Section 9

Private property shall

not be taken for public use without just

compensation

Power of Eminent Domain

The ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the

public, but even the private property of all citizens within the territorial

sovereignty, to public purposes. Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge

Constitutional provisions on eminent domain

1. Sec. 3 of Art. 3-sets down the limits on the inherent power

2. Sec. 18 of Art. 12-public utilities; The State may, in the interest of

national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and,

upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities

and other

private enterprises to no operated by the government

3. Sec. 4 of Art. 13- land reform

4. Sec. 22 of Art. 18-idle or abandoned agricultural lands

Power of eminent domain resides

It is possessed by the State and is exercised by the national government.

But by delegation, it may also be possessed by local governments, other

public entities, and public utilities.

This power is inalienable which means that the state cannot enter into a

contract which in effect binds it not to exercise the power of eminent

domain

Scope of the power of eminent domain In the hands of Congress, it is

plenary.

Elements of the exercise of the power of eminent domain

1. There is "taking" of private property

2. The taking must be for public use"

3 There must he "just compensation"

Circumstances which need to concur to constitute "taking"

1. The expropriator must enter upon the private property

The entrance must not be for a momentary period, that is, the entrance

must be permanent

The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority

The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally

appropriated or iniuriousv affected

The utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial eniovment of the nronerv

Police power v. eminent domain

in police power, the property is regulated and there is no compensation.

while in eminent domain, the property is taken where there is transter of

ownership and it must be compensated

Definition of "public use"

Any use that is of utility, advantage, or productivity for the benefit of the

public generally. It is equivalent to "public welfare" in police power.

Definition of "just compensation"

The just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing

expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. Province of

Tayabas v. Perez

Compensation, aside from money, must be in some form that embodies

certainty of value and of payment, such as government bonds

When is compensation just?

It is just if the owner receives for his property a sum equivalent to its

"market value"

What is "market value?"

a. It is the price fixed by the buyer and seller in the open market in the
usual and ordinary course of legal trade and competition

b. The price and value of the article established or shown by sale, public

or private, in the ordinary way of business The fair value of property as

between one who desires to purchase and one who desires to sell

c. The current price

d. The general or ordinary price for which property may be sold in that

locality

Point of reference for valuating a piece of property

General rule: the value must be that as of the time of the filing of the

complaint for expropriation

Exception: when the taking comes later than the time of taking

a. Value of the property has increased because of the use to which the

expropriator has put it-then it will be at the time of the taking

b. Value increased independently of what the expropriator did -then the

value is that of the later filing of the case

But: in a long line of cases, the SC ruled that compensation for property

expropriated must be determined as of the time of the expropriating

authority takes possession thereof and not as of the institution of the

proceedings. Republic v. Sarabia

Determination of just compensation

Trial by commissioners is a substantive right which a judge may not

dispense with. Manila Electric Co. v. Pineda May entry be made by the

expropriator prior to actual payment?

Yes. Actual payment is unnecessary provided that a certain and adequate

remedy is provided by which the owner can obtain compensation without

unreasonable delay. Manila Railroad Co. v. Paredes

Under the Rules of Court, entry may be made by the condemnor after the

deposit with the court of a preliminary amount determined by the judge.

PD 42 removed the discretion of the court in determining provisional

value. What is to be deposited is an amount equivalent to the assessed

value for taxation purposes. No hearing is required for that purpose. All

that is required is notice to the owner of the property sought be

condemned. NPC v. Judge Jocson

Subject to judicial review

1. The adequacy of the compensation

2. The necessity of the taking; and

3. The "public use" character of the purpose of the taking

Limitations on judicial review

When land is expropriated for subdivision and resale for social justice
purposes directly by the legislature and not through an inferior agency of

the state, the necessity and public purpose of the taking are not subject to

judicial review.

Essential requisites for a local government unit to validly exercise

eminent domain

Pursuant to Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the

local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of

eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular

private property

2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use purpose or

welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the

landless

3. There is pavment of compensation

4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the

property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted

Limitations on the eminent domain powers of local government

1. The order of priority in acquiring land for socialized housing-private

lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of socialized housing

2. The resort to expropriation proceedings as a means to acquiring it-may

be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition are exhausted

Cases/Doctrines

The right of eminent domain cannot be limited by EO 132, which

requires prior negotiation for purchase or donation, since it is purely

administrative for the guidance only of executive officers. It cannot be

considered a condition precedent for expropriation for thus it would be an

unconstitutional limitation of the inherent right of eminent domain.

The acquisition of mere right of way is an exercise of the power of

eminent domain since it perpetually deprives defendants of their property

rights. NPC v. Sps. Misericordio

When one or more of these property interests are appropriated and

applied to some public purpose, there is already compensable taking even

if the bare title to the property still remains with the private owner. US v.

Causby If it is patrimonial property of the municipality, that is, property

acquired by the municipality with its private funds in its corporate or

private capacity, compensation is required. However, if it is any other

property such as public buildings or legua communal held by the

municipality for the State in trust for the inhabitants, the State is free to

dispose of it at will.

If the expropriator does not use the property for a public purpose but sells

it to a private user, the property reverts to the owner in fee simple. Heirs
of Moreno v. Mactan-Cebu International Airport

Expropriation for "socialized housing satisfies the public use requirement.

For this purpose, the determinative element is not the size of the land to

be expropriated but the number of people to be benefited. Sumulong v.

Guerrero

Under RA 8974, the government must make a direct payment (not just a

deposit) of the proffered value of the property before it can enter and

exercise proprietary rights. Republic v. Judge Gingoyon

Expropriation lies only when it is made necessary by the opposition of the

owner to the sale or by the lack of any agreement as to price. Where there

is a valid and subsisting contract, between the owners of the property and

the expropriating authority, there is no reason for the expropriation. Noble

v. City of Manila

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

To fall within the prohibition

1. the change must impair the obligation of the existing contracts, and

2. the impairment must be substantial

Substantial impairment

A law which changes the terms of a legal contract between parties, either
in the time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions, or

dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction

something different from that provided in its terms; hence, it is null and

void. Clemons v. Nolting Ihis limitation is addressed to

The exercise of legislative or quasi- legislative power and not on the

exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial power.

Hierarchies

With respect to private contracts, the question about the power to tax is

irrelevant because a tax law does not alter the relation between the

parties.

With respect to public contracts, the answer Is NO because just as the

state cannot contract away its police power so

also it cannot contract away its power to tax

As to freedom of religion, the Court ruled that the free exercise of

religion is superior to contract rights.

Cases/Doctrines

A mere change in procedural remedies which does not change the

substance of a contract and which at the same time still leaves an

efficacious remedy for enforcement does not impair the obligation of

contracts. Manila Trading v. Reyes Not all impairment of the substance of

a contract is violative of the Constitution especially if it is in pursuance of

the valid exercise of police power. Rutter Estaban

The clause protects contracts with the government or public contracts.

Franchises are contracts and therefore are covered by the clause.

A rehabilitation plan approved by statute which merely suspends the

actions for claims does not violate the contract clause. It is a different

matter, however, if the amount of rental is changed. The amount of rental

is an essential condition of any lease contract. Needless to state, the

change of its rate in the Rehabilitation Plan is not justified as it impairs

the stipulation between the parties.

Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the principal

instruments by which the State regulates the utilization and disposition of

forest resources to the end that public welfare is promoted. They are not

deemed contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause.

Section 11: Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and

adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of

poverty.

Significance

This constitutional provision is the basis for the provision of Sec. 17 Rule
5 of the New Rules of Court allowing litigation in forma pauperis. Those

protected include low paid employees, domestic servants and laborers.

"Indigent persons"

Persons who have no property or sources of income sufficient for their

support aside from their own labor through self-supporting when able to

work and in employment. Cabangis v. Almeda Lopez

Cases Doctrines

Contrary to earlier rule, an appellate court may entertain a petition to

litigate as a pauper.

Justice Black: there is no meaningful distinction between a rule which

would deny the poor the right to defend themselves in a trial court and

one which effectively denies the poor an adequate appellate review

accorded to all who have money enough to pay the costs in advance. Such

a denial a a misfit in a country dedicated to affording equal justice to all

and special privileges to none in the administration of its criminal law.

There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends

on the amount of money he has.

Section 12: Any person under investigation for the commission of an

offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own

choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be

provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and

in the presence of counsel.

No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which

vitiates the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,

solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are

prohibited.

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17

hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this

section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture

similar practices, and their families.

Rights of a person under investigation

1. Right to remain silent

2. Right to competent and independent counsel preferably of his own

choice

3. The right to be informed of such rights

Reason for the rights

To prevent psychological, if not physical, atmosphere of custodial

investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards

Scope of the rights

Extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body of the

accused is proposed to be examined

Availability of the rights

These rights begin to be available where "the investigation is no longer a

general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a

particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the

police carry out a process of interrogation that lends itself to eliciting

incriminating statements." Escobedo v. Illinois Available after a person

has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of

action in any significant way. People v. Loveria

Custodial investigation

Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has

been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in

any significant way.

It also extends to the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is

investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have

committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for

any violation of law.

Circumstances not covered by the rights

a. Persons under preliminary investigations or those already charged in

court for a crime for these are already under the supervision of a court

b. Police line-up

Voluntary admission or surrender where one presents himself to the

police to surrender

d. Verbal confessions to a radio announcer or to media, private persons,

public officials who are not law enforcers

e. Investigation by an administrative body-because such inquiries are

conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit

disciplinary measure against the erring public officers or employees, with

the purpose of maintain the dignity of government service

f. Spontaneous statements even when under police custody

g. Paraffin test

Right to be informed of his rights

It must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of a meaningful

information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of

an abstract constitutional principle. People v. Ramos

Right to Counsel attaches

Upon the start of an investigation, i.e. when the investigating officer starts

to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or admissions

from the respondent/accused. Gamboa v. Judge Cruz

When is a lawyer provided by the investigators deemed engaged by the

accused?

When the accused never raised any objection against the appointment

during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter

subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.

People v. Jerez

Lawyers who are not deemed independent counsel

a. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal attorney or

counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused

b.Mavor

c. A barangay captain

d.Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused

Substantial compliance
When an extrajudicial confession is made, in the absence of a counsel,

but where at the closing stage of the interrogation, counsel arrives and has

the opportunity to read the statement and discuss it with the client who

subsequently signs it

Legal effect of the violation of these rights

Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

(provision against self-incrimination) hereof shall be inadmissible in

evidence against him

Valid waiver of rights

1. Must be made in writing; and

2. In the presence of a counsel

Admission v. Confession

Admission of a party--the act, declaration or omission of party as to a

relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. Sec. 26 of Rule 130

of Rules of Court

Confession--the declaration of an accused acknowledging his guilt of the

offense charged, or of any offense necessarily included therein, may be

given in evidence against him. Sec. 33 of Rule 130 of Rules of Court

Wharton distinguishes a confession from an admission. A confession is an

acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminal case, of his

guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the

accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, in

connection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt. In other words, an

admission is something less than a confession. People v. Maqueda

Requisites for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible in evidence

1. The confession must be voluntary

2. The confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and

independent counsel, preferably of the confessant's choice

3. The confession must be express, and

4. The confession must be in writing

5. Signed, or if the confessant does not know how to read and write,

thumbmarked by him

Reasons why torture, force, etc. are prohibited

1. Because they vitiate truth

2. Because they are an assault on the dignity of the person

Section 13: All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by

reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before

conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on

recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be

impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is

suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Definition of Bail

A mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty,

insure the attendance of the accused at his trial

Usually takes form of a deposit of money or its equivalent as a guarantee

if such attendance and which deposit is forfeited upon failure to appear

Definition of Recognizance

An obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the

appearance of the accused for trial. It is in nature of a contract between

the surety and the state

Reason for the award of bail to the accused

1. Honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond

reasonable doubt
2. Enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment

prior to conviction

Persons who have a constitutional right to bail

General Rule: Available to all persons actually detained

Exception: those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua

when evidence of guilt is strong, which must concur

Persons who have no constitutional right to bail

1. Those charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, and

2. The evidence against him is strong

When can the lost of the right to bail be determined?

Only after hearing, since it is based on the nature of the offense and the

quantum of evidence against him

Under the custody of the law

1. When the person is arrested

2. When he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the

court by surrendering to the proper authorities

Duties of the trial judge in case an application of bail is filed

1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or

require him to submit his recommendation

2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or

not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of

the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its

sound discretion

3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on

the summary of evidence of the prosecution

4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the

approval f the bail bond

Meaning of "strong evidence of guilt for purposes of denying bail"

a. Proof evident or Evident proof--clear, strong evidence which leads a

well-guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense

has been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent, and that

he will probably be punished capitally if the law is administered.

b. Presumption great exists when the circumstances testified to are such

that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear,

and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable

probability of any other conclusion

Life imprisonment v. Reclusion perpetua

Life imprisonment

a. Imposed for serious offenses penalized by special laws D.

Does not carry accessory penalty

c. Does not have any definite extent or duration

Reclusion perpetua

a. Prescribed under the RPC

b. Carries accessory penalty

c. Incarceration for at least 30 years after which the convict becomes

eligible for pardon

Implicit limitations on the right to bail

1. The person claiming the right must be under actual detention

2. The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g., in

deportation proceedings

Factors to be considered in determining the amount of bail

1. Ability of the accused to give bail

2. Nature of the offense

3. Penalty for the offense charged

4. Character and reputation of the accused

5. Health of the accused

6. Character and strength of the evidence

7. Probability of the accused appearing in trial

8. Forfeiture of other bonds

9. Whether the accused was fugitive from justice when arrested

10. If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases

Cases/Doctrines

Right to bail is not available to soldiers under court martial because they

are allowed the fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore cause great

havoc. Comendador v. de Villa

Extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, a respondent in an

extradition proceeding is not entitled to bail. US v. Judge Puruganan

Bail cannot be excessive for if so, it can amount to a denial of bail. De la

Camara v. Enage

A person may be prevented from leaving the country as a necessary

consequence of the admission of bail.

A bail bond is intended to make a person available any time he is needed

by the court. Manotoc v. CA

Section 14: No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense

without due process of law.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until

the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself

and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the

witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the

attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the

absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his

failure to appear is unjustifiable.

Due process in criminal cases

The procedure established by law must be followed

Satisfaction of the due process requirement in criminal cases.

Accused is informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge

he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is

not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him for rebutting it and

the sentence being imposed in accordance with law, where it is assumed

that the court that rendered the decision is one of competent jurisdiction.

Nunez v. Sandiganbayan

Cases/Doctrines under due process

A judge who replaces another judge may validly render a decision

although he has only partly heard the testimony of witnesses. People v

Narajos

Since administrative agencies are not bound to follow the rules of

criminal procedure, they may not impose criminal penalties. Socty's

Department Store v. Micaller

To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and

proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they

might be, by the barrage of publicity. Webb v. de leon

Generally, the SC has no supervisory authority over military courts.

However, the SC may review decisions of the Court of Military Appeals.

Buscayno & Sison v. Military Commission

A military commission or tribunal cannot try and exercise jurisdiction,

even during the period of martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly

committed by them as long as the civil courts are open and functioning.

Olaguer v. Military Commission

Presumption of innocence

Its principal effect is that no person shall be convicted unless the

prosecution has proved him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused is with the

prosecution. US v. Luling
Cases/Doctrines under presumption of innocence.

Sec. 4 of BP 52, which states that "filing of charges for the commission of

such crimes before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary

investigation shall be prima face evidence of such fact," is violative of the

guarantee of presumption of innocence. Dumlao v. Comelec

Preventive suspension pendent lite does not violate the right to be

presumed innocent because it is not a penalty.

Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan

There is no constitutional objection to a law providing that the

presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption

founded upon the experience of human conduct, and enacting what

evidence shall be sufficient to overcome such presumption of innocence,

such as prima face evidences. People v. Mingoa

Elements of the right to be heard

1. The right to be present at the trial

2. The right to counsel

3. The right to an impartial judge

4. The right of confrontation

5. The right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses

Scope of the right to be present at the trial

It covers only the period from arraignment to promulgation of sentence,

however, it has been modified by Section 14(2) that "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."

Conditions for waiver of the right to be present at the trial

1. After arraignment, he may be compelled to appear for the purpose of

identification by the witnesses of the prosecution

2. Provided he unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment

that he is the person named as the defendant in the case on trial

Requisites of a valid trial in absentia

1. The accused has already been arraigned

2. He has been duly notified of the trial; and

3. His failure to appear is unjustifiable

Reason for allowing trial in absentia

To speed up the disposition of criminal cases

Reason for the right to counsel of the accused

To protect himself when brought before a tribunal with power to take his

life or liberty, wherein the prosecution is represented by an experienced

and learned counsel. Johnson v. Zerbst

Duties of the trial judge at the pre-arraignment

1. Inform the accused that he has a right to a counsel before arraignment

2. Ask the accused if he desires the aid of counsel

3. If the accused desires counsel, but cannot afford one, a counsel de

oficio must be appointed

4. If the accused desires to obtain his own counsel, the court must give

him a reasonable time to get one

Cases/Doctrines under the right to counsel

The duty of the court to appoint a counsel de oficio for the accused who

has no counsel of choice and desires to employ the services of one is

mandatory only at the time of arraignment. No such duty exists where the

accused has proceeded to arraignment and then trial with a counsel of his

own choice. Libuit v. People

When the accused discovered, after conviction, that his lawyer was not a

member of the bar, he was granted a new trial for he has a right to a

qualified counsel. Delgado v. CA

There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de oficio was

appointed during the absence of the accused's counsel de parte, pursuant

to the court's desire to finish the case early as practicable under the

continuous trial system. People v. Larranaga

A person may not be denied the right to confer with counsel even in times

of emergency. Diono v. Enrile

Purpose of the Right to be informed

1. To enable the accused to make his defense based on the description of

the charge against him

2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a

further prosecution for the same cause

3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether

they are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had

Scope of the right to be informed

The complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and

circumstance necessary to constitute the crime charged. Hence, facts must

be stated and not conclusions of law to satisfy this right.

A criminal information, to satisfy the right of the accused to be informed,

must contain
1. The name of the accused

2. The designation given to the offense by the statute

3. A statement of the acts or omission so complained of as constituting

the offense

4. The name of the offended party

5. The approximate time and fate of the commission of the offense--

hence, the precise time is not essential

6. The place where the offense had been committed

Factors to consider if the right to speedy trial has been violated

1. Length of the delay

2. Reason of the delay

3. Effort of the defendant to assert his right

4. Prejudice caused to the defendant

When does the delay start?

One begins to count the delay of the trial only after the filing of the

information. Moreover, the delay contemplated here is unreasonable

delay. Martin v. General Fabian

Remedy for violation of the right to speedy trial

The accused is entitled to dismissal of the case through mandamus, and, if

he is under detention, to release by habeas corpus. Dismissal here is

equivalent to an acquittal and is a bar to another prosecution for the same

offense.

Right to a public trial

A trial is public when attendance is open to all, irrespective of

relationship to defendants.

Exception to a right to a public trial

When the evidence to be presented is characterized as "offensive to

decency or public morals," the proceeding may be limited to friends,

relatives and counsel.

Purpose of the right to a public trial

To serve as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our courts as

instruments for persecution. Garcia v. Domingo Where the arraignment

and hearing were not held in court, the right to a public trial is violated

when

1. The public was excluded

2. The accused was prejudiced

3. The accused objected during the trial

Purpose of the right of confrontation or the right to meet witness face to

face

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 deportation or demeanor of the

witness

Exceptions to the right of confrontation

1. Admissibility of "dying declarations"

2. Trial in absentia

Cases/Doctrines under the right of confrontation

Affidavit executed by a witness may not be admitted in evidence if the

witness is not produced in court. People v. Ramos Extra-judicial

statements of an accused implicating another cannot be used against the

latter. People v. de la Cruz Under Sec. 5 of Rule 112, an accused is not

entitled as a matter of right to be present during the preliminary

examination nor to cross-examine the witnesses presented against him

before his arrest, the purpose of said examination being merely to

determine whether or not there is sufficient reason to issue a warrant of

arrest. Marinas v.Siochi

Compulsory process

An additional requirement to the one laid down in the 1935 version is the

right to have compulsory process, not only to secure the attendance of

witnesses in his behalf, but also, to secure the production of evidence in

his behalf.

Presumption in the matter of waiver of a constitutional right

The presumption is always against the waiver. The prosecution must

prove with strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this Court

that indeed that accused willingly and voluntarily submitted his

confession and knowingly and deliberately manifested.

Section 15: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be

suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety

requires it.

Definition of writ of habeas corpus

A writ directed to the 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, submit to, and receive

whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf
Prime requisite for its availability

Actual deprivation of personal liberty, however, liberty may be lost not by

physical compulsion alone.

Freedom may be lost due to external moral compulsion, to founded or

groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary

power of an imposter to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to any other

psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the

unhampered exercise of the will

What is the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus"?

It is the right to have an immediate determination of the legality of the

deprivation of physical liberty.

Who suspends the privilege?

The President

When may the privilege be suspended?

1. Existence of actual invasion or rebellion; and

2. Public safety requires the suspension

3 faces of the political question doctrines: (combination of all three)

1. Textual approach--asks the question: "What does the letter of the

constitution say?"

• When the law grants discretionary authority to a person to be exercised

upon his opinion of certain facts, he alone is the judge of the existence of

those facts

2. Functional approach-asks the question: "Are we capable of resolving

the problem posed?"

• The executive and legislative departments have the machinery for

verifying the existence of those facts whereas the courts do not

3. Prudential or political approach -asks the question: "Are here

overriding consideration which prevent the Court from entering the

thicket?"

• Interference by the courts in the decision can result in tying the hands of

those charged with maintaining order

Section 16: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of

their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies

Right to speedy disposition of cases v. Right to speedy trial

Right to speedy disposition of cases covers all phases (before, during and
after) of any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings, while

the Right to speedy trial covers only the trial phase of criminal cases.

Factors to be considered to know if the right has been violated

1. The length of delay

2. Reason for the delay

3. Assertion of the right or failure to assert it

4. Prejudice caused by the delay

Remedy for the violation of this right

Dismissal through mandamus