspondence?
• In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong [supra] it was held that the right to be
let alone is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion to a person’s privacy has
long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public figure and the
information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him
constitute matters of public character.
E.g.
Subjective: A person has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy
1. Online Privacy
Before one can have an expectation of privacy in his or her online social
networking activity, it is first necessary that said user, manifest the intention to
keep certain posts private, through the employment of measures to prevent
access thereto or to limit its visibility (This case; OSN Privacy T ools).
Therefore, a Facebook user who opts to make use of a privacy tool to grant or
deny access to his or her post or profile detail should not be denied the
informational privacy right which necessarily accompanies said choice.
Otherwise, using these privacy tools would be a feckless exercise, such that if, for
instance, a user uploads a photo or any personal information to his or her
Facebook page, and sets its privacy level at “Only Me” or a custom list, such
photo would still be deemed public by the courts as if the user never chose to
limit the photos accessibility. Such position, if adopted, will not only strip these
privacy tools of their function but it would also disregard the very intention of the
user to keep said photo or information within the confines of his or her private
space [Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)].
2. Generally, the provisions in the Bill of Rights are protections against the
government. However, In the case of Zulueta v. CA the Court has recognized an
instance where it may also be applied as against a private individual.
In that case, the wife took her husband‘s private documents and papers to be
used as evidence in the case, without the husband’s knowledge and consent, the
Court held that the intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one
of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking
them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting
marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for
any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to
secretly record such communications by means of a tape recorder.
Section 4
What are the cognate rights codified by Section 4, Article III of the
Constitution?
Under the Constitution, no law shall be passed abridging the:
1. Freedom of Speech;
2. Freedom of Expression;
3. Freedom of the Press; and
Print vs. Broadcast Media
While all forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of
freedom of expression clause, the freedom of film, television, and radio
broadcasting is somewhat lesser than the freedom accorded to newspapers
and other print media [Chavez v. Gonzales, supra].
4. Right of the people peaceably to Assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
The right to freedom of expression applies to the entire continuum of speech from
utterances made to conduct enacted, and even to inaction itself as a symbolic manner
of communication. (The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No.
205728, (2015))
Every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject
whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always that he does not injure any other
person in his rights, person, property, or reputation, and so always that he does not
thereby disturb the public peace or attempt to subvert the government [Near v.
Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)].
Subject to the clear and present danger test: There is to be then no previous
restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability [...] unless there be a
clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to
prevent [Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. L- 65366 (1983)].
E.g.
Freedom of Expression and National Security
It suggests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to turn the people
against the constituted authorities, or to provoke violence from opposition groups who
may seek to silence the writer, which is the sum and substance of the offense under
consideration [Espuelas v. People, G.R. No. L-2990 (1951)].
2. Content-Neutral Regulations
Regulations on the incidents of speech — time, place, and manner — under well-
defined standards [Newsounds Broadcasting Network v. Dy, supra].
Prior Restraint
Film censorship: The power of the MTRCB can be exercised only for purposes of
reasonable classification, not censorship. [NACHURA, citing Gonzalez v. Katigbak,
G.R. No. L-69500 (1985) and Ayer Prod. PTY. LTD. v. Judge Capulong, G.R. No.
82380 (1988)]
Law which prohibits, except during the prescribed election period, making
speeches, announcements, or commentaries for or against the election of any
candidate for office. [Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833 (1969)]
Subsequent Punishment
Defamation- includes libel and slander, means the offense of injuring a person's
character, fame or reputation through false and malicious statements.
Words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se,
and mere words of general abuse however opprobrious, ill-nature, or vexatious,
whether written or spoken, do not constitute a basis for an action for defamation
in the absence of an allegation for special damages. The fact that the language is
offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by itself. (MVRS Publications
Inc. vs. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, January 28, 2003).
COGNATE RIGHTS
Freedom of Assembly
Section 4
A right on the part of the citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to
public affairs. It is a necessary consequence of our republican institution and
complements the right of speech ( David vs. Arroyo, May 3, 2006)
City or town mayors are not conferred the power to refuse to grant the permit,
but only the discretion in issuing the permit to determine or specify the streets or
public places where the parade may pass or the meeting may be held [Primicias
v. Fugoso, G.R. No. L-1800 (1948)]
Freedom Parks: B.P. Blg. 880 provides that every city and municipality must set
aside a freedom park within six months from the law’s effectivity in 1985. Sec. 15
of the law provides for an alternative forum through the creation of freedom
parks where no prior permit will be needed for peaceful assembly and petition at
any time. Without such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be
to deny the right to peaceably assemble [Bayan v. Ermita, supra].
Freedom of Association
Section 8
Scope
The right is recognized as belonging to people whether employed or unemployed,
and whether in the government or in the private sector. It includes the right to
unionize.
Every group has a right to join the democratic process, association itself being an
act of expression of the member’s belief, even if the group offends the
sensibilities of the majority. Any restriction to such requires a compelling state
interest to be proven by the State [Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
190582 (2010)].
Freedom of Information
Section 7
Limitations
The right of the people to information must be balanced against other genuine
interests necessary for the proper functioning of the government [BERNAS].
Exempted information
1. Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
2. Information of military and diplomatic secrets
3. Information affecting national and economic security
4. Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution
[Chavez v. PEA and Amari, supra]
5. Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716
(1998)]
6. Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations [Akbayan v. Aquino, G.R. No.
170516 (2008)]
7. Other confidential matters (i.e. RA 6713, closed door Cabinet meetings,
executive sessions, or internal deliberations in the Supreme Court) [Chavez v.
PCGG, supra]
B. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5
The twin clauses of free exercise and non- establishment express an underlying
relational concept of separation between religion and secular government.
(BERNAS)
Separation
Protects the principle of church-separation with a rigid reading of the principle
Basis
“The principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual respect.
Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the church, much
less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor one religion
and discriminate against another. On the other hand, the church cannot impose
its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry. It cannot
demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that they
are good for the country” (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819 (2014), on the
constitutionality of the RH Law).
Working hours from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm without break during Ramadan (Re:
Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts of Iligan City, A.M. No. 02-
2-10-SC, 2005).
Limitations
a. Liberty of Abode
May be impaired only upon lawful order of the court
b. Liberty of Travel
May be impaired even without a lawful order of the court
BUT the appropriate executive officer (who may impair this right) is not granted
arbitrary discretion to impose limitations.
He can only do so on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public
health” and “as may be provided by law” (e.g. Human Security Act, quarantine)
E.g.
Right to Travel
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid the possibility of
losing jurisdiction if accused travels abroad [Manotoc v. CA, G.R. No. L- 62100
(1986)].
The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a
toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another.
The right to travel does not entitle a person to the best form of transport or to
the most convenient route to his destination [Mirasol v. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793
(2006)].
D. EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 9
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to forcibly acquire
needed property upon just compensation, in order to devote it to the intended
public use [CRUZ].
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
(Manosca vs. CA, January 26, 1996.)
Just Compensation
The full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by expropriator.
The measure is not the taker's gain, but the owner's loss (Republic vs. Kabacan,
Inc. et. Al., January 25, 2012)
Effect of Delay
General Rule: For non-payment, the remedy is the demand of payment of the
fair market value of the property and not the recovery of possession of the
expropriated lots [Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
146587 (2002); Reyes v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 147511, (2003)].
Exception
When the government fails to pay just compensation within five years from the
finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners concerned
shall have the right to recover possession of their property [Republic v. Vicente
Lim, G.R. No. 161656 (2005)].
E. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Section 10
The Constitution explicitly premised the free access clause on a person’s poverty,
a condition from which only a natural person can suffer.
Indigent party
Free access to the court does NOT mean the courts cannot impose filing fees.
Purpose
The self-incrimination clause is meant to avoid:
1. Placing the witness against the strongest
temptation to commit perjury; and
2. Extorting a confession by force.
When to invoke
1. This right may only be invoked for that specific incriminating question and
cannot be claimed for any other time. [Sabio vs. Gordon, G.R. Nos. 174340,
174318 & 174177 (2006)]
2. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a subpoena and decline to
testify altogether. The witness must still take the stand, be sworn, and
answer questions. It is the duty of his/her counsel to advise him/her of
his/her right against self- incrimination. [People v. Ayson, supra].
General Rule: The privilege is available in any proceedings, even outside the
court, for they may eventually lead to a criminal prosecution.
Exclusions
• An accused may be compelled to be photographed or measured, his garments
may be removed, and his body may be examined.
• Some of these procedures were, to be sure, rather invasive and involuntary, but
all of them were constitutionally sound. DNA testing and its results are now
similarly acceptable [Agustin v. CA, supra].
Custodial Investigation
Involves any questioning initiated by law enforcement.
When the investigation is no longer a general inquiry unto an unsolved crime but
has begun to focus on a particular suspect, as when the suspect has been taken
into police custody and the police carries out a process of interrogation that lends
itself to eliciting incriminating statements [People v. Mara, G.R. No. 108494
(1994)].
2. Police Line-up
● Suspect is identified by witness from a group of persons gathered for that
purpose
● When the petitioner was identified by the complainant at the police line-
up, he had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The police
line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest, hence, he was not yet entitled
to counsel.
2. Bail
Section 13
Who may avail of bail
General Rule: All persons under custody of the law
Exceptions
a. Those charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the
stage of the criminal prosecution [Sec 7, Rule 114, ROC]
b. Military men who participated in failed coup d’état because of their threat to
national security [Comendador v. De Villa, G.R. No. 93177 (1991)]
Excessive bail shall not be required. [Sec. 13, Art III, 1987 Constitution]
This notice of hearing applies in all cases whether bail is a matter of right or a
matter of discretion [Zuño v. Cabebe, A.M. OCA No. 03-1800-RTJ, (2004) citing
Cortes v. Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1387, (1997)].
In the cases where the grant of bail is discretionary, due process requires that
the prosecution must be given an opportunity to present, within a reasonable
time, all the evidence that it may desire to introduce before the court should
resolve the motion for bail [People v. Judge Donato, G.R. No. 79269 (1991)].
Extradition
While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite,
however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail,
a right to due process under the Constitution. [Government of Honk Kong SAR v.
Olalia, G.R. No. 153675 (2007)].
3. Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused imposes upon the People of
the Philippines, “as the plaintiff in criminal cases, to prove beyond reasonable
doubt not only each element of the crime but also the identity of the accused as
the criminal” [People v. Espera, G.R. No. 202868, (2013)].
4. Right to be heard
Section 14 (2)
Section 12 (1)
The right of the accused to present evidence is guaranteed by no less than the
Constitution itself.
Article III, Section 14(2) thereof, provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. This
constitutional right includes the right to present evidence in one’s defense, as
well as the right to be present and defend oneself in person at every stage of the
proceedings. Stripping the accused of all his pre-assigned trial dates constitutes a
patent denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process [Villareal v.
People, G.R. No. 151258 (2012)]
5. Assistance of Counsel
Sec 12 (1)
One need not, however, be an accused to avail of the right to counsel and the
right to counsel does not commence only during trial. Every person under
custody of the law enjoys the right. Even a person under investigation for an
offense has the right to have a competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice [RIANO]
If he does, and is unable to get on, the Court must give him one; if the accused
wishes to procure private counsel, the Court must give him time to obtain one.
Where no lawyer is available, the Court may appoint any person resident of the
province and of good repute for probity and ability.
Speedy Trial
Objective: Free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays to assure the
innocent person may be free from anxiety and expense of a court litigation
(Acebedo y Dalman vs. Sarmiento, December 16, 1970)
Impartial Trial
The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, to
give added assurance to the parties that his decision will be judged
(Perez vs. Estrada, Administrative Matters No. 01-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001)
8. Right of Confrontation
Two-fold purpose:
1. To afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by
cross- examination
2. To allow the judge to observe the deportment of [the] witness [Go, et al. v.
The People of the Philippines and Highdone Company, Ltd., G.R. No. 185527
(2012)].
To obtain benefit of the moral impact of the courtroom as it affects the
witness's demeanor (People vs. Seneris, August 6, 1980)
9. Compulsory process
The right to compulsory process may be invoked by the accused to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of witnesses in his behalf. This is a
constitutional right embodied in Sec 14(2), Art III of the Bill of Rights.
Compulsory Process
1. Right to Secure Attendance of Witness
2. Right to Production of Other Evidence
Requisites
A. Accused failed to appear for trial despite postponement and notice
B. Failure to appear is unjustified
C. After arraignment
“Habeas corpus is the proper remedy for a person deprived of liberty due to
mistaken identity. In such cases, the person is not under any lawful process and
is continuously being illegally detained” [In the Matter of Petition for Habeas
Corpus of Datukan Malang Salibo, G.R. No. 197597 (2015)].
[An amparo proceeding] does not determine guilt nor pinpoint criminal culpability
for the disappearance [threats thereof or extrajudicial killings]; it determines
responsibility, or at least accountability for purposes of imposing the appropriate
remedies to address the disappearance [Razon Jr. v. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498
(2009)]
Writ of Amparo
Scope
The Amparo Rule was intended to address the intractable problem of “extralegal
killings” and “enforced disappearances,” and its coverage, in its present form is
confined to these instances or to threats thereof.
There must be a nexus between right to privacy and right to life, liberty and
security.
Writ of Kalikasan
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC (13 April 2010) Definition: Remedy against violation or
threat of violation of constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual
or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the
life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces
K. Right against excessive fines and cruel degrading and inhuman punishments
Section 19
Cruel Punishment
• Involve torture of lingering death [Legarda v. Valdez G.R. No. 513 (1902)].
• Not only severe, harsh, or excessive but flagrantly and plainly oppressive
The following are not valid causes for imprisonment under the Constitution
1. Debt
2. Non-Payment of Poll Tax (Cedula)
In a case where the accused was convicted and imprisoned for estafa (where the
accused failed to render promised service to the injured in exchange for the latter’s
retrieval of the former’s cedula), the Court held that the imprisonment was correct
since it was for estafa and not involuntary servitude or imprisonment for debt
[Ramirez v. de Orozco, G.R. No. L-11157 (1916)].
Thus, the conversion of a criminal fine into a prison term does not violate the right
to non- imprisonment for debts because in such a case, imprisonment is imposed
for a monetary obligation arising from a crime [Ajeno v. Judge Insero, A.M. No.
1098-CFI (1976)].
2. Where two information are filed charging the same accused with two different
offenses arising from the act, where the two offenses have different elements.
Example: B.P .22 (AN ACT PENALIZING THE MAKING OR DRAWING AND
ISSUANCE OF A CHECK WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FUNDS OR CREDIT AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES) and the bouncing checks for estafa
What petitioner failed to mention in his argument is the fact that deceit and
damage are essential elements in Article 315 (2-d) Revised Penal Code, but
are not required in Batas Pambansa Bilang 22.
Under the latter law, mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives rise to the
presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer that he issued the same
without sufficient funds and hence punishable which is not so under the Penal
Code. Other differences between the two also include the following:
Source: batasnatin.com
G. Right against Involuntary Servitude
Section 18
Slavery- Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with their corollary peonage,
all denote “a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another”
[Hodges v. U.S., 203 U.S. 1 (1906) in Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro,
supra].
Exception
Exceptions to the Prohibition against Involuntary Servitude
1. If punishment is for a crime after conviction. [Sec. 18, Art. III]
3. A return to work order. “So imperative is the order in fact that it is not even
considered violative of the right against involuntary servitude.”
4. A worker must obey the order if he wants to retain his work even if his
inclination is to strike. [Sarmiento v. Tuico, G.R. No. 75271-73, (1988)]
Political Prisoners
A basic definition of a political prisoner is someone who is imprisoned because of
beliefs contrary to that of his government.
This is the same definition used by human rights groups like Karapatan, which
advocate for the release of political prisoners.
The Karapatan fact sheet defines political prisoners as people detained for their
political beliefs and work.
They are also deprived of due process, civil and political rights.
Karapatan says that many political prisoners are ordinary citizens accused of
supporting insurgents, especially if they live in areas held by the likes of the New
People’s Army, the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP).
The accused being political prisoners subject to the civil jurisdiction of ordinary
courts of justice, if they are to be prosecuted at all, the army has no jurisdiction,
nor power, nor authority, from all legal standpoints, to continue holding them in
restraint. They are entitled, as a matter of fundamental right, to be immediately
released, any allegation as to whether a war has ended or not
[Raquiza v. Bradford, G.R. No. L-44 (1945)].
The constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder cannot
be invoked to protect allegedly vested civil rights, because it is only applicable to
criminal proceedings, and not to civil proceedings which affect private rights
retrospectively [Province of Camarines Sur v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-43361
(1937)].
Definition
An ex post facto law is one that would make a previous act criminal although it was
not so at the time it was committed [CRUZ at 589].
In People v. Estrada [G.R. Nos. 164368-69 (2009)], R.A. 9160, which was made to
apply to the accused for acts allegedly committed prior to its enactment, was
considered ex post facto. Prior to its enactment, numbered accounts or anonymous
accounts were permitted banking transactions, whether they be allowed by law or by a
mere banking regulation.
The enactment of R.A. No.9160, on the other hand, is a significant development only
because it clearly manifests that prior to its enactment, numbered accounts or
anonymous accounts were permitted banking transactions, whether they be allowed by
law or by a mere banking regulation. To be sure, an indictment against Estrada using
this relatively recent law cannot be maintained without violating the constitutional
prohibition on the enactment and use of ex post facto laws.
Bill of Attainder
It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the
substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt. It is only when a
statute applies to either named individuals or to easily ascertainable is a legislative act
that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative
fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.
Example:
RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the Philippines a clear and present
danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in such organization,
was contended to be a bill of attainder. Although the law mentions the CPP in
particular, its purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay a basis or to justify the
legislative determination that membership in such organization is a crime because of
the clear and present danger to national security.
The Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not specify the
Communist Party of the Philippines or the members thereof for the purpose of
punishment; what it does is simply declare the Party to be an organized conspiracy to
overthrow the Government; and the term “Communist Party of the Philippines” is used
solely for definitional purposes. (People vs. Ferrer)