A.

Concept of Bill of Rights

The main sources of Philippine law are:

1. The Constitution – the fundamental and supreme law of the land

2. Statutes – including Acts of Congress, municipal charters, municipal legislation,
court rules, administrative rules and orders, legislative rules and presidential
issuances.
3. Treaties and conventions – these have the same force of authority as statutes.
4. Judicial decisions – Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that
‘judicial decisions applying to or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form a part of the legal system of the Philippines’. Only decisions of its Supreme
Court establish jurisprudence and are binding on all other courts.

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/

1. Privacy and Autonomy

What is Bill of Rights?
• It is a declaration and enumeration of an individual's rights and privileges
which the Constitution is designated to protect against violations by the
government, or by public officials.

• 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.

• In cases of Private Acts

• The principle that the Bill of Rights applies only to actions taken by
state officials does not necessarily mean that a private individual
cannot violate the liberty of another. Violation of the Bill of Rights
precisely as a constitutional guarantee can be done only by public
officials.
• But almost all these liberties are also guaranteed by Art. 32 of the Civil
Code, thus making private violations actionable even if the violation
does not have a constitutional consequence
(BERNAS, the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
Commentary, 2009)

• It is self-executing… It is recognized that legislation is unnecessary to

enable courts to effectuate constitutional provisions guaranteeing the
fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of property. (Gamboa
vs, Teves, 2011)
2. Relation to Human Rights

What is the relation of the Bill of Rights to human rights?

Human rights law obliges governments to do some things, and prevents

them from doing others. Individuals also have responsibilities: in using their
human rights, they must respect the rights of others. No government, group
or individual person has the right to do anything that violates another’s
rights.

Source: https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention/what-are-human-
rights

Philippines is a signatory to the

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights- suggests that the scope of human rights can be
understood to include those that relate to an individual’s social, economic,
cultural, political and civil relations.

• 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.

Have these broad concepts been EQUALLY contemplated by the framers of

our 1986 Constitutional Commission in adopting specific provisions on
human rights and in creating an independent commission to safeguard
these rights?

• It may of value to look back at the country’s experience under the

martial law regime which may have, in fact, impelled the inclusions of
those provisions in our fundamental law.
(Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights, January 5, 1994).

Before President Marcos declared Martial Law, a Constitutional Convention

was already in the process of deliberating on amending or revising the 1935
Constitution. They finished their work and submitted it to President Marcos
on December 1, 1972. President Marcos submitted it for ratification in early
January of 1973. Foreseeing that a direct ratification of the constitution was
bound to fail, Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 86, s. 1972, creating
citizens assemblies to ratify the newly drafted constitution by means of a Viva
Voce vote in place of secret ballots. Marcos announced that it had been
ratified and in full force and effect on January 17, 1973.

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/

• In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of

assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the
preservation and vitality of civil institutions. (Philippine Blooming Mills
Employment Org. vs. Philippine Blooming Mills)

Specific Purposes

1. To preserve democratic ideals

2. To safeguard fundamental rights
3. To promote the happiness of an individual

A new study published in the Journal of Community Psychology suggests that

social and economic justice in your country play a large role in your happiness.

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

Section 1, Article 3 (Bill of Rights)

1. Right to Life, Liberty and Property
a. Life
It includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free
from dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which
make life enjoyable (Justice Malcolm)

It is understood to include QUALITY OF LIFE- which is entitlement to a life

lived with assurance that the government he established and consented to,
will protect the security of persons means: freedom from fear, guarantee of
bodily and psychological integrity, and guarantee of protection of one's
rights by the government.
(Secretary of National Defense v Manalo, 2008)

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)

"Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it is "liberty

regulated by law." Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of the
individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and
the general well- being.

It cannot be taken away except by due process of law.

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).

2. Kinds of Due Process

 What are the aspects of due process?

1. Substantive- inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for

depriving a person of life, liberty, or property. (White Light Corporation v.
City of Manila, 2009).

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.

This does not cover internal regulations issued by administrative agencies,

which are governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must be full,
or there is none at all (Tañada v. Tuvera, 1986).

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.

2. Procedural- aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of

judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the
method or manner by which a law is enforced.

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.

Summary abatement of a nuisance ( stopping a nuisance) per se like a

(dangerous person, wild and crazy) mad dog on the loose which may be
killed on sight- because of the immediate danger it poses to the safety and
lives of the people.

Hearing is not necessarily needed.

Before he may summarily abate the public nuisance, it is necessary, however,

that: (a) demand was first made upon the owner or possessor of the property
to abate the nuisance; (b) the owner or possessor refused to comply with
such demand; (c) abatement was approved by the district health officer and
executed with the assistance of the local police; and (d) the value of the
destruction does not exceed P3,000.

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).

C. EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS

What does equal protection of the law mean?

• It does not demand absolute equality among residents. It merely requires
that all persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and
conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.

• 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)

D. RIGTHS AGAINST UNREASONABLE UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Section 2

To whom is it directed?
Against the State; the right cannot be invoked against a private individual.

Who may invoke?

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a
personal right, invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed.

Probable cause must be personally determined by the Judge

How it is done?
In the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath. [Sec.
6, Rule 126, ROC]

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]

Purpose: to gain evidence to convict

Probable Cause for Search Warrant:

Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed AND the objects
sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched
[Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261 (1984)].

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)].

Exceptions to the warrant requirement; valid warrantless searches

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest

• A person caught in flagrante delicto and lawfully arrested may be searched,
provided that the search (ROC, Rule 126, Sec. 13)
• is contemporaneous to the arrest within permissible area of search or the
place of immediate control of the person being arrested

Purpose of this exception

The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from being
harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed
weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach
[Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815, (2009)]

2. Seizure of evidence in plain view

An object is in “plain view” if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.
Where the seized object is inside a closed package, the object is not in plain
view and, therefore, cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the
package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the
contents are in plain view, and may be seized [Caballes v. CA, G.R. No.
136292 (2002)].

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)].

3. Search of a moving vehicle

Securing a search warrant is not practicable since the vehicle can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought [Papa v. Mago, G.R. No. L- 27360, (1968)].

“Stop and search” without a warrant at military or police checkpoints has

been declared not to be illegal per se so long as it is required by exigencies
of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists
[Valmonte v. de Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)].

These are permissible if limited to the following:

• where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
which is parked on the public fair grounds;
• simply looks into a vehicle;
• flashes a light therein without opening the
car's doors;
• where the occupants are not subjected to a
physical or body search;
• where the inspection of the vehicles is
limited to a visual search or visual
• where the routine check is conducted in a
fixed area.

When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search - as

opposed to a mere routine inspection - such a warrantless search has been
held to be valid only as long as the officers conducting the search have
reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find
the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched [People v. Manago, supra].
 4. Consented warrantless search
Requisites
1. Must appear that right exists;
2. Person involved had actual or constructive
knowledge of the existence of such right;
3. Said person had an actual intent to relinquish the right. [People v.
Aruta, supra]

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.

Purpose of customs search

To verify whether or not custom duties and taxes were paid for their
importation.

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.

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

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)].

2. A Warrant of Arrest is a written order issued and signed by a magistrate (judge

in our jurisdiction) directed to a peace officer or some other person specially
named, commanding him to arrest the body of a person named in it, who is
accused of an offense [Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70, 20 South 103]

Purpose: to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused

Probable Cause for Warrant of Arrest:

Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof
[Allado v. Diokno, G.R. No. 113630 (1994)].

Valid Warrantless Arrests [Rule 113, Sec. 5, Rules on Criminal Procedure]

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)].

Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore, a rebel may be arrested without a

warrant at any time of the day or the night as he is deemed to be in the act of
committing rebellion. [Umil v. Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 (1991)]

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)].

There is no personal knowledge when the commission of a crime and identity of

the accused were merely furnished by an informant, or when the location of the
firearm was given by the wife of the accused. It is not enough that there is
reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a
crime. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential precondition
[People v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-68955 (1986)].

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)].

The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

The Exclusionary Rule is also extended to exclude evidence which is derived or

directly obtained from that which was illegally seized [BAUTIST A].
E. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Section 3

1. Concept of communications, correspondence

It highlights a person's "right to be let alone" or the "right to determine what,

how much, to whom and when information about himself shall be disclosed."

Forms of correspondence and communication covered:

1. Letters
2. Messages
3. Telephone calls
4. Telegrams
5. Others analogous to the foregoing
[BERNAS]

Three Strands of the Right to Privacy

1. Decisional privacy - Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than
freedom from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well, if
it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed the
beginning of all freedom...The concept of liberty would be emasculated if it does
not likewise compel respect for his personality as a unique individual whose claim
to privacy and interference demands respect [Morfe v. Mutuc, supra]

2. Informational privacy - right of an individual not to have private information

about himself disclosed; and the right of an individual to live freely without
surveillance and intrusion [Whalen v. Roe, 429 US 589, (1977)]

3. Locational or situational privacy - privacy that is felt in physical space,

such as that which may be violated by trespass or unwarranted searches and
seizure [Vivares v. St. Therese College, G.R. No. 202666 (2014)]

When can there be a valid intrusion into a person's privacy of communication and
correspondence?

1. Upon lawful order of the court; or

2. When public safety or order requires such intrusion as prescribed by law
(Sec 3(1), Article III)

• 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.

N.B. While Zulueta seems to be an exception to the State Action Requirement,

Zulueta’s application of the exclusionary rule has only been cited once but to a
state action.

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.

What is Exclusionary Rule?

Any evidence obtained in violation of Secs. 2 or 3, Art. III shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding. [Section 3(2), Article III].

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.

What are the effects of illegal detention?

In case the detention is without the legal ground, the person arrested can charge
the arresting officer with ARBITRARY DETENTION under Article 124 of the RPC.
This without prejudice to the possible finding of an action for damages under
Article 32 of the Civil Code.
A. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

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].

Radio and television are accorded less protection because of:

1. The scarcity of the frequencies by which the medium operates, i.e.,
airwaves are physically limited while print medium may be limitless;
2. Its pervasiveness as a medium; and
3. Its unique accessibility to children [FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
U.S. 726
(1978)].

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)].

Types of Regulations for (Speech)

1. Content Based Regulations

A governmental action that restricts freedom of speech or of the press based on
content is given the strictest scrutiny in light of its inherent and invasive impact
[Chavez v. Gonzales, supra].

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].

Incitement and advocacy

Criticism of the government, no matter how severe, is within the range of liberty of
speech, unless the intention and effect be seditious [People v. Perez, G.R. No. 21049
(1923)].

Direct Incitement Test

Political discussion even among those opposed to the present administration is within
the protective clause of freedom of speech and expression. The same cannot be
construed as subversive (seeking or intended to subvert an established system or
institution) activities per se or as evidence of membership in a subversive organization
[Salonga v. Cruz Paño, G.R. No. L-59524 (1985)].

Prior Restraint

Examples of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint

● COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators and newspaper columnists
from commenting on the issues involved in a scheduled plebiscite. [Sanidad v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 90878 (1990)]

● COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in mobile

units such as cars and other vehicles. [Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 103956
(1992)]

● An announcement by a public official prohibiting the media from airing or

broadcasting the Garci tapes. [Chavez v. Gonzales, supra]

Examples of Constitutional 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

Freedom of speech includes freedom after speech. Without this assurance,

citizens would hesitate to speak for fear that they might be provoking the
vengeance of the officials they criticized (chilling effect).
 Examples of Valid 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).

● Libel – Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be

true. [Alonzo v. CA, G.R. No. 110088 (1995)]

Parliamentary immunity guarantees the members of Congress the freedom of

expression without fear of being held responsible in criminal or civil actions before
courts or fora outside of Congress, but this does not protect them from being held
responsible by the legislative body. The members may nevertheless be questioned in
Congress itself.

For unparliamentary conduct, members of the Congress have been or could be

censured, committed to prison, or even expelled by the votes of their colleagues
[Osmeña v. Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144 (1960)].

COGNATE RIGHTS

Freedom of Assembly
Section 4

What does assembly means?

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)

In cases of previous restraint or censorship

This right is not to be limited, much less denied, except on showing of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent.

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

Right to Information covers matters of public concern, e.g.,

1. Official records
2. Documents pertaining to official acts
3. Government research date used as basis for policy development

Public concern- the term embraced broad spectrum of subjects

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

Principle of Separation of Church and State

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).

What is the non-establishment clause?

The non-establishment clause means that the State cannot set up a church, nor
pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religion or prefer one religion over
another, nor influence a person to or remain away from church against his will or
force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion, etc. (Everson vs. Board of
Education, 1946)

Acts not Permitted by Non- Establishment Clause

Prayer and Bible-reading in public schools (Abington School District v. Schemp,
374 U.S. 203 1963).

Financial subsidy for parochial schools

(Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 1971)

Free Exercise Clause

In a nutshell, the Constitution guarantees the freedom to believe absolutely,
while the freedom to act based on belief is subject to regulation by the State
when necessary to protect the rights of others and in the interest of public
welfare (Valmores v. Achacoso, G.R. No. 217453 2017).

Exemption from flag salute in school (Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of

Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, 1993).

Non-disqualification of religious leaders from local government office (Pamil v.

Teleron, G.R. No. L-34854, 1978).

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).

C. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT

Section 6

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)].

"Limited Access Highway Act" enacted in 1957

Manila Cavite Toll Expressway to be LIMITED ACCESS HIGHWAYS/FACILITIES

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.)

Requisites for Valid Exercise

1. Private property
2. Genuine necessity - inherent/presumed in legislation, but when the power is
delegated (e.g. local government units), necessity must be proven.
3. For public use - Court has adopted a broad definition of “public use”
4. Payment of just compensation
5. Due process [Manapat v. CA, supra]

HOWEVER, Full payment of just compensation is not a prerequisite for the

Government’s effective taking of the property; When the taking of the property
precedes the payment of just compensation, the Government shall indemnify the
property owner by way of interest [Republic v. Mupas, G.R. No. 181892 (2015)].

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)].

Abandonment of Intended Use and Right of Repurchase

If the expropriator (government) does not use the property for a public purpose,
the property reverts to the owner in fee simple [Heirs of Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu
International Airport, G.R. No. 156273 (2005)].

In Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Tudtud [G.R. No. 174012

(2008)], the Court held that the expropriator has the obligation to reconvey
property expropriated but never used, on the condition that the landowners
would return the just compensation they received, plus interest.

E. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Section 10

The non-impairment clause is limited in application to laws that derogate from

prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the
intention of the parties [PADPAO v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 223505 (2017)].

What are the exceptions of the non-impairment clause?

Valid exercise of the inherent powers of state
Police Power
Eminent Domain
Taxation

Examples of valid impairment of contracts

1. Invalidating contracts concerning forest lands. Preservation of forest lands
could entail intrusion upon contractual rights if it is for the benefit of the many.
[Land Bank v. Republic, G.R. NO. 150824 (2008)]

2. Caps on the rates that cooperatives can charge. [SURNECO v. Energy

Regulatory Commission, G.R. No. 183626 (2010)]

3. Municipal ordinance, invalidating restrictions set by private developers

regarding the use of land. [The Learning Child v. Ayala Alabang, G.R. No. 134269
(2010)]

F. ADEQUATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS

Section 11

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

A party may be authorized to litigate his action, claim or defense as an indigent if

the court, upon an ex parte application and hearing, is satisfied that the party is
 one who has no money or property sufficient and available for food, shelter and
basic necessities for himself and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and other
lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court may order to
be furnished to him.

Free access to the court does NOT mean the courts cannot impose filing fees.

G. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Section 17

The right against self-incrimination secures to a witness, whether she/he is a

party or not, the right to refuse to answer any particular incriminating question

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.

Scope and Coverage

The right applies only to testimonial compulsion and production of documents,
papers, and chattels in court, except when books of account are to be examined
in the exercise of police power and the power of taxation.

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.

• The Court has also declared as constitutional several procedures performed on

the accused such as pregnancy tests for women accused of adultery, expulsion of
morphine from one’s mouth and the tracing of one’s foot to determine its identity
with bloody footprints. The Court has even authorized the examination of a
woman’s genitalia, in an action for annulment filed by her husband, to verify his
claim that she was impotent, her orifice being too small for his penis.

• 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].

NOT ALLOWED: Re-enactment of the crime by the accused is not allowed.

H. RIGHTS OF PERSON UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Section 12

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)].

Includes issuing an invitation to a person under investigation in connection with

an offense he is suspected to have committed [Sec. 2, RA 7438].

Miranda Warning (based upon Article III, Section 12)

The person under custodial investigation must be informed that:
1. He has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be
used as evidence against him;
2. That he has a right to have competent and independent counsel of his
choice
3. That he has a right to be informed of the first two rights.

Other rights under custodial investigation

4. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him
5. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited

Out of Court Identifications

Show-Up And Police Line-Up
1. Show-up
● Out-of-court identification
● Accused is brought face-to-face with the witness for identification

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.

General rule: No right to counsel

Exception: Right to counsel if accusatory. The moment there is a move or even

an urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain
information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said
suspect [Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291 (1988)].
 What can be waived?
The right to remain silent and the right to counsel.

What cannot be waived?

The right to be given the Miranda warnings.
Rule on Waiver [Sec. 12, Art. III]
a. Must be in writing
b. Made in the presence of counsel

I. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Section 14

1. Criminal Due Process

In criminal proceedings then, due process is satisfied if the accused is "informed
as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he shall meet, with his
conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full
opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being implied in accordance with
a valid law. It is assumed, of course, that the court that rendered the decision is
one of competent jurisdiction [Mejia v. Pamaran, G.R. No. L- 56741-42 (1988)].

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)]

Bail As A Matter Of Right

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. [Sec. 13, Art III, 1987 Constitution]

Bail As A Matter Of Discretion

When the accused has been convicted in the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the admission to bail becomes
discretionary [Sec. 5, Rule 114, ROC]

NOTE: Since the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, a hearing must be

conducted whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence and the
prosecutor must be notified to require him to submit his recommendation.

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.

6. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation

Procedural due process requires that the accused must be informed why he is
being prosecuted and what charge he must meet [Vera v. People, supra]

7. Right to a speedy and impartial trial

Section 16

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)

When right not available

The right to speedy trial cannot be invoked where to sustain the same would
result in a clear denial of due process to the prosecution [Uy v. Hon. Adriano,
supra].

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

10. Trial in Absentia

"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."

Requisites
A. Accused failed to appear for trial despite postponement and notice
B. Failure to appear is unjustified
C. After arraignment

Writ of Habeas Corpus

A writ issued by a court directed to a person detaining another, commanding him

to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day
and cause of his caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and to receive
whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf
[Sombong v. CA, G.R. No. 111876 (1990)].

“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)].

Voluntary restraint of liberty i.e. right of

parents to regain custody of minor child even if the child is in the custody of a
third person of her own free will. [Sombong v. CA, supra]

[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.

A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC (25 January 2008)

See also Writ of Habeas Data under Privacy of Communications and
Correspondence above. The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary
remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom
of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to
the truth and to informational privacy.

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

J. Right to the Speedy Disposition of Cases

Section 16

Dismissal based on violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases

A criminal case may be dismissed for violation of a person’s right to speedy
disposition of cases [Coscolluela v. Sandiganbayan, supra].

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

E. Non-imprisonment for debts

Section 20

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)].

A person may be imprisoned as a penalty for a crime arising from a contractual

debt and imposed in a proper criminal proceeding.

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)].

F. Right against Double Jeopardy

Section 21

In administrative cases: Not applicable

[Cayao-Lasam v. Ramolet (2008)]

Contempt: Applicable. Acquittal effectively bars a second prosecution. [Atty.

Santiago v. Hon. Anunciacion, Jr. (1990)]
Two types of double jeopardy [People v. Relova, G.R. L-45129 (1987)]

1. Prosecution for the same offense

a. Same offense charged;
b. Attempt of the same offense;
c. Frustration of the same offense;
d. Offense necessarily included in the 1st
offense (All the elements of the 2nd constitute some of the elements of the 1st
offense)
e. Offense that necessarily includes the 1st offense (All the elements of the 1st
constitute some of the elements of the 2nd offense)

2. Prosecution for the same act

1. If punished by law and at the same time punished by an ordinance;
2. There is conviction or acquittal under either

Examples where there is no double jeopardy:

1. Conviction of a crime under a special law, which also constitutes an offense
under the RPC, may not be a bar to the prosecution under the RPC because the
former is malum prohibitum while the other is malum in se.

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

Difference of BP 22 and Estafa- Both have different elements

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:

(1) a drawer of a dishonored check may be convicted under Batas Pambansa

Bilang 22 even if he had issued the same for a pre-existing obligation, while
under Article 315 (2-d) of the Revised Penal Code, such circumstance negates
criminal liability;
(2) specific and different penalties are imposed in each of the two offenses;
(3) estafa is essentially a crime against property, while violation of Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 is principally a crime against public interest as it does injury
to the entire banking system;
(4) violations of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code are mala in se, while those
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 are mala prohibita.(Emphases and underscoring
supplied.)

Source: batasnatin.com
G. Right against Involuntary Servitude
Section 18

Involuntary Servitude refers to a condition of enforced and compulsory service

induced by means of any scheme, plan or pattern, intended to cause a person to
believe that if he or she did not enter into or continue in such condition, he or she
or another person would suffer serious harm or other forms of abuse or physical
restraint, or threat of abuse or harm, or coercion including depriving access to
travel documents and withholding salaries, or the abuse or threatened abuse of
the legal process. [RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364]

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]

2. In the interest of national defense, all citizens may be compelled by law to

render personal military or civil service. [Sec. 4, Art. II]

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)]

5. Naval enlistment [Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897)]

6. Posse comitatus - obligation of the individual to assist in the protection of

the peace and good order of his community [Kaisahan ng Manggagawa sa
Kahoy v. Gotamco Sawmills, G.R. No. L-1573, (1948)]

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.

According to the group, political prisoners are often victims of trumped-up

charges. They are accused of committing ordinary crimes, instead of political
acts, to prevent them from posting bail.

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).

Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/852270/what-is-a-political-

prisoner#ixzz7S3AUV4Yd

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)].

H. Ex post facto laws and Bills of Attainder

Section 22

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)