Meaning of the Bill of Rights

1. From the foregoing, it is not difficult to understand that the Bill of Rights refers to the declaration and
enumeration of the fundamental civil and political rights of a person with the primary purpose of
safeguarding the person from violations by the government, as well as by individuals and group of
individuals. It includes the protection of the following rights:

(a) Civil rights or those rights belonging to individuals by virtue of their citizenship, such as freedom to
contract, right to property, and marriage among others;

(b) Political rights which are rights pertaining to the citizenship of the individual vis-à-vis the
administration of the government, such as right of suffrage right to hold office, and right to petition for
redress of wrong;

(c) Socio-economic rights or those which ensure the well-being and economic security of an individual;
and

(d) Rights of the accused which refer to protections given to the person of an accused in any criminal
case.

RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION

Life, Liberty, and Property

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 1, Article III of the Constitution states “No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.” The provision speaks of “due process” and “equal protection.”

2. Scope of Protection. The protection covers all persons, whether citizens or aliens, natural or juridical.

3. Meaning of Life, Liberty, and Property. Due process and equal protection cover the right to life,
liberty, and property. It is important therefore to know the meaning of the three.

(a) Life. When the constitution speaks of right to life, it refers not just to physical safety but also to the
importance of quality of life. Thus, right to life means right to be alive, right to one’s limbs against
physical harm, and, equally important, right to a good quality of life. Life means something more than
mere animal existence.

(b) Liberty. It includes “negative” and “positive” freedom. Negative freedom means freedom from, or
absence of, physical constraints, while positive freedom means freedom to exercise one’s faculties.
Right to liberty therefore includes the two aspects of freedom and it cannot be dwarfed into mere
freedom from physical restraint or servitude, but is deemed to embrace the right of man to enjoy his
God-given faculties in all lawful ways, to live and work where he will, to earn his livelihood by any lawful
calling, to pursue any vocation, and enter into contracts.

(c) Property. It refers either to the thing itself or right over the thing. As a thing, property is anything
capable of appropriation, and it could be personal or real. As a right, it refers to right to own, use,
possess, alienate, or destroy the thing. The constitution uses property in the sense of right, and as such
it includes, among others, right to work, one’s employment, profession, trade, and other vested rights. It
is important to note however that privileges like licenses are not protected property; but they may
evolve in a protected right if much is invested in them as means of livelihood. Public office is not also a
property; but to the extent that security of tenure cannot be compromised without due process, it is in a
limited sense analogous to property.

4. These rights are intimately connected. For example, if one’s property right over employment is taken
away, the same will adversely affect one’s right to life since quality of living is jeopardized.
Consequently, in the absence of property and a good quality of life, the ability to do what one wants is
impeded.

5. Hierarchy of Rights. While the rights are intimately related, they have a hierarchy. As to their order of
importance, right to life comes first, followed by right to liberty, and then right of property.

Due Process

1. Meaning. Due process of law is a constitutional guarantee against hasty and unsupported deprivation
of some person’s life, liberty, or property by the government. While is it true that the state can deprive
its citizens of their life, liberty, or property, it must do so in observance of due process of law. This right
is “the embodiment of the supporting idea of fair play” and its essence is that it is “a law which hears
before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”

2. When Invoked. The right is invoked when the act of the government is arbitrary, oppressive,
whimsical, or unreasonable. It is particularly directed against the acts of executive and legislative
department.

3. Two Aspects of Due Process. Due process of law has two aspects: procedural and substantive.
Basically, the procedural aspect involves the method or manner by which the law is enforced, while the
substantive aspect involves the law itself which must be fair, reasonable, and just.

4. Procedural due process requires, essentially, the opportunity to be heard in which every citizen is
given the chance to defend himself or explain his side through the protection of general rules of
procedure. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.

In judicial proceedings, the requirements of procedural due process are:

(a) An impartial or objective court or tribunal with jurisdiction over the subject matter;

(b) Court with jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the property which is the subject of the
proceeding;

(c) Defendant given the opportunity to be heard (requirement on notice and hearing); and

(d) Judgment rendered after lawful hearing.

Since some cases are decided by administrative bodies, the Court also provides requirements of
procedural due process in administrative proceedings. These requirements, also known as “seven
cardinal primary rights,” are:
(a) The right to a hearing, where a party may present evidence in support of his case;

(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

(c) The decision of the tribunal must be supported by evidence;

(d) The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;

(e) The evidence must have been presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and
known to the parties affected;

(f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must rely on its own independent consideration of evidence,
and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate; and

(g) The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way that the parties are apprised of the
issues involved and the reasons for the decision.

5. Notice and Opportunity to be heard. What matters in procedural due process are notice and an
opportunity to be heard.

(a) Notice. This is an essential element of procedural due process, most especially in judicial
proceedings, because without notice the court will not acquire jurisdiction and its judgment will not bind
the defendant. The purpose of the notice is to inform the defendant of the nature and character of the
case filed against him, and more importantly, to give him a fair opportunity to prepare his defense.
Nevertheless, the notice is useless without the opportunity to be heard.

(b) Opportunity to be heard. It must be emphasized that what is required is not “actual” hearing but a
real “opportunity” to be heard. If, for instance, a person fails to actually appear in a hearing even though
he was given the chance to do so, a decision rendered by the court is not in violation of due process.
Moreover, strict observance of the rule is not necessary, especially in administrative cases. In fact, in
administrative proceedings, notice and hearing may be dispensed with for public need or for practical
reasons. It is also sufficient that subsequent hearing is held if the same was not previously satisfied.

6. Substantive due process requires that the law itself is valid, fair, reasonable, and just. For the law to
be fair and reasonable it must have a valid objective which is pursued in a lawful manner. The objective
of the government is valid when it pertains to the interest of the general public, as distinguished from
those of a particular class. The manner of pursuing the objective is lawful if the means employed are
reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive.

7. Under the doctrine of void for vagueness, a statute or law that is vague is void because it violates the
rights to due process. A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards which men of
ordinary intelligence must necessarily know as to its common meaning but differ as to its application.
Such kind of statute is opposed to the Constitution because it fails to accord person’s proper
understanding or fair notice, and because the government is given unbridled freedom to carry out its
provision. For this doctrine to be operative, however, the statute must be utterly vague. Thus, if a law,
for example, could be interpreted and applied in various ways, it is void because of vagueness. Corollary
to this is the doctrine of over breadth which states that a statute that is “overly broad” is void. This is
because it prevents a person from exercising his constitutional rights, as it fails to give an adequate
warning or boundary between what is constitutionally permissive and not. If a law, for instance,
prohibits a bystander from doing any “annoying act” to passersby, the law is void because “annoying
act” could mean anything to a passerby and as such, overly broad.

Equal Protection

1. Meaning. The guarantee of equal protection means that “no person or class of persons shall be
deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other persons or other classes in the
same place and in like circumstances. ”It means that “all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.” The guarantee does not provide
absolute equality of rights or indiscriminate operation on persons. Persons or things that are differently
situated may thus be treated differently. Equality only applies among equals. What is prohibited by the
guarantee is the discriminatory legislation which treats differently or favors others when both are
similarly situated.

2. Purpose. The purpose of the guarantee is to prohibit hostile discrimination or undue favor to anyone,
or giving special privilege when it is not reasonable or justified.

3. Reasonable Classification. Well established is the rule that reasonable classification does not violate
the guarantee, provided that the classification has the following requisites:

(a) It must be based upon substantial distinctions;

(b) It must be germane to the purpose of the law;

(c) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and

(d) It must apply equally to all members of the class.

4. Example. In one case, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code was challenged for being
unconstitutional, as it is violative of the equal protection clause. The provision distinguishes between an
elective official and an appointive official in the filing of their certificate of candidacy. While elective
officials are not deemed resigned upon the filing their certificates, appointive officials are. The Supreme
Court held that the law is constitutional and not violative of equal protection since the classification is
valid. The Court argues that elective office is different from appointive office, in that the mandate of the
former is from the people, while that of the latter is from the appointing authority. The term of the
elective officials are likewise longer than that of the appointive officials. Thus, the classification is
adjudged reasonable and valid.

5. Discrimination against Aliens. Although the protection extends to both citizens and aliens,
discrimination against aliens may be held valid under certain circumstances. For example, citizens by
virtue of their membership to the political community possess complete civil and political rights, while
aliens do not have complete political rights. The former can vote during elections, run for public office,
own real property, while aliens cannot.
6. Review of Laws. If the laws are scrutinized by the court, it said to be subject to “judicial review.”
There are three standards followed by the court in judicial review, these are:

(a) Deferential review in which laws are upheld to be valid or consistent to the guarantee of equal
protection when they are rational and the classifications therein bear a relation to a legitimate
governmental interests or purpose. In here the courts do not seriously inquire into the substantiality of
the interest and possibility of alternative means to achieve the objectives;

(b) Intermediate review in which the substantiality of the governmental interest is closely scrutinized as
well as the availability of less restrictive means or alternatives. This standard is used if the classification
involves important but not fundamental interests; and

(c) Strict scrutiny in which the government is required to show the presence of a compelling
government interest, rather than a mere substantial interest, and the absence of a less restrictive means
for achieving the interest. Upon showing of these requirements, the limitation of a fundamental
constitutional right is justified. This standard is used if the law classifies persons and limits others of their
exercise of fundamental rights.

ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Right against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 2, Article III states that people have the inviolable right to be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose, and a search warrant or warrant of arrest can only be issued upon showing
of a probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.

2. Scope. The protection extends to all persons, aliens or citizens, natural or juridical. It is a personal
right which may be invoked or waived by the person directly affected against unreasonable arrests or
searches by the government and its agencies. It cannot, however, be invoked against private individuals.

Warrant of Arrest and Search Warrant

1. Generally, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures requires that before a person is
arrested or a personal property seized, it must be supported by a valid warrant of arrest or a search
warrant. The exceptions are in cases of valid warrantless arrests and searches.

2. A warrant of arrest is a written order of the court, issued in the name of the Philippines, authorizing a
peace officer to arrest a person, and put him under the custody of the court.

3. A search warrant is a written order of the court, authorizing or directing a peace officer to search a
specific location, house, or other premises for a personal property allegedly used in a crime or may be
utilized as a tool to prove a crime.
Requisites of a Valid Warrant

1. Since as a general rule, an arrest or search is reasonable when it is covered by a valid warrant, it is
thus important to know the requisites a valid warrant. The Court enumerates the requisites as follows:

(a) It must be based upon a probable cause. Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connect with the offense are in the place sought to be searched;

(b) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge. That the judge “personally”
determines the probable cause means that “he personally evaluates the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the public prosecutor regarding the existence of the probable cause,” or, if the
same is insufficient, “require additional evidence to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence
of probable cause. ”Thus, personal determination does not mean that he must personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. He may rely on reports and evidence submitted to him, on the basis of
which he determines the existence of probable cause and orders the issuance of warrant. What is
prohibited is to rely solely on the recommendation of the prosecutors without doing any determination
on his own;

(c) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witness he may produce; and

(d) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The
property subject to search includes those used in the commission of the offense, stolen or embezzled
and other proceeds or fruits of the offense, or used or intended to be used in the commission of the
offense.

2. General warrants are those that do not particularly describe the place to be searched or the persons
or things to be seized. They are unconstitutional because the sanctity of the domicile and privacy of
communication and correspondence of individuals are placed at the mercy, caprice, and passion of
peace officers.

Warrantless Arrest

1. When Warrantless Arrest Valid. Arrest without warrant is strictly construed as an exception to the
general rule requiring warrant. Under the Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private person may arrest a
person even without a warrant under the following instances:

(a) In flagrante delicto arrest. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) Hot pursuit. When an offense, has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) Arrest of escaped prisoners. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment of place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

2. Citizen Arrest. It must be noted that a lawful warrantless arrest may be performed not just by a peace
officer but also by a civilian. This is permitted under the rules under limited circumstances, and it is
called citizen arrest.

3. In the case of flagrante delicto arrest, an offense is committed “in the presence” of the arresting
officer or civilian. For example, if a person pushes illegal drugs in the presence of a police officer, the
latter can arrest the pusher even without a warrant of arrest because an offense is actually being
committed in his presence. The same principle underlies the “buy-bust” or “entrapment” operations
conducted by police officers in catching law offenders. In one case,[19] the Court held that rebellion is a
continuing offense, and so the rebel may be arrested anytime even without a warrant because he is
deemed to commit the offense in the presence of the arresting officer or person.

4. Illegal Detention is the offense committed by the arresting officer or civilian if the warrantless arrest
is performed outside the above rules.

Warrantless Searches

A search is valid even without a warrant, under the following instances:

(a) Search as an incident to a lawful arrest. When a valid arrest precedes the search or
contemporaneous with it, and the search is limited to the immediate vicinity of the place of arrest, for
purposes of securing dangerous objects and effects of the crime;

(b) Consented search. When the right has been voluntarily waived by person who has a right, aware of
such right, and has an actual intention to relinquish such right;

(c) Plainview search. When prohibited articles are within the sight of an officer who has the right to be
in a position to that view;

(d) Visual search at checkpoints. When the search at stationary checkpoints is pre-announced, and
limited to a visual search only;

(e) Terry search. When a police officer, in interest of effective crime prevention, performs a “stop-and-
frisk” or patting of outer clothing for dangerous weapons, after observing a suspicious conduct on the
part of a citizen;

(f) Search of moving vehicles, vessels, and aircrafts for violation of laws;

(g) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building
regulations; and

(h) Search in airports and other populous places.

1. In cases of deportation, where the State expels an undesirable alien from its territory, court
intervention and proceedings are not required. Nonetheless, the alien’s constitutional rights are still
preserved because they are given fair trial and administrative due process.

2. Important to note is that no probable cause is required in deportation proceedings.[20] It is the

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Provisions and Laws on Right to Privacy

1. Constitutional Provisions. The right to privacy is scattered throughout the Bill of Rights. The right
against unreasonable searches and seizures, in Section 2, is an expression of this right, inasmuch as it is
based on the sacred right to be secure in the privacy of one’s person, house, paper, and effects. Due
process of law, in Section 1, also provides the same privacy security by protecting an individual’s life,
liberty, and property against undue interference by the government. Section 6 speaks of the right to
establish and change one’s home which likewise deals with the privacy and comfort of one’s home. The
right to form unions or associations under Section 8, and the right against self-incrimination under
Section 17 are also privacy rights which need protection against undue intrusion by the government.

2. Nonetheless, the word “privacy” is expressly provided in Section 3, Article III, which states that “the
privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.” Privacy of communication and
correspondence is also an expression of the right to privacy.

3. Statutory Reinforcements. To reinforce these constitutional provisions, the Congress has passed laws
that recognize and protect the zones of privacy of an individual. These laws include: (a) The Civil Code of
the Philippines; (b) The Revised Penal Code; (c) Anti-Wire Tapping Act; (d) The Secrecy of Bank Deposits;
and (e) Intellectual Property Code.

Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

1. Subject of the Right. Invasion of communication and correspondence is one kind of search.[22]
However the subject of search is not a tangible object but an intangible one, such as telephone calls,
text messages, letters, and the like. These forms of communication and correspondence may be
intruded into by means of wiretapping or other means of electronic eavesdropping. What the
constitution prohibits is government intrusion, by means of wiretapping or electronic eavesdropping,
into the privacy of communication without a lawful court order or when public safety and order does
not demand.
2. Rule. As a rule, the government cannot intrude into the privacy of communication and
correspondence. The exceptions are: (a) when the court allows the intrusion, and (b) when public safety
and order so demands.

Anti-Wire Tapping Act

1. R.A. 4200 or the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, as a reinforcement of privacy of communication, is a law
which prohibits a person not authorized by all the parties to any private communication, to wire tap or
use any devise to secretly overhear, intercept, record, or communicate the content of the said
communication to any person.

2. Wire tapping or the use of record may be permitted in civil or criminal proceedings involving specified
offenses principally affecting national security, and only with previous authorization by the court which
must comply with the requirements of a warrant. The authority is effective only for sixty days.

Writ of Habeas Data

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or
security is violated or threatened to be violated by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home, and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

Exclusionary Rule

1. The exclusionary rule states that any evidence unlawfully obtained is inadmissible as evidence before
the courts. This is based on Section 3(2), Article III which provides that any evidence obtained in
violation of right to privacy of communication or right to due process of law shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding. The same rule is applied to any evidence taken in violate of R.A. 4200.

2. The rule is also called Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine. The name of the doctrine metaphorically
describes what happens to an “evidence” (fruit) taken through “unlawful means” (poisonous tree). The
evidence-fruit is discarded because it may infect or destroy the integrity of the case and forfeit the
purpose of the law.

3. For example, if police officers search a house without a search warrant and the same does not fall
under any of the instances of a valid warrantless search, the evidence obtained even if material in the
case cannot be admitted in court. Or if police officers wiretap a conversation without court
authorization, the recorded conversation shall be excluded as an evidence in court. Thus, the evidences
are said to be fruits of a poisonous tree.