The Bill of Rights

A. Definition and Nature of Provisions

Origin: ICCPR & UDHR
The set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing
the enjoyment of those rights. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of
liberty, equality and security “against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the
passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those
who have no patience with general principles” (PBM Employees Organization v.
Philippine Blooming Mills)

Cases:
 PBM Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills, G.R. No. L-31195, 5
June 1973
Facts:
 Labor union planned to stage a mass demonstration in the Malacanang against
the police brutality of Pasig. Informed company about it.
 Spokesperson of company stated that the demonstration has nothing to do
with the company but against the police of Pasig. However, it came to a point
that it prejudice the normal business operation of the company since the
employees will be absent in the first shift.
 Management asked employees that those who are supposed to work in the
shift will not join the mass demonstration. Basically, make the schedule not
conflict with each other.
 1st and 2nd shift attended and prejudiced the business. A number of employees
were terminated.

Ruling:
Human right vs. Property Right
 Human rights are imprescriptible and property right has prescription.
 There is primacy over property rights.
 Those that are listed in Article 3 is precisely to remove or withdraw from the
particular changes of time.

Material loss can be repaired or adequately compensated. The debasement of the

human being — broken in morale and brutalized in spirit — can never be fully
evaluated in monetary terms. The wounds fester and the scars remain to humiliate
him to his dying day, even as he cries in anguish for retribution, denial of which is
like rubbing salt on bruised tissues.

As heretofore stated, the primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of

peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances — over property rights
 has been sustained. Emphatic reiteration of this basic tenet as a coveted boon — at
once the shield and armor of the dignity and worth of the human personality, the all-
consuming ideal of our enlightened civilization — becomes Our duty, if freedom and
social justice have any meaning at all for him who toils so that capital can produce
economic goods that can generate happiness for all.

 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, 21 July 2003 (limits the operation of
the Bill of Rights)
Facts:
 EO No. 1 created PCGG to recover the ill-gotten wealth of Marcos. There was
a body created – AFP. It was created to investigate reports of unexplained
wealth and corrupt practices by AFP personnel. Based on its mandate, the
AFP Board investigated various reports of alleged unexplained wealth of
respondent Major General Josephus Ramas and his alleged mistress Elizabeth
Dimano.
 They filed a criminal complaint in the sandiganbayan, and then issued a
search warrant. The title of the search warrant is Illegal possession of
firearms. March 3, 1986
 They argued that this was 5 days after edsa revolution therefore the 1973
consti was no longer in effect and under a revolutionary government and the
Bill of rights of such consti was no longer in effect
 In the raid, they did not only recover arms and ammunition but all kinds of
wealth.

 Republic said that such evidence is inadmissible by the court bec exclusionary
rule is suspended bec there was no bill of rights bec no constitution.
 The directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the
supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such
directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the
successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives
and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a
person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because
there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during the interregnum

Ruling:
EDSA 1 v. EDSA 2
Proof is provisional freedom constitution which was promulgated in defiance of the
1973 constitution. While EDSA 2. Arroyo took the oath to protect the 1987
constitution. Therefore, express statement of defiance is the distinguishment.

The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government,

assumed responsibility for the State's good faith compliance with the Covenant to
which the Philippines is a signatory.
 Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires
each signatory State "to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory
and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant."

Under Article 17(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
the revolutionary government had the duty to insure that "no one shall be subjected
to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence."

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Philippines is also a

signatory, provides in its Article 17(2) that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of
his property."

Although the signatories to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding
document, being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the Declaration as
part of the generally accepted principles of international law and binding on the
State.

Thus, the revolutionary government was also obligated under international law
to observe the rights of individuals under the Declaration.

The Provisional Constitution served as a self-limitation by the revolutionary

government to avoid abuses of the absolute powers entrusted to it by the people.

No point in time that the state has no obligation to protect human rights.

Supreme law is the orders and directives of the duly constituted authority. But a
supreme law cannot overturn or defy the protection of human rights.

 Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, 3 February 1997

GR: Provisions of consti it is presumed to be self-executing
EXPN: Those that are general needs an enabling law i.e. art.2
Art 3 is self-executing.

GR: Bill of rights may only be invoked against the state. Only the state can violate the
bill of rights
EXPN: there are deviant rulings in Labor cases
Gr no 158693
Gr no 117040

Ruling:
 A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration
of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and unalterable except by the authority
from which it emanates. It has been defined as the fundamental and paramount law of
the nation.

Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm
of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by
the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes is null
and void and without any force and effect.

Admittedly, some constitutions are merely declarations of policies and principles.

Their provisions command the legislature to enact laws and carry out the purposes of
the framers who merely establish an outline of government providing for the different
departments of the governmental machinery and securing certain fundamental and
inalienable rights of citizens. A provision which lays down a general principle,
such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-
executing. But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or
protected, is self-executing. Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the
nature and extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by
the constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination and
construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is
referred to the legislature for action.

B. Against Whom Enforceable

Can only be invoked against the State or agents of the State. Therefore, if it cannot be
invoked against private persons.

There are deviant cases esp. in labor cases

Agabon v. NLRC
Serrano v. NLRC

Due Process and Equal Protection

Section 1, Article 3, 1987 Constitution
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.
A. Definition

Article 3, Section 1, 1987 Constitution

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.
 TRADITIONAL
The general law, a law which hear before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgement only after trial.

SUBSTANTIVE
Due process is described as merely the responsiveness to the supremacy of reason,
obedience to the dictates of justice.
JUSTICE FRANKFURTER OF THE US SC
The embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play.

It is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether

committed by the legislature, executive, or the judiciary. If the law itself unreasonably
deprives the person of his life, liberty, or property, he is denied the protection of due
process. If the enjoyment of his right is conditioned on an unreasonable requirement, due
process is likewise violated.

Scope
Due process protects all persons, both natural and artificial.

Natural persons include both citizen and alien.

Artificial persons like corporations and partnership are covered by the protection but only
insofar as their property is concerned. The reason for the narrower scope is that the life
and the liberty of the artificial persons, as a creature of law, are derived from therefore
subject to the control of the legislature.

B. Meaning of “Life, Liberty, and Property”

LIFE
It is understood that it connotes the integrity of the physical person. It is not permissible
for the government to deprive the individual of any part of his body, and this is true even
if it be as punishment for crime.

It should embrace the enjoyment by the individual of all the God-given faculties that can
make life worth living. Include are his right to give full rein to al hi natural attributes, to
expand the horizons of his mind, to widen the reach of his capabilities, to enhance those
moral and spiritual values that can make his life more meaningful and rewarding.

In Imbong v. Ochoa, it has been held that “it commences upon conception, that is, upon
fertilization.”

LIBERTY
It is not an unbridled 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.

Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro

“Liberty is the freedom to do right and never wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the
upright and honorable conscience of the individual.”

PROPERTY
It is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject of contract.

Public Office as a Public Trust, Not Property

No one has a vested right to any public office, much less a vested right to an expectancy
of holding a public office.

Employment
Crespo v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija
In Callanta vs Carnation Philippines, Inc. this Court held: "It is a principle in American
jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well recognized in this jurisdiction that one's
employment, profession, trade or calling is a "property right," and the wrongful
interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be
property within the protection of a constitutional guaranty of due process of law."

Permits and Licenses

It has also been held that mere privileges are not property rights and are therefore
revocable at will. Likewise, one does not have a vested property right in the continued
operation of law, which may be repealed or amended at will by the legislature, or in the
maintenance of a judicial doctrine, which may be modified or reversed in the discretion
of the Supreme Court. (Republic v. Rosemoor)

Cases:
 Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200
Facts:
Carrie Buck was a "feeble minded woman" and was committed to a mental
institution. Such condition has been with her family for three generations.

A Virginia law allowed for the sexual sterilization or salpingectomy for those who are
inmates of institutions supported by the State that are found to be afflicted with a
hereditary form of insanity or imbecility in order to promote the "health of the patient
and the welfare of society."
A salpingectomy is a surgical operation consisting of the opening of the abdominal
cavity and the cutting of the Fallopian tubes with the result that sterility is produced.

Before the procedure could be performed, however, a hearing was required and that
that hearing may be in a court of law in case of appeal.

Issues:
Whether or not the statute violated due process.

Petitioner’s Argument
Petitioner contends that the operation of salpingectomy, as provided for in the Act of
Assembly, is illegal in that it violates her constitutional right of bodily integrity and is
therefore repugnant to the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 143, this Court, in defining the meaning of

"deprivation of life," said: "The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all
those limbs and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The deprivation not only of life
but whatever God has given to everyone with life is protected by the provision in
question." The operation of salpingectomy clearly comes within the definition.

In determining whether the constitutional requirement has been observed we

must look to the substance rather than the form of the law. Chicago R. Co. v.
Chicago; 166 U. S. 226-'Simmons v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427; for form of the procedure
cannot convert the process used into due process of law, if the result is to illegally
deprive a citizen of some constitutional right. Neither can the State make a
proceeding due process of law by declaring it to be such. If this were not so, there
could be no restraint on the power of the legislature. Murry v. Hoboken L. & I. Co.,
18 How. 272;

The test of due process of law is that the proceedings shall be legal, preserving
the liberty of the citizen. The inherent right of mankind to go through life without
mutilation of organs of generation needs no constitutional declaration.

The Act denies to the plaintiff and other inmates of the state colony for epileptics
and feeble minded the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment.

"The mere fact of classification is not sufficient to relieve a statute of the reach of the
equality clause." Gulf, Colo. R. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150; and the classification
must be based upon some reasonable grounds in the light of the purpose sought to be
attained by the legislature and must not be an arbitrary selection.

The object of the Act is to prevent the reproduction of mentally defective people.
 Respondent’s Argument
The Virginia statute providing for the sexual sterilization of inmates of institutions
supported by the State who shall be found to be afflicted with a hereditary form of
insanity or imbecility, is within the power of the State under the Fourteenth
Amendment.

Failure to extend the provision to persons outside the institutions named does not
render it obnoxious to the Equal Protection Clause.

Ruling:
There can be no doubt that so far as procedure is concerned the rights of the
patient are most carefully considered, and as every step in this case was taken in
scrupulous compliance with the statute and after months of observation, there is
no doubt that in that respect the plaintiff in error has had due process of law.

The attack is not upon the procedure but upon the substantive law. It seems to be
contended that in no circumstances could such an order be justified. It certainly is
contended that the order cannot be justified upon the existing grounds.

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck "is the
probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she
may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare
and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization," and thereupon makes the
order. In view of the general declarations of the legislature and the specific
findings of the Court, obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds
do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than
once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It
would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the
State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order
to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if
instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for
their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing
their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to
cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11. Three
generations of imbeciles are enough.

C. Aspects of Due Process

a. Substantive
Intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life, liberty,
or property.
Serves as a restriction on government’s law- and rule-making powers.

i. Lawful Subject
The interest of thee public generally as distinguished from those of a particular class
require the intervention of the State.
ii. Lawful Means
Reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive.

Cases:
 Kwong Sing v. City of Manila
SC sustained the measure of writing the receipt in either English or Spanish since it
was intended to protect the public from deceptions and misunderstandings that might
arise from their accepting receipts in Chinese.

 GSIS v. Montesclaros
Section 18 of PD 1146
If you marry a pensioner 3 years from the qualification of pensioner, you are
disqualified from inheriting.

We hold that the proviso, which was the sole basis for the rejection by GSIS of
Milagros' claim, is unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause. The
proviso is also discriminatory and denies equal protection of the law.

The proviso undermines the purpose of PD 1146, which is to assure comprehensive

and integrated social security and insurance benefits to government employees and
their dependents in the event of sickness, disability, death, and retirement of the
government employees.

The law extends survivorship benefits to the surviving and qualified beneficiaries of
the deceased member or pensioner to cushion the beneficiaries against the adverse
economic effects resulting from the death of the wage earner or pensioner

b. Procedural
Proceedings in the court or in a judicial court proceeding.

i. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine
the mater before it.
Jurisdiction over the subject matter.

One vested with jurisdiction over the case as conferred upon it by law

Cases:
 Javier v. COMELEC
 Ruling:
This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. To bolster that
requirement, we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be
just. 

The relationship of the judge with one of the parties may color the facts and
distort the law to the prejudice of a just decision. Where this is probable or even
only possible, due process demands that the judge inhibit himself, if only out of a
sense of delicadeza.

 Singson v. NLRC
Facts:
You cannot review a case on appeal in which you have decided.

Ruling:
He was reviewing his own decision as a former labor arbiter.

The right of petitioner to an impartial review of his appeal starts from the time he led
his appeal. He is not only entitled to an impartial tribunal in the resolution of his
motion for reconsideration.

 People v. Herida
Facts:
A judge rendered a decision that acquitted the defendant. On appeal, it was alleged
that judge asked so many questions on the State’s witness.

When SC did an investigation of the questions, it was found that everyone was asked
both defendant and plaintiff.

Ruling:
The judge's behavior under this circumstance cannot be considered biased or
prejudiced. Judges are, after all, not mere referees in a boxing bout, whose only task
is to watch and decide the results. Judges have as much interest as counsel in the
orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence and have the duty to ask questions
that would elicit the facts on the issues involved, clarify ambiguous remarks by
witnesses, and address the points that are overlooked by counsel.

 People v. Larranaga
Facts:
Chiong sisters case. Comments of judge was impartial
 Ruling:
The Supreme Court said that the test is whether the intervention of the judge tends to
prevent the proper presentation of the case or the ascertainment of the truth in the
matter where he interposes his questions or comments. When the judge remarked that
the testimonies of two witnesses were incredible, that another witness was totally
confused and appeared to be mentally imbalanced, and that two witnesses were liars,
his comments were just honest observations intended to warn the witnesses to be
candid to the court. He merely wanted to ascertain the veracity of their contradictory
statements.

ii. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and
over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
Jurisdiction over the person and over the property

In persona- binds the parties in the case

In rem- binds the entire world e.g. one believes she owns a piece of land, under the law,
in order to gain the title of a lad, one must go to the court, get decision and go to registry
of deeds.

iii. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.

Full compliance of the remedies as provided by the court.

Cases:
 Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court
Ruling:
The minimum requirements of due process are notice and hearing which,
generally speaking, may not be dispensed with because they are intended as a
safeguard against official arbitrariness.

This is not to say that notice and hearing are imperative in every case for, to be sure,
there are a number of admitted exception.

There are instances when the need for expeditious action will justify omission of
these requisites, as in the summary abatement of a nuisance per se, like a 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.

The object of the prohibition escapes us. The reasonable connection between the
means employed and the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned
measure is missing.
 Due process is violated because the owner of the property confiscated is denied
the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and punished.
The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the
guilt of the supposed offender is a clear encroachment on judicial functions and
militates against the doctrine of separation of powers.

 Tua v. Mangrobang
Ruling:
It is a constitutional commonplace that the ordinary requirements of procedural
due process must yield to the necessities of protecting vital public interests,
among which is protection of women and children from violence and threats to
their personal safety and security.

It should be pointed out that when the TPO is issued ex parte, the court shall
likewise order that notice be immediately given to the respondent directing him
to file an opposition within five (5) days from service. Moreover, the court shall
order that notice, copies of the petition and TPO be served immediately on the
respondent by the court sheriffs. The TPOs are initially effective for thirty (30)
days from service on the respondent.

The opposition to the petition which the respondent himself shall verify, must be
accompanied by the affidavits of witnesses and shall show cause why a
temporary or permanent protection order should not be issued.

The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be

heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be
heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through
pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings,
is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

iv. Judgement must be rendered upon lawful hearing

This is necessary, because otherwise, the right to a hearing would be rendered
meaningless. Relate this to Sec. 14, Art. VIII, which provides that no decision shall be
rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it is based.

D. Publication as Part of Due Process

Cases:
 Tanada v. Tuvera
After 15 days -16th day
15 days after- 15th day

E. Appeal and Due Process

 The right to appeal is not essential to the right to a hearing. Except when guaranteed by
the Constitution. Appeal may be allowed or denied by the legislature in tis discretion.

Legislature cannot deprive him of the right to appeal in those cases coming under the
minimum appellate jurisdiction of the SC as specified in Article 8, Section 5(2):

a. All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or

executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
e. All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.

F. Administrative Due Process

The requisites of administrative due process, as follows:
(a) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit
evidence in support thereof;
(b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
(c) The decision must have something to support itself;
(d) The evidence must be substantial;
(e) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
(f) The tribunal or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration
of the facts and the law of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
(g) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the parties to the proceeding will know the various issues involved, and the
reasons for the decision. (Ang Tibay v. CIR)

 Namil v. COMELEC
Due process in the proceedings before the public respondent exercising its quasi-
judicial functions, requires due notice and hearing, among others.

Procedural due process demands prior notice and hearing. Then after the
hearing, it is also necessary that the tribunal show substantial evidence to
support its ruling. In other words, due process requires that a party be given an
opportunity to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the
evidence should be considered in the adjudication of the case.

Due process in proceedings before the COMELEC, exercising its quasi-judicial

functions, requires due notice and hearing, among others.