Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

EN BANC Affidavits of members of the Military Security Unit, Military
Security Command, Philippine Army, stationed at Camp

[G.R. No. 104768. July 21, 2003.] Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, disclosed that Elizabeth
Dimaano is the mistress of Respondent. That respondent
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. usually goes and stays and sleeps in the alleged house of
SANDIGANBAYAN, MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPHUS Q. Elizabeth Dimaano in Barangay Tengga, Itaas, Batangas City
RAMAS and ELIZABETH DIMAANO, Respondents. and when he arrives, Elizabeth Dimaano embraces and
kisses Respondent. That on February 25, 1986, a person
DECISION who rode in a car went to the residence of Elizabeth
Dimaano with four (4) attaché cases filled with money and
owned by MGen Ramas.
CARPIO, J.:
The Case Sworn statement in the record disclosed also that Elizabeth
Dimaano had no visible means of income and is supported
by respondent for she was formerly a mere secretary.
Before this Court is a petition for review
on certiorari seeking to set aside the Resolutions of the Taking in toto the evidence, Elizabeth Dimaano could not
Sandiganbayan (First Division) 1 dated 18 November 1991 have used the military equipment/items seized in her house
and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037. The first on March 3, 1986 without the consent of respondent, he
Resolution dismissed petitioner’s Amended Complaint and being the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. It is
ordered the return of the confiscated items to respondent also impossible for Elizabeth Dimaano to claim that she
Elizabeth Dimaano, while the second Resolution denied owns the P2,870,000.00 and $50,000 US Dollars for she had
petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner prays for no visible source of income.
the grant of the reliefs sought in its Amended Complaint, or
in the alternative, for the remand of this case to the This money was never declared in the Statement of Assets
Sandiganbayan (First Division) for further proceedings and Liabilities of Respondent. There was an intention to
allowing petitioner to complete the presentation of its cover the existence of these money because these are all ill-
evidence. gotten and unexplained wealth. Were it not for the affidavits
of the members of the Military Security Unit assigned at
chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Camp Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, the existence and

Antecedent Facts
ownership of these money would have never been known.
The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent were

Immediately upon her assumption to office following the
also submitted for scrutiny and analysis by the Board’s
successful EDSA Revolution, then President Corazon C.
consultant. Although the amount of P2,870,000.00 and
Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 ("EO No. 1") creating
$50,000 US Dollars were not included, still it was disclosed
the Presidential Commission on Good Government ("PCGG").
that respondent has an unexplained wealth of P104,134.60.
EO No. 1 primarily tasked the PCGG to recover all ill-gotten
wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his
IV. CONCLUSION:
immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close
chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
associates. EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power" (a) to

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that a prima facie
conduct investigation as may be necessary in order to
case exists against respondent for ill-gotten and unexplained
accomplish and carry out the purposes of this order" and the
wealth in the amount of P2,974,134.00 and $50,000 US
power" (h) to promulgate such rules and regulations as may
Dollars.
be necessary to carry out the purpose of this order."
Accordingly, the PCGG, through its then Chairman Jovito R.
V. RECOMMENDATION:
Salonga, created an AFP Anti-Graft Board ("AFP Board")
tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and

Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q.
corrupt practices by AFP personnel, whether in the active
Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA
service or retired. 2
3019, as amended, otherwise known as "Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act" and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise
Based on its mandate, the AFP Board investigated various
known as "The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired
reports of alleged unexplained wealth of respondent Major
Property." 3
General Josephus Q. Ramas ("Ramas"). On 27 July 1987,
the AFP Board issued a Resolution on its findings and
Thus, on 1 August 1987, the PCGG filed a petition for
recommendation on the reported unexplained wealth of
forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 ("RA No. 1379") 4
Ramas. The relevant part of the Resolution reads:
against Ramas.
III. FINDINGS and EVALUATION:

Before Ramas could answer the petition, then Solicitor
General Francisco I. Chavez filed an Amended Complaint

Evidence in the record showed that respondent is the owner
naming the Republic of the Philippines ("petitioner"),
of a house and lot located at 15-Yakan St., La Vista, Quezon
represented by the PCGG, as plaintiff and Ramas as
City. He is also the owner of a house and lot located in Cebu
defendant. The Amended Complaint also impleaded
City. The lot has an area of 3,327 square meters.
Elizabeth Dimaano ("Dimaano") as co-defendant.
The value of the property located in Quezon City may be
The Amended Complaint alleged that Ramas was the
estimated modestly at P700,000.00.
Commanding General of the Philippine Army until 1986. On
the other hand, Dimaano was a confidential agent of the
The equipment/items and communication facilities which
Military Security Unit, Philippine Army, assigned as a clerk-
were found in the premises of Elizabeth Dimaano and were
typist at the office of Ramas from 1 January 1978 to
confiscated by elements of the PC Command of Batangas
February 1979. The Amended Complaint further alleged that
were all covered by invoice receipt in the name of CAPT.
Ramas "acquired funds, assets and properties manifestly out
EFREN SALIDO, RSO Command Coy, MSC, PA. These items
of proportion to his salary as an army officer and his other
could not have been in the possession of Elizabeth Dimaano
income from legitimately acquired property by taking undue
if not given for her use by respondent Commanding General
advantage of his public office and/or using his power,
of the Philippine Army.
authority and influence as such officer of the Armed Forces
of the Philippines and as a subordinate and close associate
Aside from the military equipment/items and
of the deposed President Ferdinand Marcos." 5
communications equipment, the raiding team was also able
to confiscate money in the amount of P2,870,000.00 and
The Amended Complaint also alleged that the AFP Board,
$50,000 US Dollars in the house of Elizabeth Dimaano on 3
after a previous inquiry, found reasonable ground to believe
March 1986.
that respondents have violated RA No. 1379. 6 The
Amended Complaint prayed for, among others, the forfeiture
Page 1 of 28
of respondents’ properties, funds and equipment in favor of that the PCGG does not have jurisdiction to investigate and
the State. prosecute military officers by reason of mere position held
without a showing that they are "subordinates" of former
Ramas filed an Answer with Special and/or Affirmative President Marcos.
Defenses and Compulsory Counterclaim to the Amended
Complaint. In his Answer, Ramas contended that his On 18 November 1991, the Sandiganbayan rendered a
property consisted only of a residential house at La Vista resolution, the dispositive portion of which states: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Subdivision, Quezon City, valued at P700,000, which was

not out of proportion to his salary and other legitimate WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the
income. He denied ownership of any mansion in Cebu City Amended Complaint, without pronouncement as to costs.
and the cash, communications equipment and other items The counterclaims are likewise dismissed for lack of merit,
confiscated from the house of Dimaano. but the confiscated sum of money, communications
equipment, jewelry and land titles are ordered returned to
Dimaano filed her own Answer to the Amended Complaint. Elizabeth Dimaano.
Admitting her employment as a clerk-typist in the office of
Ramas from January–November 1978 only, Dimaano The records of this case are hereby remanded and referred
claimed ownership of the monies, communications to the Hon. Ombudsman, who has primary jurisdiction over
equipment, jewelry and land titles taken from her house by the forfeiture cases under R.A. No. 1379, for such
the Philippine Constabulary raiding team. appropriate action as the evidence warrants. This case is
also referred to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal
After termination of the pre-trial, 7 the court set the case for Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of
trial on the merits on 9–11 November 1988. respondent Elizabeth Dimaano in connection herewith.
On 9 November 1988, petitioner asked for a deferment of SO ORDERED.

the hearing due to its lack of preparation for trial and the
absence of witnesses and vital documents to support its On 4 December 1991, petitioner filed its Motion for
case. The court reset the hearing to 17 and 18 April 1989. Reconsideration.
On 13 April 1989, petitioner filed a motion for leave to In answer to the Motion for Reconsideration, private
amend the complaint in order "to charge the delinquent respondents filed a Joint Comment/Opposition to which
properties with being subject to forfeiture as having been petitioner filed its Reply on 10 January 1992.
unlawfully acquired by defendant Dimaano alone . . .." 8
On 25 March 1992, the Sandiganbayan rendered a
Nevertheless, in an order dated 17 April 1989, the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Sandiganbayan proceeded with petitioner’s presentation of

evidence on the ground that the motion for leave to amend Ruling of the Sandiganbayan
complaint did not state when petitioner would file the
amended complaint. The Sandiganbayan further stated that The Sandiganbayan dismissed the Amended Complaint on
the subject matter of the amended complaint was on its face the following grounds: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
vague and not related to the existing complaint. The

Sandiganbayan also held that due to the time that the case (1.) The actions taken by the PCGG are not in accordance
had been pending in court, petitioner should proceed to with the rulings of the Supreme Court in Cruz, Jr. v.
present its evidence. Sandiganbayan 10 and Republic v. Migrino 11 which involve
the same issues.
After presenting only three witnesses, petitioner asked for a
postponement of the trial. (2.) No previous inquiry similar to preliminary investigations
in criminal cases was conducted against Ramas and
On 28 September 1989, during the continuation of the trial, Dimaano.
petitioner manifested its inability to proceed to trial because
of the absence of other witnesses or lack of further evidence (3.) The evidence adduced against Ramas does not
to present. Instead, petitioner reiterated its motion to constitute a prima facie case against him.
amend the complaint to conform to the evidence already
presented or to change the averments to show that (4.) There was an illegal search and seizure of the items
Dimaano alone unlawfully acquired the monies or properties confiscated.
subject of the forfeiture.
The Issues
The Sandiganbayan noted that petitioner had already
delayed the case for over a year mainly because of its many
postponements. Moreover, petitioner would want the case to Petitioner raises the following issues: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
revert to its preliminary stage when in fact the case had

long been ready for trial. The Sandiganbayan ordered A. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
petitioner to prepare for presentation of its additional CONCLUDING THAT PETITIONER’S EVIDENCE CANNOT
evidence, if any. MAKE A CASE FOR FORFEITURE AND THAT THERE WAS NO
SHOWING OF CONSPIRACY, COLLUSION OR RELATIONSHIP
During the trial on 23 March 1990, petitioner again admitted BY CONSANGUINITY OR AFFINITY BY AND BETWEEN
its inability to present further evidence. Giving petitioner RESPONDENT RAMAS AND RESPONDENT DIMAANO
one more chance to present further evidence or to amend NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT SUCH CONCLUSIONS
the complaint to conform to its evidence, the WERE CLEARLY UNFOUNDED AND PREMATURE, HAVING
Sandiganbayan reset the trial to 18 May 1990. The BEEN RENDERED PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE
Sandiganbayan, however, hinted that the re-setting was PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER.
without prejudice to any action that private respondents
might take under the circumstances. B. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PETITIONER,
However, on 18 May 1990, petitioner again expressed its INCLUDING THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND
inability to proceed to trial because it had no further THE AMENDED COMPLAINT, SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT IN
evidence to present. Again, in the interest of justice, the LINE WITH THE RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT IN
Sandiganbayan granted petitioner 60 days within which to CRUZ, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 194 SCRA 474 AND
file an appropriate pleading. The Sandiganbayan, however, REPUBLIC v. MIGRINO, 189 SCRA 289, NOTWITHSTANDING
warned petitioner that failure to act would constrain the THE FACT THAT: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
court to take drastic action.

1. The cases of Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, supra, and
Private respondents then filed their motions to dismiss Republic v. Migrino, supra, are clearly not applicable to this
based on Republic v. Migrino. 9 The Court held in Migrino case;
Page 2 of 28
President Marcos because of his position as the
2. Any procedural defect in the institution of the complaint Commanding General of the Philippine Army. Petitioner
in Civil Case No. 0037 was cured and/or waived by claims that Ramas’ position enabled him to receive orders
respondents with the filing of their respective answers with directly from his commander-in-chief, undeniably making
counterclaim; and him a subordinate of former President Marcos.
3. The separate motions to dismiss were evidently improper We hold that Ramas was not a "subordinate" of former
considering that they were filed after commencement of the President Marcos in the sense contemplated under EO No. 1
presentation of the evidence of the petitioner and even and its amendments.
before the latter was allowed to formally offer its evidence
and rest its case; Mere position held by a military officer does not
automatically make him a "subordinate" as this term is used
C. RESPONDENT COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING in EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and. 14-A absent a showing that he
THAT THE ARTICLES AND THINGS SUCH AS SUMS OF enjoyed close association with former President Marcos.
MONEY, COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT, JEWELRY AND Migrino discussed this issue in this wise: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
LAND TITLES CONFISCATED FROM THE HOUSE OF

RESPONDENT DIMAANO WERE ILLEGALLY SEIZED AND A close reading of EO No. 1 and related executive orders will
THEREFORE EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE. 12 readily show what is contemplated within the term
‘subordinate.’ The Whereas Clauses of EO No. 1 express the
The Court’s Ruling urgent need to recover the ill gotten wealth amassed by
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family,
relatives, and close associates both here and abroad.
First Issue: PCGG’s Jurisdiction to Investigate Private
Respondents EO No. 2 freezes ‘all assets and properties in the Philippines
in which former President Marcos and/or his wife, Mrs.
This case involves a revisiting of an old issue already Imelda Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business
decided by this Court in Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan 13 and associates, dummies, agents, or nominees have any interest
Republic v. Migrino. 14 or participation.’
The primary issue for resolution is whether the PCGG has Applying the rule in statutory construction known as
the jurisdiction to investigate and cause the filing of a ejusdem generis that is —
forfeiture petition against Ramas and Dimaano for
unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379. ‘[W]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or
things by words of a particular and specific meaning, such
We hold that PCGG has no such jurisdiction. general words are not to be construed in their widest extent,
but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of
The PCGG created the AFP Board to investigate the the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned
unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel, [Smith, Bell & Co, Ltd. v. Register of Deeds of Davao, 96
whether in the active service or retired. 15 The PCGG tasked Phil. 53, 58, citing Black on Interpretation of Laws, 2nd Ed.,
the AFP Board to make the necessary recommendations to 203].’
appropriate government agencies on the action to be taken
based on its findings. 16 The PCGG gave this task to the AFP [T]he term "subordinate" as used in EO Nos. 1 & 2 refers to
Board pursuant to the PCGG’s power under Section 3 of EO one who enjoys a close association with former President
No. 1 "to conduct investigation as may be necessary in order Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family
to accomplish and to carry out the purposes of this order." member, relative, and close associate in EO No. 1 and the
EO No. 1 gave the PCGG specific responsibilities, to wit: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or
nominee in EO No. 2.
SEC. 2. The Commission shall be charged with the task of
assisting the President in regard to the following matters:
library
chanrob1es virtual 1aw x x x
(a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by

former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, It does not suffice, as in this case, that the respondent is or
relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether was a government official or employee during the
located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover administration of former President Marcos. There must be a
and sequestration of all business enterprises and entities prima facie showing that the respondent unlawfully
owned or controlled by them, during his administration, accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association or
directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife. (Emphasis
their public office and/or using their powers, authority, supplied)
influence, connections or relationship.
Ramas’ position alone as Commanding General of the
(b) The investigation of such cases of graft and corruption Philippine Army with the rank of Major General 19 does not
as the President may assign to the Commission from time to suffice to make him a "subordinate" of former President
time. Marcos for purposes of EO No. 1 and its amendments. The
PCGG has to provide a prima facie showing that Ramas was
x x x. a close associate of former President Marcos, in the same
manner that business associates, dummies, agents or
The PCGG, through the AFP Board, can only investigate the nominees of former President Marcos were close to him.
unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel Such close association is manifested either by Ramas’
who fall under either of the two categories mentioned in complicity with former President Marcos in the accumulation
Section 2 of EO No. 1. These are: (1) AFP personnel who of ill-gotten wealth by the deposed President or by former
have accumulated ill-gotten wealth during the President Marcos’ acquiescence in Ramas’ own accumulation
administration of former President Marcos by being the of ill-gotten wealth if any.
latter’s immediate family, relative, subordinate or close
associate, taking undue advantage of their public office or This, the PCGG failed to do.
using their powers, influence . . .; 17 or (2) AFP personnel
involved in other cases of graft and corruption provided the Petitioner’s attempt to differentiate the instant case from
President assigns their cases to the PCGG. 18 Migrino does not convince us. Petitioner argues that unlike
in Migrino, the AFP Board Resolution in the instant case
Petitioner, however, does not claim that the President states that the AFP Board conducted the investigation
assigned Ramas’ case to the PCGG. Therefore, Ramas’ case pursuant to EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A in relation to RA No.
should fall under the first category of AFP personnel before 1379. Petitioner asserts that there is a presumption that the
the PCGG could exercise its jurisdiction over him. Petitioner PCGG was acting within its jurisdiction of investigating
argues that Ramas was undoubtedly a subordinate of former crony-related cases of graft and corruption and that Ramas
Page 3 of 28
was truly a subordinate of the former President. However, committed in the acquisition of said ill-gotten wealth as
the same AFP Board Resolution belies this contention. contemplated under Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1.
Although the Resolution begins with such statement, it ends
with the following recommendation: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library However, other violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act not otherwise falling under the foregoing
V. RECOMMENDATION: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library categories, require a previous authority of the President for
the respondent PCGG to investigate and prosecute in
Wherefore it is recommended that Maj. Gen. Josephus Q. accordance with Section 2 (b) of Executive Order No. 1.
Ramas (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA Otherwise, jurisdiction over such cases is vested in the
3019, as amended, otherwise known as "Anti-Graft and Ombudsman and other duly authorized investigating
Corrupt Practices Act" and RA 1379, as amended, otherwise agencies such as the provincial and city prosecutors, their
known as "The Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired assistants, the Chief State Prosecutor and his assistants and
Property." 20 the state prosecutors. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, although the PCGG sought to investigate and The proper government agencies, and not the PCGG, should
prosecute private respondents under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14 and investigate and prosecute forfeiture petitions not falling
14-A, the result yielded a finding of violation of Republic under EO No. 1 and its amendments. The preliminary
Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379 without any relation to EO Nos. 1, investigation of unexplained wealth amassed on or before 25
2, 14 and 14-A. This absence of relation to EO No. 1 and its February 1986 falls under the jurisdiction of the
amendments proves fatal to petitioner’s case. EO No. 1 Ombudsman, while the authority to file the corresponding
created the PCGG for a specific and limited purpose, and forfeiture petition rests with the Solicitor General. 27 The
necessarily its powers must be construed to address such Ombudsman Act or Republic Act No. 6770 ("RA No. 6770")
specific and limited purpose. vests in the Ombudsman the power to conduct preliminary
investigation and to file forfeiture proceedings involving
Moreover, the resolution of the AFP Board and even the unexplained wealth amassed after 25 February 1986. 28
Amended Complaint do not show that the properties Ramas
allegedly owned were accumulated by him in his capacity as After the pronouncements of the Court in Cruz, the PCGG
a "subordinate" of his commander-in chief. Petitioner merely still pursued this case despite the absence of a prima facie
enumerated the properties Ramas allegedly owned and finding that Ramas was a "subordinate" of former President
suggested that these properties were disproportionate to his Marcos. The petition for forfeiture filed with the
salary and other legitimate income without showing that Sandiganbayan should be dismissed for lack of authority by
Ramas amassed them because of his close association with the PCGG to investigate respondents since there is no prima
former President Marcos. Petitioner, in fact, admits that the facie showing that EO No. 1 and its amendments apply to
AFP Board resolution does not contain a finding that Ramas respondents. The AFP Board Resolution and even the
accumulated his wealth because of his close association with Amended Complaint state that there are violations of RA
former President Marcos, thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library Nos. 3019 and 1379. Thus, the PCGG should have
recommended Ramas’ case to the Ombudsman who has
10. While it is true that the resolution of the Anti-Graft jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary investigation of
Board of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines did not ordinary unexplained wealth and graft cases. As stated in
categorically find a prima facie evidence showing that Migrino:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
respondent Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue

of his close association or relation with former President [But] in view of the patent lack of authority of the PCGG to
Marcos and/or his wife, it is submitted that such omission investigate and cause the prosecution of private respondent
was not fatal. The resolution of the Anti-Graft Board should for violation of Rep. Acts Nos. 3019 and 1379, the PCGG
be read in the context of the law creating the same and the must also be enjoined from proceeding with the case,
objective of the investigation which was, as stated in the without prejudice to any action that may be taken by the
above, pursuant to Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 1379 in proper prosecutory agency. The rule of law mandates that
relation to Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-a; 21 an agency of government be allowed to exercise only the
(Emphasis supplied) powers granted to it.
Such omission is fatal. Petitioner forgets that it is precisely a Petitioner’s argument that private respondents have waived
prima facie showing that the ill-gotten wealth was any defect in the filing of the forfeiture petition by
accumulated by a "subordinate" of former President Marcos submitting their respective Answers with counterclaim
that vests jurisdiction on PCGG. EO No. 1 22 clearly deserves no merit as well.
premises the creation of the PCGG on the urgent need to
recover all ill-gotten wealth amassed by former President Petitioner has no jurisdiction over private respondents.
Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and Thus, there is no jurisdiction to waive in the first place. The
close associates. Therefore, to say that such omission was PCGG cannot exercise investigative or prosecutorial powers
not fatal is clearly contrary to the intent behind the creation never granted to it. PCGG’s powers are specific and limited.
of the PCGG. Unless given additional assignment by the President, PCGG’s
sole task is only to recover the ill-gotten wealth of the
In Cruz, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 23 the Court outlined the Marcoses, their relatives and cronies. 29 Without these
cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the PCGG pursuant to elements, the PCGG cannot claim jurisdiction over a case.
EO Nos. 1, 2, 24 14, 25 14-A: 26
Private respondents questioned the authority and
A careful reading of Sections 2(a) and 3 of Executive Order jurisdiction of the PCGG to investigate and prosecute their
No. 1 in relation with Sections 1, 2 and 3 of Executive Order cases by filing their Motion to Dismiss as soon as they
No. 14, shows what the authority of the respondent PCGG to learned of the pronouncement of the Court in Migrino. This
investigate and prosecute covers: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library case was decided on 30 August 1990, which explains why
private respondents only filed their Motion to Dismiss on 8
(a) the investigation and prosecution of the civil action for October 1990. Nevertheless, we have held that the parties
the recovery of ill-gotten wealth under Republic Act No. may raise lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceeding.
1379, accumulated by former President Marcos, his 30 Thus, we hold that there was no waiver of jurisdiction in
immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close this case. Jurisdiction is vested by law and not by the parties
associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, to an action. 31
including the take-over or sequestration of all business
enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during Consequently, the petition should be dismissed for lack of
his administration, directly or through his nominees, by jurisdiction by the PCGG to conduct the preliminary
taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using investigation. The Ombudsman may still conduct the proper
their powers, authority and influence, connections or preliminary investigation for violation of RA No. 1379, and if
relationships; and warranted, the Solicitor General may file the forfeiture
petition with the Sandiganbayan. 32 The right of the State
(b) the investigation and prosecution of such offenses to forfeit unexplained wealth under RA No. 1379 is not
Page 4 of 28
subject to prescription, laches or estoppel. 33 more the disposition of the case.
Second Issue: Propriety of Dismissal of Case Before Moreover, the pronouncements of the Court in Migrino and
Completion of Presentation of Evidence Cruz prompted the Sandiganbayan to dismiss the case since
the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute
Petitioner also contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in the case against private respondents. This alone would have
dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of been sufficient legal basis for the Sandiganbayan to dismiss
petitioner’s evidence. the forfeiture case against private respondents.
We disagree. Thus, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not err in

dismissing the case before completion of the presentation of
Based on the findings of the Sandiganbayan and the records petitioner’s evidence.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
of this case, we find that petitioner has only itself to blame

for non-completion of the presentation of its evidence. First, Third Issue: Legality of the Search and Seizure
this case has been pending for four years before the
Sandiganbayan dismissed it. Petitioner filed its Amended Petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan erred in declaring
Complaint on 11 August 1987, and only began to present its the properties confiscated from Dimaano’s house as illegally
evidence on 17 April 1989. Petitioner had almost two years seized and therefore inadmissible in evidence. This issue
to prepare its evidence. However, despite this sufficient bears a significant effect on petitioner’s case since these
time, petitioner still delayed the presentation of the rest of properties comprise most of petitioner’s evidence against
its evidence by filing numerous motions for postponements private respondents. Petitioner will not have much evidence
and extensions. Even before the date set for the to support its case against private respondents if these
presentation of its evidence, petitioner filed, on 13 April properties are inadmissible in evidence.
1989, a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. 34 The
motion sought "to charge the delinquent properties (which On 3 March 1986, the Constabulary raiding team served at
comprise most of petitioner’s evidence) with being subject Dimaano’s residence a search warrant captioned "Illegal
to forfeiture as having been unlawfully acquired by Possession of Firearms and Ammunition." Dimaano was not
defendant Dimaano alone . . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library present during the raid but Dimaano’s cousins witnessed the
raid. The raiding team seized the items detailed in the
The Sandiganbayan, however, refused to defer the seizure receipt together with other items not included in the
presentation of petitioner’s evidence since petitioner did not search warrant. The raiding team seized these items: once
state when it would file the amended complaint. On 18 April baby armalite rifle with two magazines; 40 rounds of 5.56
1989, the Sandiganbayan set the continuation of the ammunition; one pistol, caliber .45; communications
presentation of evidence on 28–29 September and 9–11 equipment, cash consisting of P2,870,000 and US$50,000,
October 1989, giving petitioner ample time to prepare its jewelry, and land titles.
evidence. Still, on 28 September 1989, petitioner
manifested its inability to proceed with the presentation of Petitioner wants the Court to take judicial notice that the
its evidence. The Sandiganbayan issued an Order expressing raiding team conducted the search and seizure "on March 3,
its view on the matter, to wit: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library 1986 or five days after the successful EDSA revolution. 39
Petitioner argues that a revolutionary government was
The Court has gone through extended inquiry and a operative at that time by virtue of Proclamation No. 1
narration of the above events because this case has been announcing that President Aquino and Vice President Laurel
ready for trial for over a year and much of the delay hereon were "taking power in the name and by the will of the
has been due to the inability of the government to produce Filipino people." 40 Petitioner asserts that the revolutionary
on scheduled dates for pre-trial and for trial documents and government effectively withheld the operation of the 1973
witnesses, allegedly upon the failure of the military to Constitution which guaranteed private respondents’
supply them for the preparation of the presentation of exclusionary right.
evidence thereon. Of equal interest is the fact that this
Court has been held to task in public about its alleged failure Moreover, petitioner argues that the exclusionary right
to move cases such as this one beyond the preliminary arising from an illegal search applies only beginning 2
stage, when, in view of the developments such as those of February 1987, the date of ratification of the 1987
today, this Court is now faced with a situation where a case Constitution. Petitioner contends that all rights under the Bill
already in progress will revert back to the preliminary stage, of Rights had already reverted to its embryonic stage at the
despite a five-month pause where appropriate action could time of the search. Therefore, the government may
have been undertaken by the plaintiff Republic. 35 confiscate the monies and items taken from Dimaano and
use the same in evidence against her since at the time of
On 9 October 1989, the PCGG manifested in court that it their seizure, private respondents did not enjoy any
was conducting a preliminary investigation on the constitutional right.
unexplained wealth of private respondents as mandated by
RA No. 1379. 36 The PCGG prayed for an additional four Petitioner is partly right in its arguments.
months to conduct the preliminary investigation. The
Sandiganbayan granted this request and scheduled the The EDSA Revolution took place on 23–25 February 1986.
presentation of evidence on 26–29 March 1990. However, As succinctly stated in President Aquino’s Proclamation No. 3
on the scheduled date, petitioner failed to inform the court dated 25 March 1986, the EDSA Revolution was "done in
of the result of the preliminary investigation the PCGG defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution." 41 The
supposedly conducted. Again, the Sandiganbayan gave resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary
petitioner until 18 May 1990 to continue with the government bound by no constitution or legal limitations
presentation of its evidence and to inform the court of "what except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government,
lies ahead insofar as the status of the case is as the de jure government in the Philippines, assumed
concerned . . . ." 37 Still on the date set, petitioner failed to under international law.
present its evidence. Finally, on 11 July 1990, petitioner
filed its Re-Amended Complaint. 38 The Sandiganbayan The correct issues are: (1) whether the revolutionary
correctly observed that a case already pending for years government was bound by the Bill of Rights of the 1973
would revert to its preliminary stage if the court were to Constitution during the interregnum, that is, after the actual
accept the Re-Amended Complaint. and effective take-over of power by the revolutionary
government following the cessation of resistance by loyalist
Based on these circumstances, obviously petitioner has only forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately before the
itself to blame for failure to complete the presentation of its adoption of the Provisional Constitution); and (2) whether
evidence. The Sandiganbayan gave petitioner more than the protection accorded to individuals under the
sufficient time to finish the presentation of its evidence. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Sandiganbayan overlooked petitioner’s delays and yet ("Covenant") and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
petitioner ended the long-string of delays with the filing of a ("Declaration") remained in effect during the interregnum.
Re-Amended Complaint, which would only prolong even
Page 5 of 28
We hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution Commission on Good Government, 43 petitioner Baseco,
was not operative during the interregnum. However, we rule while conceding there was no Bill of Rights during the
that the protection accorded to individuals under the interregnum, questioned the continued validity of the
Covenant and the Declaration remained in effect during the sequestration orders upon adoption of the Freedom
interregnum. Constitution in view of the due process clause in its Bill of
Rights. The Court ruled that the Freedom Constitution, and
During the interregnum, the directives and orders of the later the 1987 Constitution, expressly recognized the validity
revolutionary government were the supreme law because no of sequestration orders, thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives

and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by If any doubt should still persist in the face of the foregoing
the successful revolution, there was no municipal law higher considerations as to the validity and propriety of
than the directives and orders of the revolutionary sequestration, freeze and takeover orders, it should be
government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could dispelled by the fact that these particular remedies and the
not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights authority of the PCGG to issue them have received
because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights constitutional approbation and sanction. As already
during the interregnum. As the Court explained in Letter of mentioned, the Provisional or "Freedom" Constitution
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno: 42 recognizes the power and duty of the President to enact
"measures to achieve the mandate of the people to . . .
A revolution has been defined as "the complete overthrow of (r)ecover ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and
the established government in any country or state by those supporters of the previous regime and protect the interest of
who were previously subject to it" or as "a sudden, radical the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of
and fundamental change in the government or political assets or accounts." And as also already adverted to,
system, usually effected with violence or at least some acts Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution treats of,
of violence." In Kelsen’s book, General Theory of Law and and ratifies the "authority to issue sequestration or freeze
State, it is defined as that which "occurs whenever the legal orders under Proclamation No. 3 dated March 25, 1986." cralaw virtua1aw library
order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new

order . . . a way not prescribed by the first order itself." cralaw virtua1aw library The framers of both the Freedom Constitution and the 1987
Constitution were fully aware that the sequestration orders
It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively would clash with the Bill of Rights. Thus, the framers of both
peaceful one, and more popularly known as the "people constitutions had to include specific language recognizing
power revolution" that the Filipino people tore themselves the validity of the sequestration orders. The following
away from an existing regime. This revolution also saw the discourse by Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas during the
unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. deliberations of the Constitutional Commission is
instructive:
From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution

has been defined as "an inherent right of a people to cast FR. BERNAS: Madam President, there is something
out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms schizophrenic about the arguments in defense of the present
in their system of government or institutions by force or a amendment.
general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods
of making such change have proved inadequate or are so For instance, I have carefully studied Minister Salonga’s
obstructed as to be unavailable." It has been said that "the lecture in the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, of
locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of which all of us have been given a copy. On the one hand, he
the state" and from there is derived "the right of the people argues that everything the Commission is doing is
to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of traditionally legal. This is repeated by Commissioner Romulo
government without regard to the existing constitution." cralaw virtua1aw library also. Minister Salonga spends a major portion of his lecture
developing that argument. On the other hand, almost as an
x x x afterthought, he says that in the end what matters are the
results and not the legal niceties, thus suggesting that the
PCGG should be allowed to make some legal shortcuts,
It is widely known that Mrs. Aquino’s rise to the presidency another word for niceties or exceptions.
was not due to constitutional processes; in fact, it was
achieved in violation of the provisions of the 1973 Now, if everything the PCGG is doing is legal, why is it
Constitution as a Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier asking the CONCOM for special protection? The answer is
declared Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986 presidential clear. What they are doing will not stand the test of ordinary
election. Thus it can be said that the organization of Mrs. due process, hence they are asking for protection, for
Aquino’s Government which was met by little resistance and exceptions. Grandes malos, grandes remedios, fine, as the
her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the saying stands, but let us not say grandes malos, grande y
Cabinet and other key officers of the administration, the malos remedios. That is not an allowable extrapolation.
departure of the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of the Hence, we should not give the exceptions asked for, and let
Judiciary and the Military signaled the point where the legal me elaborate and give three reasons: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the

Filipino. (Emphasis supplied) First, the whole point of the February Revolution and of the
work of the CONCOM is to hasten constitutional
To hold that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution normalization. Very much at the heart of the constitutional
remained operative during the interregnum would render normalization is the full effectivity of the Bill of Rights. We
void all sequestration orders issued by the Philippine cannot, in one breath, ask for constitutional normalization
Commission on Good Government ("PCGG") before the and at the same time ask for a temporary halt to the full
adoption of the Freedom Constitution. The sequestration functioning of what is at the heart of constitutionalism. That
orders, which direct the freezing and even the take-over of would be hypocritical; that would be a repetition of
private property by mere executive issuance without judicial Marcosian protestation of due process and rule of law. The
action, would violate the due process and search and seizure New Society word for that is "backsliding." It is tragic when
clauses of the Bill of Rights.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
we begin to backslide even before we get there.
During the interregnum, the government in power was Second, this is really a corollary of the first. Habits tend to
concededly a revolutionary government bound by no become ingrained. The committee report asks for
constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration extraordinary exceptions from the Bill of Rights for six
orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no months after the convening of Congress, and Congress may
Bill of Rights during the interregnum. However, upon the even extend this longer.
adoption of the Freedom Constitution, the sequestered
companies assailed the sequestration orders as contrary to Good deeds repeated ripen into virtue; bad deeds repeated
the Bill of Rights of the Freedom Constitution. become vice. What the committee report is asking for is that
we should allow the new government to acquire the vice of
In Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co. Inc. v. Presidential disregarding the Bill of Rights.
Page 6 of 28
Vices, once they become ingrained, become difficult to shed. The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory,
The practitioners of the vice begin to think that they have a provides in its Article 17(2) that" [n]o one shall be arbitrarily
vested right to its practice, and they will fight tooth and nail deprived of his property." Although the signatories to the
to keep the franchise. That would be an unhealthy way of Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document,
consolidating the gains of a democratic revolution. being only a declaration, the Court has interpreted the
Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of
Third, the argument that what matters are the results and international law and binding on the State. 46 Thus, the
not the legal niceties is an argument that is very disturbing. revolutionary government was also obligated under
When it comes from a staunch Christian like Commissioner international law to observe the rights 47 of individuals
Salonga, a Minister, and repeated verbatim by another under the Declaration.
staunch Christian like Commissioner Tingson, it becomes
doubly disturbing and even discombobulating. The argument The revolutionary government did not repudiate the
makes the PCGG an auctioneer, placing the Bill of Rights on Covenant or the Declaration during the interregnum.
the auction block. If the price is right, the search and Whether the revolutionary government could have
seizure clause will be sold. "Open your Swiss bank account repudiated all its obligations under the Covenant or the
to us and we will award you the search and seizure clause. Declaration is another matter and is not the issue here.
You can keep it in your private safe." cralaw virtua1aw library Suffice it to say that the Court considers the Declaration as
part of customary international law, and that Filipinos as
Alternatively, the argument looks on the present human beings are proper subjects of the rules of
government as hostage to the hoarders of hidden wealth. international law laid down in the Covenant. The fact is the
The hoarders will release the hidden health if the ransom revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or
price is paid and the ransom price is the Bill of Rights, the Declaration in the same way it repudiated the 1973
specifically the due process in the search and seizure Constitution. As the de jure government, the revolutionary
clauses. So, there is something positively revolving about government could not escape responsibility for the State’s
either argument. The Bill of Rights is not for sale to the good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under
highest bidder nor can it be used to ransom captive dollars. international law.
This nation will survive and grow strong, only if it would
become convinced of the values enshrined in the It was only upon the adoption of the Provisional Constitution
Constitution of a price that is beyond monetary estimation. on 25 March 1986 that the directives and orders of the
revolutionary government became subject to a higher
For these reasons, the honorable course for the municipal law that, if contravened, rendered such directives
Constitutional Commission is to delete all of Section 8 of the and orders void. The Provisional Constitution adopted
committee report and allow the new Constitution to take verbatim the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution. 48 The
effect in full vigor. If Section 8 is deleted, the PCGG has two Provisional Constitution served as a self-limitation by the
options. First, it can pursue the Salonga and the Romulo revolutionary government to avoid abuses of the absolute
argument — that what the PCGG has been doing has been powers entrusted to it by the people.
completely within the pale of the law. If sustained, the PCGG
can go on and should be able to go on, even without the During the interregnum when no constitution or Bill of
support of Section 8. If not sustained, however, the PCGG Rights existed, directives and orders issued by government
has only one honorable option, it must bow to the majesty officers were valid so long as these officers did not exceed
of the Bill of Rights. the authority granted them by the revolutionary
government. The directives and orders should not have also
The PCGG extrapolation of the law is defended by staunch violated the Covenant or the Declaration. In this case, the
Christians. Let me conclude with what another Christian revolutionary government presumptively sanctioned the
replied when asked to toy around with the law. From his warrant since the revolutionary government did not
prison cell, Thomas More said, "I’ll give the devil benefit of repudiate it. The warrant, issued by a judge upon proper
law for my nation’s safety sake." I ask the Commission to application, specified the items to be searched and seized.
give the devil benefit of law for our nation’s sake. And we The warrant is thus valid with respect to the items
should delete Section 8. specifically described in the warrant.
Thank you, Madam President. (Emphasis supplied) However, the Constabulary raiding team seized items not
included in the warrant. As admitted by petitioner’s
Despite the impassioned plea by Commissioner Bernas witnesses, the raiding team confiscated items not included
against the amendment excepting sequestration orders from in the warrant, thus: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Commission still

adopted the amendment as Section 26, 44 Article XVIII of Direct Examination of Capt. Rodolfo Sebastian
the 1987 Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were
fully aware that absent Section 26, sequestration orders AJ AMORES
would not stand the test of due process under the Bill of
Rights. Q. According to the search warrant, you are supposed to
seize only for weapons. What else, aside from the weapons,
Thus, to rule that the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution were seized from the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano?
remained in force during the interregnum, absent a
constitutional provision excepting sequestration orders from A. The communications equipment, money in Philippine
such Bill of Rights, would clearly render all sequestration currency and US dollars, some jewelries, land titles, sir.
orders void during the interregnum. Nevertheless, even
during the interregnum the Filipino people continued to Q. Now, the search warrant speaks only of weapons to be
enjoy, under the Covenant and the Declaration, almost the seized from the house of Elizabeth Dimaano. Do you know
same rights found in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 the reason why your team also seized other properties not
Constitution. mentioned in said search warrant?
The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the A. During the conversation right after the conduct of said
de jure government, assumed responsibility for the State’s raid, I was informed that the reason why they also brought
good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the the other items not included in the search warrant was
Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant because the money and other jewelries were contained in
requires each signatory State "to respect and to ensure to attaché cases and cartons with markings "Sony Trinitron",
all individuals within its territory and subject to its and I think three (3) vaults or steel safes. Believing that the
jurisdiction the rights 45 recognized in the present attaché cases and the steel safes were containing firearms,
Covenant." Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the they forced open these containers only to find out that they
revolutionary government had the duty to insure that" [n]o contained money.
one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence." cralaw virtua1aw library
x x x
Page 7 of 28
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said you found money instead of weapons, do you
know the reason why your team seized this money instead Q. Because the armalite rifle you seized, as well as the .45
of weapons? caliber pistol had a Memorandum Receipt in the name of
Felino Melegrito, is that not correct?
A I think the overall team leader and the other two officers
assisting him decided to bring along also the money because A. I think that was the reason, sir.
at that time it was already dark and they felt most secured if
they will bring that because they might be suspected also of Q. There were other articles seized which were not included
taking money out of those items, your Honor. 49 in the search warrant, like for instance, jewelries. Why did
you seize the jewelries?
Cross-examination
A. I think it was the decision of the overall team leader and
Atty. Banaag his assistant to bring along also the jewelries and other
items, sir. I do not really know where it was taken but they
Q. Were you present when the search warrant in connection brought along also these articles. I do not really know their
with this case was applied before the Municipal Trial Court of reason for bringing the same, but I just learned that these
Batangas, Branch 1? were taken because they might get lost if they will just leave
this behind.
A. Yes, sir.
x x x
Q. And the search warrant applied for by you was for the
search and seizure of five (5) baby armalite rifles M-16 and
five (5) boxes of ammunition? Q. How about the money seized by your raiding team, they
were not also included in the search warrant?
A. Yes, sir.
A. Yes sir; but I believe they were also taken considering
x x x that the money was discovered to be contained in attaché
cases. These attaché cases were suspected to be containing
pistols or other high powered firearms, but in the course of
AJ AMORES the search the contents turned out to be money. So the
team leader also decided to take this considering that they
Q. Before you applied for a search warrant, did you conduct believed that if they will just leave the money behind, it
surveillance in the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? might get lost also.
A. The Intelligence Operatives conducted surveillance Q. That holds true also with respect to the other articles that
together with the MSU elements, your Honor. were seized by your raiding team, like Transfer Certificates
of Title of lands?
Q. And this party believed there were weapons deposited in
the house of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? A. Yes, sir. I think they were contained in one of the vaults
that were opened. 51
A. Yes, your Honor.
It is obvious from the testimony of Captain Sebastian that
Q. And they so swore before the Municipal Trial Judge? the warrant did not include the monies, communications
equipment, jewelry and land titles that the raiding team
A. Yes, your Honor. confiscated. The search warrant did not particularly describe
these items and the raiding team confiscated them on its
Q. But they did not mention to you, the applicant for the own authority. The raiding team had no legal basis to seize
search warrant, any other properties or contraband which these items without showing that these items could be the
could be found in the residence of Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? subject of warrantless search and seizure. 52 Clearly, the
raiding team exceeded its authority when it seized these
A. They just gave us still unconfirmed report about some items.
hidden items, for instance, the communications equipment
and money. However, I did not include that in the The seizure of these items was therefore void, and unless
application for search warrant considering that we have not these items are contraband per se, 53 and they are not,
established concrete evidence about that. So when . . . they must be returned to the person from whom the raiding
seized them. However, we do not declare that such person
Q. So that when you applied for search warrant, you had is the lawful owner of these items, merely that the search
reason to believe that only weapons were in the house of and seizure warrant could not be used as basis to seize and
Miss Elizabeth Dimaano? withhold these items from the possessor. We thus hold that
these items should be returned immediately to Dimaano.
A. Yes, your Honor. 50
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. The
x x x questioned Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated 18
November 1991 and 25 March 1992 in Civil Case No. 0037,
remanding the records of this case to the Ombudsman for
Q. You stated that a .45 caliber pistol was seized along with such appropriate action as the evidence may warrant, and
one armalite rifle M-16 and how many ammunition? referring this case to the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue for a determination of any tax liability of
A. Forty, sir. respondent Elizabeth Dimaano, are AFFIRMED. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Q. And this became the subject of your complaint with the SO ORDERED.
issuing Court, with the fiscal’s office who charged Elizabeth
Dimaano for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition? Bellosillo, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr. and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
A. Yes, sir.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
Q. Do you know what happened to that case? concur in the result.
A. I think it was dismissed, sir. Quisumbing and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., on official leave.
Q. In the fiscal’s office? Separate Opinions
Page 8 of 28
it to the facts of the case at bar. Tracking down the elusive
law that will govern the case at bar will take us to the
PUNO, J.: labyrinths of philosophy and history. To be sure, the
difficulty of the case at bar lies less in the application of the
law, but more in finding the applicable law. I shall take up
While I concur in the result of the ponencia of Mr. Justice the challenge even if the route takes negotiating, but
Carpio, the ruling on whether or not private respondent without trespassing, on political and religious thickets. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
Dimaano could invoke her rights against unreasonable

search and seizure and to the exclusion of evidence II. Natural Law and Natural Rights
resulting therefrom compels this humble opinion. The
ponencia states that" (t)he correct issue is whether the Bill As early as the Greek civilization, man has alluded to a
of Rights was operative during the interregnum from higher, natural standard or law to which a state and its laws
February 26, 1986 (the day Corazon C. Aquino took her oath must conform. Sophocles unmistakably articulates this in his
as President) to March 24, 1986 (immediately before the poignant literary piece, Antigone. In this mid-fifth century
adoption of the Freedom Constitution)." 1 The majority Athenian tragedy, a civil war divided two brothers, one died
holds that the Bill of Rights was not operative, thus private defending Thebes, and the other, Polyneices, died attacking
respondent Dimaano cannot invoke the right against it. The king forbade Polyneices’ burial, commanding instead
unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusionary right that his body be left to be devoured by beasts. But
as her house was searched and her properties were seized according to Greek religious ideas, only a burial — even a
during the interregnum or on March 3, 1986. My token one with a handful of earth — could give repose to his
disagreement is not with the ruling that the Bill of Rights soul. Moved by piety, Polyneices’ sister, Antigone, disobeyed
was not operative at that time, but with the conclusion that the command of the king and buried the body. She was
the private respondent has lost and cannot invoke the right arrested. Brought before the king who asks her if she knew
against unreasonable search and seizure and the of his command and why she disobeyed, Antigone replies: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
exclusionary right. Using a different lens in viewing the

problem at hand, I respectfully submit that the crucial issue ". . . These laws were not ordained of Zeus,
for resolution is whether she can invoke these rights in the
absence of a constitution under the extraordinary And she who sits enthroned with gods below,
circumstances after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. The question
boggles the intellect, and is interesting, to say the least, Justice, enacted not these human laws.
perhaps even to those not half-interested in the law. But the
question of whether the Filipinos were bereft of fundamental Nor did I deem that thou, a mortal man,
rights during the one month interregnum is not as
perplexing as the question of whether the world was without Couldst by a breath annul and override
a God in the three days that God the Son descended into the
dead before He rose to life. Nature abhors a vacuum and so The immutable unwritten laws of heaven.
does the law.
They were not born today nor yesterday;
I. Prologue
They die not; and none knoweth whence they sprang." 4
The ponencia suggests that the Constitution, the Bill of
Rights in particular, is the only source of rights, hence in its Antigone was condemned to be buried alive for violating the
absence, private respondent Dimaano cannot invoke her order of the king. 5
rights against unreasonable search and seizure and to the
exclusion of evidence obtained therefrom. Pushing the Aristotle also wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics: "Of political
ponencia’s line of reasoning to the extreme will result in the justice part is natural, part legal — natural, that which
conclusion that during the one month interregnum, the everywhere has the same force and does not exist by
people lost their constitutionally guaranteed rights to life, people’s thinking this or that; legal, that which is originally
liberty and property and the revolutionary government was indifferent, but when it has been laid down is not indifferent,
not bound by the strictures of due process of law. Even e.g. that a prisoner’s ransom shall be mina, or that a goat
before appealing to history and philosophy, reason shouts and not two sheep shall be sacrificed, and again all the laws
otherwise. that are passed for particular cases, . . ." 6 Aristotle states
that" (p)articular law is that which each community lays
The ponencia recognized the EDSA Revolution as a down and applies to its own members: this is partly written
"successful revolution" 2 that installed the Aquino and partly unwritten. Universal law is the law of Nature. For
government. There is no right to revolt in the 1973 there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a
Constitution, in force prior to February 23–25, 1986. natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even
Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that under natural law, on those who have no association or covenant with each
the right of revolution is an inherent right of the people. other. It is this that Sophocles’ Antigone clearly means when
Thus, we justified the creation of a new legal order after the she says that the burial of Polyneices was a just act in spite
1986 EDSA Revolution, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
of the prohibition: she means that it was just by nature." 7
"From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution Later, the Roman orator Cicero wrote of natural law in the
has been defined as ‘an inherent right of a people to cast first century B.C. in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms

in their system of government or institutions by force or a "True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of
general uprising when the legal and constitutional methods universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it
of making such change have proved inadequate or are so summons to duty by its commands, and averts from
obstructed as to be unavailable.’ (H. Black, Handbook of wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its
American Constitutional Law II, 4th edition, 1927) It has commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though
been said that ‘the locus of positive law-making power lies neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to
with the people of the state’ and from there is derived ‘the alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any
right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We
existing form of government without regard to the existing cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people,
constitution.’ (’Political Rights as Political Questions, The and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or
Paradox of Luther v. Borden’, 100 Harvard Law Review interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome
1125, 1133 [1987])" 3 and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but
one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all
It is my considered view that under this same natural law, nations and at all times, and there will be one master and
private respondent Dimaano has a right against ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this
unreasonable search and seizure and to exclude evidence law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is
obtained as a consequence of such illegal act. To explain my disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human
thesis, I will first lay down the relevant law before applying nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the
Page 9 of 28
worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly as it partakes of the rule or measure. Thus, since all things
considered punishment." 8 governed by Divine Providence are regulated and measured
by the eternal law, then all things partake of or participate
This allusion to an eternal, higher, and universal natural law to a certain extent in the eternal law; they receive from it
continues from classical antiquity to this day. The face of certain inclinations towards their proper actions and ends.
natural law, however, has changed throughout the classical, Being rational, however, the participation of a human being
medieval, modern, and contemporary periods of history. in the Divine Providence, is most excellent because he
participates in providence itself, providing for himself and
In the medieval times, shortly after 1139, Gratian published others. He participates in eternal reason itself and through
the Decretum, a collection and reconciliation of the canon this, he possesses a natural inclination to right action and
laws in force, which distinguished between divine or natural right end. This participation of the rational creature in the
law and human law. Similar to the writings of the earliest eternal law is called natural law. Hence, the psalmist says:
Church Fathers, he related this natural law to the Decalogue "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us,
and to Christ’s commandment of love of one’s neighbor. thus implying that the light of natural reason, by which we
"The law of nature is that which is contained in the Law and discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function
the Gospel, by which everyone is commanded to do unto of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of
others as he would wish to be done unto him, and is the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law
prohibited from doing unto others that which he would be is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in
unwilling to be done unto himself." 9 This natural law the eternal law." 22 In a few words, the "natural law is a
precedes in time and rank all things, such that statutes rule of reason, promulgated by God in man’s nature,
whether ecclesiastical or secular, if contrary to law, were to whereby man can discern how he should act." 23
be held null and void. 10
Through natural reason, we are able to distinguish between
The following century saw a shift from a natural law concept right and wrong; through free will, we are able to choose
that was revelation-centered to a concept related to man’s what is right. When we do so, we participate more fully in
reason and what was discoverable by it, under the influence the eternal law rather than being merely led blindly to our
of Aristotle’s writings which were coming to be known in the proper end. We are able to choose that end and make our
West. William of Auxerre acknowledged the human capacity compliance with eternal law an act of self-direction. In this
to recognize good and evil and God’s will, and made reason manner, the law becomes in us a rule and measure and no
the criterion of natural law. Natural law was thus id quod longer a rule and measure imposed from an external source.
naturalis ratio sine omni deliberatione aut sine magna dictat 24 The question that comes to the fore then is what is this
esse faciendum or "that which natural reason, without much end to which natural law directs rational creatures?
or even any need of reflection, tells us what we must do."
11 Similarly, Alexander of Hales saw human reason as the The first self-evident principle of natural law is that "good is
basis for recognizing natural law 12 and St. Bonaventure to be pursued and done, and evil is to be avoided. All other
wrote that what natural reason commands is called the precepts of the natural law are based upon this, so that
natural law. 13 By the thirteenth century, natural law was whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as
understood as the law of right reason, coinciding with the man’s good (or evil) belongs to the precept of the natural
biblical law but not derived from it. 14 law as something to be done or avoided." 25 Because good
is to be sought and evil avoided, and good is that which is in
Of all the medieval philosophers, the Italian St. Thomas accord with the nature of a given creature or the
Aquinas is indisputably regarded as the most important performance of a creature’s proper function, then the
proponent of traditional natural law theory. He created a important question to answer is what is human nature or the
comprehensive and organized synthesis of the natural law proper function of man. Those to which man has a natural
theory which rests on both the classical (in particular, inclination are naturally apprehended by reason as good and
Aristotelian philosophy) and Christian foundation, i.e., on must thus be pursued, while their opposites are evil which
reason and revelation. 15 His version of the natural law must be avoided. 26 Aquinas identifies the basic inclinations
theory rests on his vision of the universe as governed by a of man as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
single, self-consistent and overarching system of law under

the direction and authority of God as the supreme lawgiver "1. To seek the good, including his highest good, which is
and judge. 16 Aquinas defined law as "an ordinance of eternal happiness with God. 27
reason for the common good, made by him who has care of
the community, and promulgated." 17 There are four kinds 2. To preserve himself in existence.
of laws in his natural law theory: eternal, natural, human,
and divine. 3. To preserve the species — that is, to unite sexually.
First, eternal law. To Aquinas, a law is a dictate of practical 4. To live in community with other men.
reason (which provides practical directions on how one
ought to act as opposed to "speculative reason" which 5. To use his intellect and will — that is, to know the truth
provides propositional knowledge of the way things are) and to make his own decision." 28
emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community.
18 Presupposing that Divine Providence rules the universe, As living creatures, we have an interest in self-preservation;
and Divine Providence governs by divine reason, then the as animals, in procreation; and as rational creatures, in
rational guidance of things in God the Ruler of the universe living in society and exercising our intellectual and spiritual
has the nature of a law. And since the divine reason’s capacities in the pursuit of knowledge." 29 God put these
conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, this inclinations in human nature to help man achieve his final
kind of law is called eternal law. 19 In other words, eternal end of eternal happiness. With an understanding of these
law is that law which is a "dictate" of God’s reason. It is the inclinations in our human nature, we can determine by
external aspect of God’s perfect wisdom, or His wisdom practical reason what is good for us and what is bad. 30 In
applied to His creation. 20 Eternal law consists of those this sense, natural law is an ordinance of reason. 31
principles of action that God implanted in creation to enable Proceeding from these inclinations, we can apply the natural
each thing to perform its proper function in the overall order law by deduction, thus: good should be done; this action is
of the universe. The proper function of a thing determines good; this action should therefore be done. 32 Concretely, it
what is good and bad for it: the good consists of performing is good for humans to live peaceably with one another in
its function while the bad consists of failing to perform it. society, thus this dictates the prohibition of actions such as
21 killing and stealing that harm society. 33
Then, natural law. This consists of principles of eternal law From the precepts of natural law, human reason needs to
which are specific to human beings as rational creatures. proceed to the more particular determinations or specialized
Aquinas explains that law, as a rule and measure, can be in regulations to declare what is required in particular cases
a person in two ways: in one way, it can be in him that rules considering society’s specific circumstances. These particular
and measures; and in another way, in that which is ruled determinations, arrived at by human reason, are called
and measured since a thing is ruled and measured in so far human laws (Aquinas’ positive law). They are necessary to
Page 10 of 28
clarify the demands of natural law. Aquinas identifies two right of succession to the English throne and the Whig
ways by which something may be derived from natural law: Revolution of 1688–89 by which James II was dethroned
first, like in science, demonstrated conclusions are drawn and replaced by William and Mary under terms which
from principles; and second, as in the arts, general forms weakened the power of the crown and strengthened the
are particularized as to details like the craftsman power of the Parliament. 44
determining the general form of a house to a particular
shape. 34 Thus, according to Aquinas, some things are Locke explained his political theory in his major work,
derived from natural law by way of conclusion (such as "one Second Treatise of Government, originally published in
must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the 1690, 45 where he adopted the modern view that human
principle that "one should do harm to no man") while some beings enjoyed natural rights in the state of nature, before
are derived by way of determination (such as the law of the formation of civil or political society. In this state of
nature has it that the evildoer should be punished, but that nature, it is self-evident that all persons are naturally in a
he be punished in this or that way is not directly by natural "state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose
law but is a derived determination of it). 35 Aquinas says of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within
that both these modes of derivation are found in the human the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or
law. But those things derived as a conclusion are contained depending upon the will of any other man." 46 Likewise, in
in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but the state of nature, it was self-evident that all persons were
having some force also from the natural law. But those in a state of equality, "wherein all the power and jurisdiction
things which are derived in the second manner have no is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being
other force than that of human law. 36 nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same
species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same
Finally, there is divine law which is given by God, i.e., the advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties,
Old Testament and the New Testament. This is necessary to should also be equal one amongst another without
direct human life for four reasons. First, through law, man is subordination or subjection . . ." 47 Locke quickly added,
directed to proper actions towards his proper end. This end, however, that though all persons are in a state of liberty, it
which is eternal happiness and salvation, is not is not a state of license for the "state of nature has a law of
proportionate to his natural human power, making it nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,
necessary for him to be directed not just by natural and which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult
human law but by divinely given law. Secondly, because of it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to
uncertainty in human judgment, different people form harm another in his life health, liberty, or possessions . . ."
different judgments on human acts, resulting in different 48 Locke also alludes to an "omnipotent, and infinitely wise
and even contrary laws. So that man may know for certain maker" whose "workmanship they (mankind) are, made to
what he ought to do and avoid, it was necessary for man to last during his (the maker’s) . . . pleasure." 49 In other
be directed in his proper acts by a God-given law for it is words, through reason, with which human beings arrive at
certain that such law cannot err. Thirdly, human law can the law of nature prescribing certain moral conduct, each
only judge the external actions of persons. However, person can realize that he has a natural right and duty to
perfection of virtue consists in man conducting himself right ensure his own survival and well-being in the world and a
in both his external acts and in his interior motives. The related duty to respect the same right in others, and
divine law thus supervenes to see and judge both preserve mankind. 50 Through reason, human beings are
dimensions. Fourthly, because human law cannot punish or capable of recognizing the need to treat others as free,
forbid all evils, since in aiming to do away with all evils it independent and equal as all individuals are equally
would do away with many good things and would hinder the concerned with ensuring their own lives, liberties and
advancement of the common good necessary for human properties. 51 In this state of nature, the execution of the
development, divine law is needed. 37 For example, if law of nature is placed in the hands of every individual who
human law forbade backbiting gossip, in order to enforce has a right to punish transgressors of the law of nature to
such a law, privacy and trust that is necessary between an extent that will hinder its violation. 52 It may be
spouses and friends would be severely restricted. Because gathered from Locke’s political theory that the rights to life,
the price paid to enforce the law would outweigh the health, liberty and property are natural rights, hence each
benefits, gossiping ought to be left to God to be judged and individual has a right to be free from violent death, from
punished. Thus, with divine law, no evil would remain arbitrary restrictions of his person and from theft of his
unforbidden and unpunished. 38 property. 53 In addition, every individual has a natural right
to defend oneself from and punish those who violate the law
Aquinas’ traditional natural law theory has been advocated, of nature.
recast and restated by other scholars up to the
contemporary period. 39 But clearly, what has had a But although the state of nature is somewhat of an Eden
pervading and lasting impact on the Western philosophy of before the fall, there are two harsh "inconveniences" in it, as
law and government, particularly on that of the United Locke puts them, which adversely affect the exercise of
States of America which heavily influenced the Philippine natural rights. First, natural law being an unwritten code of
system of government and constitution, is the modern moral conduct, it might sometimes be ignored if the
natural law theory.chanrobles.com.ph : red personal interests of certain individuals are involved.
Second, without any written laws, and without any
In the traditional natural law theory, among which was established judges or magistrates, persons may be judges in
Aquinas’, the emphasis was placed on moral duties of man their own cases and self-love might make them partial to
— both rulers and subjects — rather than on rights of the their side. On the other hand, ill nature, passion and
individual citizen. Nevertheless, from this medieval revenge might make them too harsh to the other side.
theoretical background developed modern natural law Hence, "nothing but confusion and disorder will follow." 54
theories associated with the gradual development in Europe These circumstances make it necessary to establish and
of modern secular territorial state. These theories enter a civil society by mutual agreement among the people
increasingly veered away from medieval theological in the state of nature, i.e., based on a social contract
trappings 40 and gave particular emphasis to the individual founded on trust and consent. Locke writes: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
and his natural rights. 41

"The only way whereby any one divests himself of his
One far-reaching school of thought on natural rights natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by
emerged with the political philosophy of the English man, agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community
John Locke. In the traditional natural law theory such as for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one
Aquinas’, the monarchy was not altogether disfavored amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties
because as Aquinas says, "the rule of one man is more (used in the broad sense, referring to life, liberty and
useful than the rule of the many" to achieve "the unity of property) and a greater security against any, that are not of
peace." 42 Quite different from Aquinas, Locke emphasized it." 55
that in any form of government, "ultimate sovereignty
rested in the people and all legitimate government was This collective agreement then culminated in the
based on the consent of the governed." 43 His political establishment of a civil government. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
theory was used to justify resistance to Charles II over the
Page 11 of 28
Three important consequences of Locke’s theory on the superior right of the individual which the government should
origin of civil government and its significance to the natural preserve. 67
rights of individual subjects should be noted. First, since it
was the precariousness of the individual’s enjoyment of his Locke’s ideas undoubtedly influenced Thomas Jefferson, the
natural and equal right to life, liberty, and property that eminent statesman and "philosopher of the (American)
justified the establishment of civil government, then the revolution and of the first constitutional order which free
"central, overriding purpose of civil government was to men were permitted to establish." 68 Jefferson espoused
protect and preserve the individual’s natural rights. For just Locke’s theory that man is free in the state of nature. But
as the formation by individuals of civil or political society while Locke limited the authority of the state with the
had arisen from their desire to ‘unite for the mutual doctrine of natural rights, Jefferson’s originality was in his
Preservation of their Lives, Liberties and Estates, which I use of this doctrine as basis for a fundamental law or
(Locke) call by the general name, Property,’ 56 so, too, did constitution established by the people. 69 To obviate the
the same motive underlie — in the second stage of the danger that the government would limit natural liberty more
social contract — their collective decision to institute civil than necessary to afford protection to the governed, thereby
government." 57 Locke thus maintains, again using the term becoming a threat to the very natural liberty it was designed
"property" in the broad sense, that," (t)he great and chief to protect, people had to stipulate in their constitution which
end, therefore, of men’s uniting into common-wealths, and natural rights they sacrificed and which not, as it was
putting themselves under government, is the preservation of important for them to retain those portions of their natural
their property." 58 Secondly, the central purpose that has liberty that were inalienable, that facilitated the preservation
brought a civil government into existence, i.e., the of freedom, or that simply did not need to be sacrificed. 70
protection of the individual’s natural rights, sets firm limits Two ideas are therefore fundamental in the constitution: one
on the political authority of the civil government. A is the regulation of the form of government and the other,
government that violates the natural rights of its subjects the securing of the liberties of the people. 71 Thus, the
has betrayed their trust, vested in it when it was first American Constitution may be understood as comprising
established, thereby undermining its own authority and three elements. First, it creates the structure and authority
losing its claim to the subjects’ obedience. Third and finally, of a republican form of government; second, it provides a
individual subjects have a right of last resort to collectively division of powers among the different parts of the national
resist or rebel against and overthrow a government that has government and the checks and balances of these powers;
failed to discharge its duty of protecting the people’s natural and third, it inhibits government’s power vis-à-vis the rights
rights and has instead abused its powers by acting in an of individuals, rights existent and potential, patent and
arbitrary or tyrannical manner. The overthrow of latent. These three parts have one prime objective: to
government, however, does not lead to dissolution of civil uphold the liberty of the people. 72
society which came into being before the establishment of
civil government. 59 But while the constitution guarantees and protects the
fundamental rights of the people, it should be stressed that
Locke’s ideas, along with other modern natural law and it does not create them. As held by many of the American
natural rights theories, have had a profound impact on Revolution patriots, "liberties do not result from charters;
American political and legal thought. American law professor charters rather are in the nature of declarations of pre-
Philip Hamburger observes that American natural law existing rights." 73 John Adams, one of the patriots, claimed
scholars generally agree "that natural law consisted of that natural rights are founded "in the frame of human
reasoning about humans in the state of nature (or absence nature, rooted in the constitution of the intellect and moral
of government)" and tend "to emphasize that they were world." 74 Thus, it is said of natural rights vis-à-vis the
reasoning from the equal freedom of humans and the need constitution:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
of humans to preserve themselves." 60 As individuals are

equally free, they did not have the right to infringe the equal ". . . (t)hey exist before constitutions and independently of
rights of others; even self-preservation typically required them. Constitutions enumerate such rights and provide
individuals to cooperate so as to avoid doing unto others against their deprivation or infringement, but do not create
what they would not have others do unto them. 61 With them. It is supposed that all power, all rights, and all
Locke’s theory of natural law as foundation, these American authority are vested in the people before they form or adopt
scholars agree on the well-known analysis of how individuals a constitution. By such an instrument, they create a
preserved their liberty by forming government, i.e., that in government, and define and limit the powers which the
order to address the insecurity and precariousness of one’s constitution is to secure and the government respect. But
life, liberty and property in the state of nature, individuals, they do not thereby invest the citizens of the commonwealth
in accordance with the principle of self-preservation, gave with any natural rights that they did not before possess." 75
up a portion of their natural liberty to civil government to (Emphasis supplied)
enable it "to preserve the residue." 62 "People must cede to
[government] some of their natural rights, in order to vest it A constitution is described as follows: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
with powers." 63 That individuals "give up a part of their

natural rights to secure the rest" in the modern natural law "A Constitution is not the beginning of a community, nor the
sense is said to be "an old hackneyed and well known origin of private rights; it is not the fountain of law, nor the
principle" 64 thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph incipient state of government; it is not the cause, but
consequence, of personal and political freedom; it grants no
"That Man, on entering into civil society, of necessity, rights to the people, but is the creature of their power, the
sacrifices a part of his natural liberty, has been pretty instrument of their convenience. Designed for their
universally taken for granted by writers on government. protection in the enjoyment of the rights and powers which
They seem, in general, not to have admitted a doubt of the they possessed before the Constitution was made, it is but
truth of the proposition. One feels as though it was treading the framework of the political government, and necessarily
on forbidden ground, to attempt a refutation of what has based upon the preexisting condition of laws, rights, habits
been advanced by a Locke, a Bacari[a], and some other and modes of thought. There is nothing primitive in it; it is
writers and statesmen." 65 all derived from a known source. It presupposes an
organized society, law, order, propriety, personal freedom, a
But, while Locke’s theory showed the necessity of civil love of political liberty, and enough of cultivated intelligence
society and government, it was careful to assert and protect to know how to guard against the encroachments of
the individual’s rights against government invasion, thus tyranny." 76 (Emphasis supplied)
implying a theory of limited government that both restricted
the role of the state to protect the individual’s fundamental That Locke’s modern natural law and rights theory was
natural rights to life, liberty and property and prohibited the influential to those who framed and ratified the United
state, on moral grounds, from violating those rights. 66 The States constitution and served as its theoretical foundation
natural rights theory, which is the characteristic American is undeniable. 77 In a letter in which George Washington
interpretation of natural law, serves as the foundation of the formally submitted the Constitution to Congress in
well-entrenched concept of limited .government in the September 1787, he spoke of the difficulties of drafting the
United States. It provides the theoretical basis of the document in words borrowed from the standard eighteenth-
formulation of limits on political authority vis-à-vis the century natural rights analysis: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Page 12 of 28
are acquired rights which can only exist under civil
"Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of government. 92
liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice
must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on In his Constitutional Law, Black states that natural rights
the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw may be used to describe those rights which belong to man
with precision the line between those rights which must be by virtue of his nature and depend upon his personality. "His
surrendered, and those which may be reserved . . .." 78 existence as an individual human being, clothed with certain
(Emphasis supplied) attributes, invested with certain capacities, adapted to
certain kind of life, and possessing a certain moral and
Natural law is thus to be understood not as a residual source physical nature, entitles him, without the aid of law, to such
of constitutional rights but instead, as the reasoning that rights as are necessary to enable him to continue his
implied the necessity to sacrifice natural liberty to existence, develop his faculties, pursue and achieve his
government in a written constitution. Natural law and destiny." 93 An example of a natural right is the right to life.
natural rights were concepts that explained and justified In an organized society, natural rights must be protected by
written constitutions. 79 law, "and although they owe to the law neither their
existence nor their sacredness, yet they are effective only
With the establishment of civil government and a when recognized and sanctioned by law." 94 Civil rights
constitution, there arises a conceptual distinction between include natural rights as they are taken into the sphere of
natural rights and civil rights, difficult though to define their law. However, there are civil rights which are not natural
scope and delineation. It has been proposed that natural rights such as the right of trial by jury. This right is not
rights are those rights that "appertain to man in right of his founded in the nature of man, nor does it depend on
existence." 80 These were fundamental rights endowed by personality, but it falls under the definition of civil rights
God upon human beings, "all those rights of acting as an which are the rights secured by the constitution to all its
individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not citizens or inhabitants not connected with the organization
injurious to the natural rights of others." 81 On the other or administration of government which belong to the domain
hand, civil rights are those that "appertain to man in right of of political rights. "Natural rights are the same all the world
his being a member of society." 82 These rights, however, over, though they may not be given the fullest recognition
are derived from the natural rights of individuals since: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph under all governments. Civil rights which are not natural
rights will vary in different states or countries." 95
"Man did not enter into society to become worse off than he
was before, nor to have fewer rights than he had before, but From the foregoing definitions and distinctions, we can
to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are gather that the inclusions in and exclusions from the scope
the foundation of all his rights." 83 of natural rights and civil rights are not well-defined. This is
understandable because these definitions are derived from
Civil rights, in this sense, were those natural rights — the nature of man which, in its profundity, depth, and
particularly rights to security and protection — which by fluidity, cannot simply and completely be grasped and
themselves, individuals could not safeguard, rather requiring categorized. Thus, phrases such as "rights appertain(ing) to
the collective support of civil society and government. Thus, man in right of his existence", or "rights which are a portion
it is said:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph of man’s undifferentiated natural liberty, broadly categorized
as the rights to life, liberty, and property; or life, liberty and
"Every civil right has for its foundation, some natural right the pursuit of happiness", or "rights that belong to man by
pre-existing in the individual, but to the enjoyment of which virtue of his nature and depend upon his personality" serve
his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently as guideposts in identifying a natural right. Nevertheless,
competent." 84 although the definitions of natural right and civil right are
not uniform and exact, we can derive from the foregoing
The distinction between natural and civil rights is "between definitions that natural rights exist prior to constitutions,
that class of natural rights which man retains after entering and may be contained in and guaranteed by them. Once
into society, and those which he throws into the common these natural rights enter the constitutional or statutory
stock as a member of society." 85 The natural rights sphere, they likewise acquire the character of civil rights in
retained by the individuals after entering civil society were the broad sense (as opposed to civil rights distinguished
"all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind," 86 i.e., the from political rights), without being stripped of their nature
rights to freedom of thought, to freedom of religious belief as natural rights. There are, however, civil rights which are
and to freedom of expression in its various forms. The not natural rights but are merely created and protected by
individual could exercise these rights without government the constitution or other law such as the right to a jury
assistance, but government has the role of protecting these trial.
natural rights from interference by others and of desisting

from itself infringing such rights. Government should also Long after Locke conceived of his ideas of natural rights,
enable individuals to exercise more effectively the natural civil society, and civil government, his concept of natural
rights they had exchanged for civil rights — like the rights to rights continued to flourish in the modern and contemporary
security and protection — when they entered into civil period. About a hundred years after the Treatise of
society. 87 Government, Locke’s natural law and rights theory was
restated by the eighteenth-century political thinker and
American natural law scholars in the 1780s and early 1790s activist, Thomas Paine. He wrote his classic text, The Rights
occasionally specified which rights were natural and which of Man, Part 1 where he argued that the central purpose of
were not. On the Lockean assumption that the state of all governments was to protect the natural and
nature was a condition in which all humans were equally imprescriptible rights of man. Citing the 1789 French
free from subjugation to one another and had no common Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, Paine
superior, American scholars tended to agree that natural identified these rights as the right to liberty, property,
liberty was the freedom of individuals in the state of nature. security and resistance of oppression. All other civil and
88 Natural rights were understood to be simply a portion of political rights — such as to limits on government, to
this undifferentiated natural liberty and were often broadly freedom to choose a government, to freedom of speech, and
categorized as the rights to life, liberty, and property; or to fair taxation — were derived from those fundamental
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. More specifically, natural rights. 96
they identified as natural rights the free exercise of religion,
freedom of conscience, 89 freedom of speech and press, Paine inspired and actively assisted the American Revolution
right to self-defense, right to bear arms, right to assemble and defended the French Revolution. His views were echoed
and right to one’s reputation. 90 In contrast, certain other by the authors of the American and the French declarations
rights, such as habeas corpus and jury rights, do not exist in that accompanied these democratic revolutions. 97 The
the state of nature, but exist only under the laws of civil American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the
government or the constitution because they are essential revolutionary manifesto of the thirteen newly-independent
for restraining government. 91 They are called civil rights states of America that were formerly colonies of Britain,
not only in the sense that they are protected by reads: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
constitutions or other laws, but also in the sense that they
Page 13 of 28
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Optional Protocol to the Civil and Political Rights providing
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these for the mechanism of checking state compliance to the
Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving international human rights instruments such as through a
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that reportorial requirement among governments. These treaties
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of entered into force on March 23, 1976 104 and are binding as
these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish international law upon governments subscribing to them.
it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation Although admittedly, there will be differences in interpreting
on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form particular statements of rights and freedoms in these United
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Nations instruments "in the light of varied cultures and
Happiness." 98 (Emphasis supplied) historical traditions, the basis of the covenants is a common
agreement on the fundamental objective of the dignity and
His phrase "rights of man" was used in the 1789 French worth of the human person. Such agreement is implied in
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens, proclaimed adherence to the (United Nations) Charter and corresponds
by the French Constituent Assembly in August 1789, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph to the universal urge for freedom and dignity which strives
for expression, despite varying degrees of culture and
"The representatives of the French people, constituted in a civilization and despite the countervailing forces of
National Assembly, considering that ignorance, oblivion or repression and authoritarianism." 105
contempt of the Rights of Man are the only causes of public
misfortunes and of the corruption of governments, have Human rights and fundamental freedoms were affirmed by
resolved to lay down in a solemn Declaration, the natural, the United Nations Organization in the different instruments
inalienable and sacred Rights of Man, in order that this embodying these rights not just as a solemn protest against
Declaration, being always before all the members of the the Nazi-fascist method of government, but also as a
Social Body, should constantly remind them of their Rights recognition that the "security of individual rights, like the
and their Duties . . ." 99 (Emphasis supplied) security of national rights, was a necessary requisite to a
peaceful and stable world order." 106 Moskowitz wrote: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Thereafter, the phrase "rights of man" gradually replaced

"natural rights" in the latter period of the eighteenth "The legitimate concern of the world community with human
century, thus removing the theological assumptions of rights and fundamental freedoms stems in large part from
medieval natural law theories. After the American and the close relation they bear to the peace and stability of the
French Revolutions, the doctrine of the rights of man world. World War II and its antecedents, as well as
became embodied not only in succinct declarations of rights, contemporary events, clearly demonstrate the peril inherent
but also in new constitutions which emphasized the need to in the doctrine which accepts the state as the sole arbiter in
uphold the natural rights of the individual citizen against questions pertaining to the rights and freedoms of the
other individuals and particularly against the state itself. citizen. The absolute power exercised by a government over
100 its citizens is not only a source of disorder in the
international community; it can no longer be accepted as
Considerable criticism was, however, hurled against natural the only guaranty of orderly social existence at home. But
law and natural rights theories, especially by the logical orderly social existence is ultimately a matter which rests in
positivist thinkers, as these theories were not empirically the hands of the citizen. Unless the citizen can assert his
verifiable. Nevertheless, the concept of natural rights or human rights and fundamental freedoms against his own
rights of man regained force and influence in the 1940s government under the protection of the international
because of the growing awareness of the wide scale community, he remains at the mercy of the superior power."
violation of such rights perpetrated by the Nazi dictatorship 107
in Germany. The British leader Winston Churchill and the
American leader Franklin Roosevelt stated in the preface of Similar to natural rights and civil rights, human rights as the
their Atlantic Charter in 1942 that "complete victory over refurbished idea of natural right in the 1940s, eludes
their enemies is essential to decent life, liberty, definition. The usual definition that it is the right which
independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human inheres in persons from the fact of their humanity seemingly
rights and justice, in their own land as well as in other begs the question. Without doubt, there are certain rights
lands." (Emphasis supplied) This time, natural right was and freedoms so fundamental as to be inherent and natural
recast in the idea of "human rights" which belong to every such as the integrity of the person and equality of persons
human being by virtue of his or her humanity. The idea before the law which should be guaranteed by all
superseded the traditional concept of rights based on constitutions of all civilized countries and effectively
notions of God-given natural law and of social contract. protected by their laws. 108 It is nearly universally agreed
Instead, the refurbished idea of "human rights" was based that some of those rights are religious toleration, a general
on the assumption that each individual person was entitled right to dissent, and freedom from arbitrary punishment.
to an equal degree of respect as a human being. 101 109 It is not necessarily the case, however, that what the
law guarantees as a human right in one country should also
With this historical backdrop, the United Nations be guaranteed by law in all other countries. Some human
Organization published in 1948 its Universal Declaration of rights might be considered fundamental in some countries,
Human Rights (UDHR) as a systematic attempt to secure but not in others. For example, trial by jury which we have
universal recognition of a whole gamut of human rights. The earlier cited as an example of a civil right which is not a
Declaration affirmed the importance of civil and political natural right, is a basic human right in the United States
rights such as the rights to life, liberty, property; equality protected by its constitution, but not so in Philippine
before the law; privacy; a fair trial; freedom of speech and jurisdiction. 110 Similar to natural rights, the definition of
assembly, of movement, of religion, of participation in human rights is derived from human nature, thus
government directly or indirectly; the right to political understandably not exact. The definition that it is a "right
asylum, and the absolute right not to be tortured. Aside which inheres in persons from the fact of their humanity",
from these, but more controversially, it affirmed the however, can serve as a guideline to identify human rights.
importance of social and economic rights. 102 The UDHR is It seems though that the concept of human rights is
not a treaty and its provisions are not binding law, but it is a broadest as it encompasses a human person’s natural rights
compromise of conflicting ideological, philosophical, political, (e.g., religious freedom) and civil rights created by law (e.g.
economic, social and juridical ideas which resulted from the right to trial by jury).
collective effort of 58 states on matters generally considered

desirable and imperative. It may be viewed as a "blending In sum, natural law and natural rights are not relic theories
(of) the deepest convictions and ideals of different for academic discussion, but have had considerable
civilizations into one universal expression of faith in the application and influence. Natural law and natural rights
rights of man." 103 theories have played an important role in the Declaration of
Independence, the Abolition (anti-slavery) movement, and
On December 16, 1966, the United Nations General parts of the modern Civil Rights movement. 111 In charging
Assembly adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Nazi and Japanese leaders with "crimes against humanity"
Page 14 of 28
at the end of the Second World War, Allied tribunals in 1945 Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights
invoked the traditional concept of natural law to override the capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action."
defense that those charged had only been obeying the laws 130
of the regimes they served. 112 Likewise, natural law, albeit
called by another name such as "substantive due process" Guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious
which is grounded on reason and fairness, has served as persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and
legal standard for international law, centuries of imprisonment for debt are also identified as civil rights. 131
development in the English common law, and certain The Court’s definition of civil rights was made in light of
aspects of American constitutional law. 113 In controversies their distinction from political rights which refer to the right
involving the Bill of Rights, the natural law standards of to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or
"reasonableness" and "fairness" or "justified on balance" are administration of government, the right of suffrage, the
used. Questions such as these are common: "Does this form right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in
of government involvement with religion endanger religious general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the
liberty in a way that seems unfair to some group? Does management of government. 132
permitting this restriction on speech open the door to
government abuse of political opponents? Does this police To distill whether or not the Court’s reference to natural law
investigative practice interfere with citizens’ legitimate and natural rights finds basis in a natural law tradition that
interests in privacy and security?" 114 Undeniably, natural has influenced Philippine law and government, we turn to
law and natural rights theories have carved their niche in Philippine constitutional law history.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
the legal and political arena.

B. History of the Philippine Constitution
III. Natural Law and Natural Rights
and the Bill of Rights
in Philippine Cases and the Constitution
During the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, Filipinos
A. Traces of Natural Law and ardently fought for their fundamental rights. The
Propaganda Movement spearheaded by our national hero
Natural Rights Theory in Supreme Court Cases Jose Rizal, Marcelo H. del Pilar, and Graciano Lopez-Jaena
demanded assimilation of the Philippines by Spain, and the
Although the natural law and natural rights foundation is not extension to Filipinos of rights enjoyed by Spaniards under
articulated, some Philippine cases have made reference to the Spanish Constitution such as the inviolability of person
natural law and rights without raising controversy. For and property, specifically freedom from arbitrary action by
example, in People v. Asas, 115 the Court admonished officialdom particularly by the Guardia Civil and from
courts to consider cautiously an admission or confession of arbitrary detention and banishment of citizens. They
guilt especially when it is alleged to have been obtained by clamored for their right to liberty of conscience, freedom of
intimidation and force. The Court said:" (w)ithal, aversion of speech and the press, freedom of association, freedom of
man against forced self-affliction is a matter of Natural worship, freedom to choose a profession, the right to
Law." 116 In People v. Agbot, 117 we did not uphold lack of petition the government for redress of grievances, and the
instruction as an excuse for killing because we recognized right to an opportunity for education. They raised the roof
the "offense of taking one’s life being forbidden by natural for an end to the abuses of religious corporations. 133
law and therefore within instinctive knowledge and feeling of
every human being not deprived of reason." 118 In Mobil Oil With the Propaganda Movement having apparently failed to
Philippines, Inc. v. Diocares, Et Al., 119 Chief Justice bring about effective reforms, Andres Bonifacio founded in
Fernando acknowledged the influence of natural law in 1892 the secret society of the Katipunan to serve as the
stressing that the element of a promise is the basis of military arm of the secessionist movement whose principal
contracts. In Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Court aim was to create an independent Filipino nation by armed
of Appeals, Et Al., 120 the Court invoked the doctrine of revolution. 134 While preparing for separation from Spain,
estoppel which we have repeatedly pronounced is predicated representatives of the movement engaged in various
on, and has its origin in equity, which broadly defined, is constitutional projects that would reflect the longings and
justice according to natural law. In Yu Con v. Ipil, Et Al., 121 aspirations of the Filipino people. On May 31, 1897, a
we recognized the application of natural law in maritime republican government was established in Biak-na-Bato,
commerce. followed on November 1, 1897 by the unanimous adoption
of the Provisional Constitution of the Republic of the
The Court has also identified in several cases certain natural Philippines, popularly known as the Constitution of Biak-na-
rights such as the right to liberty, 122 the right of Bato, by the revolution’s representatives. The document was
expatriation, 123 the right of parents over their children an almost exact copy of the Cuban Constitution of
which provides basis for a parent’s visitorial rights over his Jimaguayu, 135 except for four articles which its authors
illegitimate children, 124 and the right to the fruits of one’s Felix Ferrer and Isabelo Artacho added. These four articles
industry. 125 formed the constitution’s Bill of Rights and protected, among
others, religious liberty, the right of association, freedom of
In Simon, Jr. Et. Al. v. Commission on Human Rights, 126 the press, freedom from imprisonment except by virtue of
the Court defined human rights, civil rights, and political an order issued by a competent court, and freedom from
rights. In doing so, we considered the United Nations deprivation of property or domicile except by virtue of
instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory, namely judgment passed by a competent court of authority. 136
the UDHR which we have ruled in several cases as binding
upon the Philippines, 127 the ICCPR and the ICESCR. Still, The Biak-na-Bato Constitution was projected to have a life-
we observed that "human rights" is so generic a term that at span of two years, after which a final constitution would be
best, its definition is inconclusive. But the term "human drafted. Two months after it was adopted, however, the Pact
rights" is closely identified to the "universally accepted traits of Biak-na-Bato was signed whereby the Filipino military
and attributes of an individual, along with what is generally leaders agreed to cease fighting against the Spaniards and
considered to be his inherent and inalienable rights, guaranteed peace for at least three years, in exchange for
encompassing almost all aspects of life," 128 i.e., the monetary indemnity for the Filipino men in arms and for
individual’s social, economic, cultural, political and civil promised reforms. Likewise, General Emilio Aguinaldo, who
relations. 129 On the other hand, we defined civil rights as by then had become the military leader after Bonifacio’s
referring to:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph death, agreed to leave the Philippines with other Filipino
leaders. They left for Hongkong in December 1897.
". . . those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state
or country, or, in a wider sense, to all inhabitants, and are A few months later, the Spanish-American war broke out in
not connected with the organization or administration of April 1898. Upon encouragement of American officials,
government. They include the rights to property, marriage, Aguinaldo came back to the Philippines and set up a
equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as temporary dictatorial government with himself as dictator.
otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a In June 1898, the dictatorship was terminated and
person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Aguinaldo became the President of the Revolutionary
Page 15 of 28
Government. 137 By this time, the relations between the the instrument from which they were taken." 151 (Emphasis
American troops and the Filipino forces had become supplied)
precarious as it became more evident that the Americans
planned to stay. In September 1898, the Revolutionary Thereafter, the Philippine Independence Law, popularly
Congress was inaugurated whose primary goal was to known as the Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934, was enacted.
formulate and promulgate a Constitution. The fruit of their It guaranteed independence to the Philippines and
efforts was the Malolos Constitution which, as admitted by authorized the drafting of a Philippine Constitution. The law
Felipe Calderon who drafted it, was based on the provided that the government should be republican in form
constitutions of South American Republics 138 while the Bill and the Constitution to be drafted should contain a Bill of
of Rights was substantially a copy of the Spanish Rights. 152 Thus, the Constitutional Convention of 1934 was
Constitution. 139 The Bill of Rights included among others, convened. In drafting the Constitution, the Convention
freedom of religion, freedom from arbitrary arrests and preferred to be generally conservative on the belief that to
imprisonment, security of the domicile and of papers and be stable and permanent, the Constitution must be
effects against arbitrary searches and seizures, inviolability anchored on the experience of the people, "providing for
of correspondence, due process in criminal prosecutions, institutions which were the natural outgrowths of the
freedom of expression, freedom of association, and right of national life." 153 As the people already had a political
peaceful petition for the redress of grievances. Its Article 28 organization buttressed by national traditions, the
stated that" (t)he enumeration of the rights granted in this Constitution was to sanctify these institutions tested by time
title does not imply the prohibition of any others not and the Filipino people’s experience and to confirm the
expressly stated." 140 This suggests that natural law was practical and substantial rights of the people. Thus, the
the source of these rights. 141 The Malolos Constitution was institutions and philosophy adopted in the Constitution drew
short-lived. It went into effect in January 1899, about two substantially from the organic acts which had governed the
months before the ratification of the Treaty of Paris Filipinos for more than thirty years, more particularly the
transferring sovereignty over the Islands to the United Jones Law of 1916. In the absence of Philippine precedents,
States. Within a month after the constitution’s promulgation, the Convention considered precedents of American origin
war with the United States began and the Republic survived that might be suitable to our substantially American political
for only about ten months. On March 23, 1901, American system and to the Filipino psychology and traditions. 154
forces captured Aguinaldo and a week later, he took his oath Thus, in the words of Claro M. Recto, President of the
of allegiance to the United States. 142 Constitutional Convention, the 1935 Constitution was
"frankly an imitation of the American charter." 155
In the early months of the war against the United States,
American President McKinley sent the First Philippine Aside from the heavy American influence, the Constitution
Commission headed by Jacob Gould Schurman to assess the also bore traces of the Malolos Constitution, the German
Philippine situation. On February 2, 1900, in its report to the Constitution, the Constitution of the Republic of Spain, the
President, the Commission stated that the Filipino people Mexican Constitution, and the Constitutions of several South
wanted above all a "guarantee of those fundamental human American countries, and the English unwritten constitution.
rights which Americans hold to be the natural and Though the Tydings-McDuffie law mandated a republican
inalienable birthright of the individual but which under constitution and the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, with or
Spanish domination in the Philippines had been shamefully without such mandate, the Constitution would have
invaded and ruthlessly trampled upon." 143 (Emphasis nevertheless been republican because the Filipinos were
supplied) In response to this, President McKinley, in his satisfied with their experience of a republican government; a
Instruction of April 7, 1900 to the Second Philippine Bill of Rights would have nonetheless been also included
Commission, provided an authorization and guide for the because the people had been accustomed to the role of a
establishment of a civil government in the Philippines and Bill of Rights in the past organic acts. 156
stated that" (u)pon every division and branch of the
government of the Philippines . . . must be imposed these The Bill of Rights in the 1935 Constitution was reproduced
inviolable rules . . ." These "inviolable rules" were almost largely from the report of the Convention’s committee on bill
literal reproductions of the First to Ninth and the Thirteenth of rights. The report was mostly a copy of the Bill of Rights
Amendment of the United States Constitution, with the in the Jones Law, which in turn was borrowed from the
addition of the prohibition of bills of attainder and ex past American constitution. Other provisions in the report drew
facto laws in Article 1, Section 9 of said Constitution. The from the Malolos Constitution and the constitutions of the
"inviolable rules" or Bill of Rights provided, among others, Republic of Spain, Italy and Japan. There was a conscious
that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property effort to retain the phraseology of the well-known provisions
without due process of law; that no person shall be twice of the Jones Law because of the jurisprudence that had built
put in jeopardy for the same offense or be compelled to be a around them. The Convention insistently avoided including
witness against himself, that the right to be secure against provisions in the Bill of Rights not tested in the Filipino
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; experience. 157 Thus, upon submission of its draft bill of
that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech rights to the President of the Convention, the committee on
or of the press or of the rights of the people to peaceably bill of rights stated:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
assemble and petition the Government for redress of

grievances. Scholars have characterized the Instruction as "Adoption and adaptation have been the relatively facile
the "Magna Charta of the Philippines" and as a "worthy rival work of your committee in the formulation of a bill or
of the Laws of the Indies." 144 declaration of rights to be incorporated in the Constitution of
the Philippine Islands. No attempt has been made to
The "inviolable rules" of the Instruction were re-enacted incorporate new or radical changes. . .
almost exactly in the Philippine Bill of 1902, 145 as an act
which temporarily provided for the administration of the The enumeration of individual rights in the present organic
affairs of the civil government in the Philippine Islands, 146 law (Acts of Congress of July 1, 1902, August 29, 1916) is
and in the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916, 147 otherwise considered ample, comprehensive and precise enough to
known as the Jones Law, which was an act to declare the safeguard the rights and immunities of Filipino citizens
purpose of the people of the United States as to the future against abuses or encroachments of the Government, its
of the Philippine Islands and to provide an autonomous powers or agents. . .
government for it. 148 These three organic acts — the
Instruction, the Philippine Bill of 1902, and the Jones Law — Modifications or changes in phraseology have been avoided,
extended the guarantees of the American Bill of Rights to wherever possible. This is because the principles must
the Philippines. In Kepner v. United States, 149 Justice Day remain couched in a language expressive of their historical
prescribed the methodology for applying these "inviolable background, nature, extent and limitations, as construed
rules" to the Philippines, viz:" (t)hese principles were not and expounded by the great statesmen and jurists that have
taken from the Spanish law; they were carefully collated vitalized them." 158 (Emphasis supplied)
from our own Constitution, and embody almost verbatim the
safeguards of that instrument for the protection of life and The 1935 Constitution was approved by the Convention on
liberty." 150 Thus, the "inviolable rules" should be applied in February 8, 1935 and signed on February 19, 1935. On
the sense "which has been placed upon them in construing March 23, 1935, United States President Roosevelt affixed
Page 16 of 28
his signature on the Constitution. By an overwhelming separate and identifiable capacities having rights which must
majority, the Filipino voters ratified it on May 14, 1935. 159 be respected. It is their happiness then, and not its interest,
that is the criterion by which its behavior is to be judged;
Then dawned the decade of the 60s. There grew a clamor to and it is their welfare, and not the force at its command,
revise the 1935 charter for it to be more responsive to the that sets the limits to the authority it is entitled to exercise."
problems of the country, specifically in the socio-economic 172 (Emphasis supplied)
arena and to the sources of threats to the security of the
Republic identified by then President Marcos. In 1970, Citing Hamilton, he also defines a constitution along the
delegates to the Constitution Convention were elected, and lines of the natural law theory as "a law for the government,
they convened on June 1, 1971. In their deliberations, "the safeguarding (not creating) individual rights, set down in
spirit of moderation prevailed, and the . . . Constitution was writing." 173 (Emphasis supplied) This view is accepted by
hardly notable for its novelty, much less a radical departure Tañada and Fernando who wrote that the constitution "is a
from our constitutional tradition." 160 Our rights in the 1935 written instrument organizing the government, distributing
Constitution were reaffirmed and the government to which its powers and safeguarding the rights of the people." 174
we have been accustomed was instituted, albeit taking on a Chief Justice Fernando also quoted Schwartz that "a
parliamentary rather than presidential form. 161 constitution is seen as an organic instrument, under which
governmental powers are both conferred and circumscribed.
The Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution had minimal Such stress upon both grant and limitation of authority is
difference from its counterpart in the 1935 Constitution. fundamental in American theory.’The office and purpose of
Previously, there were 21 paragraphs in one section, now the constitution is to shape and fix the limits of
there were twenty-three. The two rights added were the governmental activity.’" 175 Malcolm and Laurel define it
recognition of the people’s right to access to official records according to Justice Miller’s definition in his opus on the
and documents and the right to speedy disposition of cases. American Constitution 176 published in 1893 as "the written
To the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, a instrument by which the fundamental powers of government
second paragraph was added that evidence obtained are established, limited and defined, and by which those
therefrom shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any powers are distributed among the several departments for
proceeding. 162 their safe and useful exercise for the benefit of the body
politic." 177 The constitution exists to assure that in the
The 1973 Constitution went into effect on January 17, 1973 government’s discharge of its functions, the "dignity that is
and remained the fundamental law until President Corazon the birthright of every human being is duly safeguarded."
Aquino rose to power in defiance of the 1973 charter and 178
upon the "direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people"
163 in the EDSA Revolution of February 23–25, 1986. On Clearly then, at the core of constitutionalism is a strong
February 25, 1986, she issued Proclamation No. 1 concern for individual rights 179 as in the modern period
recognizing that "sovereignty resides in the people and all natural law theories. Justice Laurel as delegate to the 1934
government authority emanates from them" and that she Constitutional Convention declared in a major address
and Vice President Salvador Laurel were "taking power in before the Convention: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
the name and by the will of the Filipino people." 164 The old
legal order, constitution and enactments alike, was "There is no constitution, worthy of the name, without a bill
overthrown by the new administration. 165 A month or declaration of rights. (It is) the palladium of the people’s
thenceforth, President Aquino issued Proclamation No. 3, liberties and immunities, so that their persons, homes, their
"Declaring National Policy to Implement the Reforms peace, their livelihood, their happiness and their freedom
Mandated by the People, Protecting their Basic Rights, may be safe and secure from an ambitious ruler, an envious
Adopting a Provisional Constitution, and Providing for an neighbor, or a grasping state." 180
Orderly Transition to Government under a New
Constitution." The Provisional Constitution, otherwise known As Chairman of the Committee on the Declaration of Rights,
as the "Freedom Constitution" adopted certain provisions of he stated: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
the 1973 Constitution, including the Bill of Rights which was

adopted in toto, and provided for the adoption of a new "The history of the world is the history of man and his
constitution within 60 days from the date of Proclamation arduous struggle for liberty. . . . It is the history of those
No. 3. 166 brave and able souls who, in the ages that are past, have
labored, fought and bled that the government of the lash —
Pursuant to the Freedom Constitution, the 1986 that symbol of slavery and despotism — might endure no
Constitutional Commission drafted the 1987 Constitution more. It is the history of those great self-sacrificing men
which was ratified and became effective on February 2, who lived and suffered in an age of cruelty, pain and
1987. 167 As in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, it retained desolation, so that every man might stand, under the
a republican system of government, but emphasized and protection of great rights and privileges, the equal of every
created more channels for the exercise of the sovereignty of other man." 181
the people through recall, initiative, referendum and
plebiscite. 168 Because of the wide-scale violation of human Being substantially a copy of the American Bill of Rights, the
rights during the dictatorship, the 1987 Constitution history of our Bill of Rights dates back to the roots of the
contains a Bill of Rights which more jealously safeguards the American Bill of Rights. The latter is a charter of the
people’s "fundamental liberties in the essence of a individual’s liberties and a limitation upon the power of the
constitutional democracy", in the words of ConCom delegate state 182 which traces its roots to the English Magna Carta
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. 169 It declares in its state policies of 1215, a first in English history for a written instrument to
that" (t)he state values the dignity of every human person be secured from a sovereign ruler by the bulk of the
and guarantees full respect for human rights." 170 In politically articulate community that intended to lay down
addition, it has a separate Article on Social Justice and binding rules of law that the ruler himself may not violate.
Human Rights, under which, the Commission on Human "In Magna Carta is to be found the germ of the root principle
Rights was created. 171 that there are fundamental individual rights that the State —
sovereign though it is — may not infringe." 183 (Emphasis
Considering the American model and origin of the Philippine supplied)
constitution, it is not surprising that Filipino jurists and legal
scholars define and explain the nature of the Philippine In Sales v. Sandiganbayan, Et Al., 184 quoting Allado v.
constitution in similar terms that American constitutional law Diokno, 185 this Court ruled that the Bill of Rights
scholars explain their constitution. Chief Justice Fernando, guarantees the preservation of our natural rights, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
citing Laski, wrote about the basic purpose of a civil society

and government, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph "The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people
against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power.
"The basic purpose of a State, namely to assure the This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our
happiness and welfare of its citizens is kept foremost in natural rights which include personal liberty and security
mind. To paraphrase Laski, it is not an end in itself but only against invasion by the government or any of its branches
a means to an end, the individuals composing it in their or instrumentalities." 186 (Emphasis supplied)
Page 17 of 28
death of George II in October 1760, 202 sixty-three Boston
We need, however, to fine tune this pronouncement of the merchants who were opposed to the writs retained James
Court, considering that certain rights in our Bill of Rights, for Otis, Jr. to petition the Superior Court for a hearing on the
example habeas corpus, have been identified not as a question of whether new writs should be issued. 203 Otis
natural right, but a civil right created by law. Likewise, the used the opportunity to denounce England’s whole policy to
right against unreasonable searches and seizures has been the colonies and on general warrants. 204 He pronounced
identified in Simon as a civil right, without expounding the writs of assistance as "the worst instrument of arbitrary
however what civil right meant therein — whether a natural power, the most destructive of English liberty and the
right existing before the constitution and protected by it, fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an
thus acquiring the status of a civil right; or a right created English law book" since they placed "the liberty of every
merely by law and non-existent in the absence of law. To man in the hands of every petty officer." 205 Otis was a
understand the nature of the right against unreasonable visionary and apparently made the first argument for judicial
search and seizure and the corollary right to exclusion of review and nullifying of a statute exceeding the legislature’s
evidence obtained therefrom, we turn a heedful eye on the power under the Constitution and "natural law." 206 This
history, concept and purpose of these guarantees. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary famous debate in February 1761 in Boston was "perhaps the
most prominent event which inaugurated the resistance of
IV. History of the Guarantee against the colonies to the oppressions of the mother country.’Then
and there,’ said John Adams, ‘then and there was the first
Unreasonable Search and Seizure and the scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of
Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was
Right to Exclusion of Illegally Seized Evidence born.’" 207 But the Superior Court nevertheless held that
the writs could be issued. 208
in the United States and in the Philippines
Once the customs officials had the writs, however, they had
The origin of the guarantee against unreasonable search and great difficulty enforcing the customs laws owing to rampant
seizure in the Philippine constitutions can be traced back to smuggling and mob resistance from the citizenry. 209 The
hundreds of years ago in a land distant from the Philippines. revolution had begun. The Declaration of Independence
Needless to say, the right is well-entrenched in history. followed. The use of general warrants and writs of
assistance in enforcing customs and tax laws was one of the
The power to search in England was first used as an causes of the American Revolution. 210
instrument to oppress objectionable publications. 187 Not
too long after the printing press was developed, seditious Back in England, shortly after the Boston debate, John
and libelous publications became a concern of the Crown, Wilkes, a member of Parliament, anonymously published the
and a broad search and seizure power developed to North Briton, a series of pamphlets criticizing the policies of
suppress these publications. 188 General warrants were the British government. 211 In 1763, one pamphlet was
regularly issued that gave all kinds of people the power to very bold in denouncing the government. Thus, the
enter and seize at their discretion under the authority of the Secretary of the State issued a general warrant to "search
Crown to enforce publication licensing statutes. 189 In for the authors, printers, and publishers of [the] seditious
1634, the ultimate ignominy in the use of general warrants and treasonable paper." 212 Pursuant to the warrant,
came when the early "great illuminary of the common law," Wilkes’ house was searched and his papers were
190 and most influential of the Crown’s opponents, 191 Sir indiscriminately seized. He sued the perpetrators and
Edward Coke, while on his death bed, was subjected to a obtained a judgment for damages. The warrant was
ransacking search and the manuscripts of his Institutes were pronounced illegal "as totally subversive of the liberty" and
seized and carried away as seditious and libelous "person and property of every man in this kingdom." 213
publications. 192
Seeing Wilkes’ success, John Entick filed an action for
The power to issue general warrants and seize publications trespass for the search and seizure of his papers under a
grew. They were also used to search for and seize smuggled warrant issued earlier than Wilkes’. This became the case of
goods. 193 The developing common law tried to impose Entick v. Carrington, 214 considered a landmark of the law
limits on the broad power to search to no avail. In his of search and seizure and called a familiar "monument of
History of the Pleas of Crown, Chief Justice Hale stated English freedom." 215 Lord Camden, the judge, held that
unequivocally that general warrants were void and that the general warrant for Entick’s papers was invalid. Having
warrants must be used on "probable cause" and with described the power claimed by the Secretary of the State
particularity. 194 Member of Parliament, William Pitt, made for issuing general search warrants, and the manner in
his memorable and oft-quoted speech against the which they were executed, Lord Camden spoke these
unrestrained power to search: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph immortalized words, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the "Such is the power and therefore one would naturally expect
forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — that the law to warrant it should be clear in proportion as
the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the the power is exorbitant. If it is law, it will be found in our
rain may enter; but the King of England may not enter; all books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined
tenement." 195 The great end for which men entered into society was to
secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and
Nevertheless, legislation authorizing general warrants incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken
continued to be passed. 196 away or abridged by some public law for the good of the
whole. The cases where this right of property is set aside by
In the 16th century, writs of assistance, called as such positive law are various. Distresses, executions, forfeitures,
because they commanded all officers of the Crown to taxes, etc., are all of this description, wherein every man by
participate in their execution, 197 were also common. These common consent gives up that right for the sake of justice
writs authorized searches and seizures for enforcement of and the general good. By the laws of England, every
import duty laws. 198 The "same powers and authorities" invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a
and the "like assistance" that officials had in England were trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without
given to American customs officers when parliament my license but he is liable to an action though the damage
extended the customs laws to the colonies. The abuse in the be nothing; which is proved by every declaration in trespass
writs of assistance was not only that they were general, but where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising
they were not returnable and once issued, lasted six months the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the
past the life of the sovereign. 199 fact, he is bound to show by way of justification that some
positive law has justified or excused him. . . If no such
These writs caused profound resentment in the colonies. excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is
200 They were predominantly used in Massachusetts, the an authority against the defendant and the plaintiff must
largest port in the colonies 201 and the seat of the American have judgment . . ." 216 (Emphasis supplied)
revolution. When the writs expired six months after the
Page 18 of 28
The experience of the colonies on the writs of assistance houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
which spurred the Boston debate and the Entick case which and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
was a "monument of freedom" that every American issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
statesman knew during the revolutionary and formative affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
period of America, could be confidently asserted to have searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 223
been "in the minds of those who framed the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution, and were considered as During the debates of the Convention, however, Delegate
sufficiently explanatory of what was meant by unreasonable Vicente Francisco proposed to amend the provision by
searches and seizures." 217 inserting the phrase "to be determined by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
The American experience with the writs of assistance and and the witness he may produce" in lieu of "supported by
the Entick case were considered by the United States oath or affirmation." His proposal was based on Section 98
Supreme Court in the first major case to discuss the scope of General Order No. 58 or the Code of Criminal Procedure
of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search then in force in the Philippines which provided that:" (t)he
and seizure in the 1885 case of Boyd v. United States, judge or justice of the peace must, before issuing the
supra, where the court ruled, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph warrant, examine on oath or affirmation the complainant
and any witness he may produce and take their deposition
"The principles laid down in this opinion (Entick v. in writing." 224 The amendment was accepted as it was a
Carrington, supra) affect the very essence of constitutional remedy against the evils pointed out in the debates, brought
liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete about by the issuance of warrants, many of which were in
form of the case then before the court, with its adventitious blank, upon mere affidavits on facts which were generally
circumstances; they apply to all invasions, on the part of the found afterwards to be false. 225
Government and its employees, of the sanctity of a man’s
home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his When the Convention patterned the 1935 Constitution’s
doors and the rummaging of his drawers that constitutes the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures after
essence of the offense; but it is the invasion of his the Fourth Amendment, the Convention made specific
indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and reference to the Boyd case and traced the history of the
private property, where that right has never been forfeited guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure back to
by his conviction of some public offense; it is the invasion of the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance in
this sacred right which underlies and constitutes the essence England and the American colonies. 226 From the Boyd
of Lord Camden’s judgment." 218 (Emphasis supplied) case, it may be derived that our own Constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures,
In another landmark case of 1914, Weeks v. United States, which is an almost exact copy of the Fourth Amendment,
219 the Court, citing Adams v. New York, 220 reiterated seeks to protect rights to security of person and property as
that the Fourth Amendment was intended to secure the well as privacy in one’s home and possessions.
citizen in person and property against the unlawful invasion
of the sanctity of his home by officers of the law, acting Almost 40 years after the ratification of the 1935
under legislative or judicial sanction. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary Constitution, the provision on the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures was amended in Article IV, Section 3
With this genesis of the right against unreasonable searches of the 1973 Constitution, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
and seizures and the jurisprudence that had built around it,
the Fourth Amendment guarantee was extended by the "Sec. 3. The right of the people to be secure in their
United States to the Filipinos in succinct terms in President persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
McKinley’s Instruction of April 7, 1900, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall not be violated, and no search warrant or
". . . that the right to be secure against unreasonable warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
searches and seizures shall not be violated." 221 be determined by the judge, or such other responsible
officer as may be authorized by law, after examination
This provision in the Instruction was re-enacted in Section 5 under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
of the Philippine Bill of 1902, this time with a provision on witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
warrants, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized."cralaw virtua1aw library
"That the right to be secure against unreasonable searches

and seizures shall not be violated. Noticeably, there were three modifications of the 1935
counterpart, namely: (1) the clause was made applicable to
x x x searches and seizures "of whatever nature and for any
purpose" ; (2) the provision on warrants was expressly
made applicable to both "search warrant or warrant of
That no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, arrest" ; and (3) probable cause was made determinable not
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing only by a judge, but also by "such other officer as may be
the place to be searched and the person or things to be authorized by law." 227 But the concept and purpose of the
seized." 222 right remained substantially the same.
The above provisions were reproduced verbatim in the Jones As a corollary to the above provision on searches and
Law of 1916. seizures, the exclusionary rule made its maiden appearance
in Article IV, Section 4(2) of the Constitution, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Then came the 1935 Constitution which provides in Article

IV, Section 1(3), viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Section 4 (1). The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
"Section 1(3). The right of the people to be secure in their of the court, or when public safety and order require
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable otherwise.
searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants
shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and any proceeding." cralaw virtua1aw library
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized." cralaw virtua1aw library
That evidence obtained in violation of the guarantee against
unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible was an
Initially, the Constitutional Convention’s committee on bill of adoption of the Court’s ruling in the 1967 case of Stonehill
rights proposed an exact copy of the Fourth Amendment of v. Diokno. 228
the United States Constitution in their draft, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Sections 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution were adopted in

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, toto in Article I, Section 1 of the Freedom Constitution which
Page 19 of 28
took effect on March 25, 1986, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"It is deference to one’s personality that lies at the core of

"Section 1. The provision of . . . ARTICLE IV (Bill of Rights) . this right, but it could be also looked upon as a recognition
. . of the 1973 Constitution, as amended, remain in force of a constitutionally protected area, primarily one’s home,
and effect and are hereby adopted in toto as part of this but not necessarily excluding an office or a hotel room. (Cf.
Provisional Constitution." 229 Hoffa v. United States, 385 US 293 [1966]) What is sought
to be regarded is a man’s prerogative to choose who is
Thereafter, pursuant to the Freedom Constitution, the 1987 allowed entry in his residence, for him to retreat from the
Constitution was drafted and ratified on February 2, 1987. cares and pressures, even at times the oppressiveness of
Sections 2 and 3, Article III thereof provide: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph the outside world, where he can truly be himself with his
family. In that haven of refuge, his individuality can assert
"Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their itself not only in the choice of who shall be welcome but
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable likewise in the objects he wants around him. There the
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any state, however powerful, does not as such have access
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or except under the circumstances noted, for in the traditional
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. (Cf.
be determined personally by a judge after examination Cooley: ‘Near in importance to exemption from any arbitrary
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the control of the person is that maxim of the common law
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the which secures to the citizen immunity in his home against
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. the prying eyes of the government, and protection in
person, property, and papers against even the process of
x x x the law, except in specified cases. The maxim that ‘every
man’s house is his castle,’ is made part of our constitutional
law in the clauses prohibiting unreasonable searches and
Section 3 (1). The privacy of communication and seizures, and has always been looked upon as of high value
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order to the citizen.’ (1 Constitutional Limitations, pp. 610–611
of the court, or when public safety and order requires [1927]) In the language of Justice Laurel, this provision is
otherwise as prescribed by law. ‘intended to bulwark individual security, home, and
legitimate possessions’ (Rodriguez v. Vollamiel, 65 Phil. 230,
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the 239 (1937). Laurel con.) Thus is protected ‘his personal
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in privacy and dignity against unwarranted intrusion by the
any proceeding." cralaw virtua1aw library
State.’ There is to be no invasion ‘on the part of the
government and its employees of the sanctity of a man’s
The significant modification of Section 2 is that probable home and the privacies of life.’ (Boyd v. United States, 116
cause may be determined only by a judge and no longer by US 616, 630 [1886])" 235 (Emphasis supplied)
"such other responsible officer as may be authorized by
law." This was a reversion to the counterpart provision in As early as 1904, the Court has affirmed the sanctity and
the 1935 Constitution. privacy of the home in United States v. Arceo, 236 viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Parenthetically, in the international arena, the UDHR "The inviolability of the home is one of the most
provides a similar protection in Article 12, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
fundamental of all the individual rights declared and
recognized in the political codes of civilized nations. No one
"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his can enter into the home of another without the consent of
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks its owners or occupants.
upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to
the protection of the law against such interference or The privacy of the home — the place of abode, the place
attacks." cralaw virtua1aw library
where man with his family may dwell in peace and enjoy the
companionship of his wife and children unmolested by
The ICCPR similarly protects this human right in Article 17, anyone, even the king, except in rare cases — has always
viz:
been regarded by civilized nations as one of the most sacred
personal rights to whom men are entitled. Both the common
"1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful and the civil law guaranteed to man the right to absolute
interference with his privacy, family, home or protection to the privacy of his home. The king was
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and powerful; he was clothed with majesty; his will was the law,
reputation. but, with few exceptions, the humblest citizen or subject
might shut the door of his humble cottage in the face of the
2. Everyone has the right to protection of the law against monarch and defend his intrusion into that privacy which
such interference or attacks." cralaw virtua1aw library
was regarded as sacred as any of the kingly prerogatives. . .
In the United States, jurisprudence on the Fourth ‘A man’s house is his castle,’ has become a maxim among
Amendment continued to grow from the Boyd case. The the civilized peoples of the earth. His protection therein has
United States Supreme Court has held that the focal concern become a matter of constitutional protection in England,
of the Fourth Amendment is to protect the individual from America, and Spain, as well as in other countries.
arbitrary and oppressive official conduct. 230 It also protects
the privacies of life and the sanctity of the person from such x x x
interference. 231 In later cases, there has been a shift in
focus: it has been held that the principal purpose of the
guarantee is the protection of privacy rather than property," So jealously did the people of England regard this right to
[f]or the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." enjoy, unmolested, the privacy of their houses, that they
232 The tests that have more recently been formulated in might even take the life of the unlawful intruder, if it be
interpreting the provision focus on privacy rather than nighttime. This was also the sentiment of the Romans
intrusion of property such as the "constitutionally protected expressed by Tully: ‘Quid enim sanctius quid omni religione
area" test in the 1961 case of Silverman v. United States munitius, quam domus uniuscu jusque civium.’" 237
233 and the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard in (Emphasis supplied)
Katz v. United States 234 which held that the privacy of
communication in a public telephone booth comes under the The Court reiterated this in the 1911 case of United States
protection of the Fourth Amendment. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary v. De Los Reyes, Et Al., 238 to demonstrate the
uncompromising regard placed upon the privacy of the
Despite the shift in focus of the Fourth Amendment in home that cannot be violated by unreasonable searches and
American jurisdiction, the essence of this right in Philippine seizures, viz:
jurisdiction has consistently been understood as respect for

one’s personality, property, home, and privacy. Chief Justice "In the case of McClurg v. Brenton (123 Iowa, 368), the
Fernando explains, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph court, speaking of the right of an officer to enter a private
Page 20 of 28
house to search for the stolen goods, said: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library acting under legislative or judicial sanction and to give
remedy against such usurpation when attempted. (Adams v.
‘The right of the citizen to occupy and enjoy his home, New York, 192 U.S. 858; Alvero v. Dizon, 76 Phil. 637
however mean or humble, free from arbitrary invasion and [1946]). The right to privacy is an essential condition to the
search, has for centuries been protected with the most dignity and happiness and to the peace and security of
solicitous care by every court in the English-speaking world, every individual, whether it be of home or of persons and
from Magna Charta down to the present, and is embodied in correspondence. (Tañada and Carreon, Political Law of the
every bill of rights defining the limits of governmental power Philippines, Vol. 2, 139 [1962]). The constitutional
in our own republic. inviolability of this great fundamental right against
unreasonable searches and seizures must be deemed
‘The mere fact that a man is an officer, whether of high or absolute as nothing is closer to a man’s soul than the
low degree, gives him no more right than is possessed by serenity of his privacy and the assurance of his personal
the ordinary private citizen to break in upon the privacy of a security. Any interference allowable can only be for the best
home and subject its occupants to the indignity of a search causes and reasons." 244 (Emphasis supplied)
for the evidence of crime, without a legal warrant procured
for that purpose. No amount of incriminating evidence, Even if it were conceded that privacy and not property is the
whatever its source, will supply the place of such warrant. focus of the guarantee as shown by the growing American
At the closed door of the home, be it palace or hovel, even jurisprudence, this Court has upheld the right to privacy and
blood-hounds must wait till the law, by authoritative its central place in a limited government such as the
process, bids it open . . .’" 239 (Emphasis supplied) Philippines’, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
It is not only respect for personality, privacy and property, "The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition
but to the very dignity of the human being that lies at the independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is
heart of the provision. fully deserving of constitutional protection. The language of
Prof. Emerson is particularly apt: ‘The concept of limited
There is also public interest involved in the guarantee government has always included the idea that governmental
against unreasonable search and seizure. The respect that powers stop short of certain intrusions into the personal life
government accords its people helps it elicit allegiance and of the citizen. This is indeed one of the basic distinctions
loyalty of its citizens. Chief Justice Fernando writes about between absolute and limited government. Ultimate and
the right against unreasonable search and seizure as well as pervasive control of the individual, in all aspects of his life, is
to privacy of communication in this wise: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph the hallmark of the absolute state. In contrast, a system of
limited government safeguards a private sector, which
"These rights, on their face, impart meaning and vitality to belongs to the individual, firmly distinguishing it from the
that liberty which in a constitutional regime is a man’s birth- public sector, which the state can control. Protection of this
right. There is the recognition of the area of privacy private sector — protection, in other words, of the dignity
normally beyond the power of government to intrude. Full and integrity of the individual — has become increasingly
and unimpaired respect to that extent is accorded his important as modern society has developed. All the forces of
personality. He is free from the prying eyes of public technological age — industrialization, urbanization, and
officials. He is let alone, a prerogative even more valued organization — operate to narrow the area of privacy and
when the agencies of publicity manifest less and less facilitate intrusion to it. In modern times, the capacity to
diffidence in impertinent and unwelcome inquiry into one’s maintain and support this enclave of private life marks the
person, his home, wherever he may be minded to stay, his difference between a democratic and a totalitarian society.’"
possessions, his communication. Moreover, in addition to 245 (Emphasis supplied)
the individual interest, there is a public interest that is
likewise served by these constitutional safeguards. They The right to privacy discussed in Justice Douglas’ dissent in
make it easier for state authority to enlist the loyalty and the Hayden case is illuminating. We quote it at length,
allegiance of its citizens, with the unimpaired deference to viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
one’s dignity and standing as a human being, not only to his

person as such but to things that may be considered "Judge Learned Hand stated a part of the philosophy of the
necessary appurtenances to a decent existence. A Fourth Amendment in United States v. Poller, 43 F2d 911,
government that thus recognizes such limits and is careful 914: ‘[I]t is only fair to observe that the real evil aimed at
not to trespass on what is the domain subject to his sole by the Fourth Amendment is the search itself, that invasion
control is likely to prove more stable and enduring." 240 of a man’s privacy which consists in rummaging about
(Emphasis supplied) among his effects to secure evidence against him. If the
search is permitted at all, perhaps it does not make so much
In the 1967 case of Stonehill, Et. Al. v. Diokno, 241 this difference what is taken away, since the officers will
Court affirmed the sanctity of the home and the privacy of ordinarily not be interested in what does not incriminate,
communication and correspondence, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph and there can be no sound policy in protecting what does.
"To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be x x x

to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental rights
guaranteed in our Constitution, for it would place the
sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication The constitutional philosophy is, I think, clear. The personal
and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or effects and possessions of the individual (all contraband and
passion of peace officers. This is precisely the evil sought to the like excepted) are sacrosanct from prying eyes, from the
be remedied by the constitutional provision above quoted — long arm of the law, from any rummaging by police. Privacy
to outlaw the so-called general warrants. It is not difficult to involves the choice of the individual to disclose or to reveal
imagine what would happen, in times of keen political strife, what he believes, what he thinks, what he possesses. The
when the party in power feels that the minority is likely to article may be nondescript work of art, a manuscript of a
wrest it, even though by legal means." 242 (Emphasis book, a personal account book, a diary, invoices, personal
supplied) clothing, jewelry, or whatnot. Those who wrote the Bill of
Rights believed that every individual needs both to
Even after the 1961 Silverman and 1967 Katz cases in the communicate with others and to keep his affairs to himself.
United States, which emphasized protection of privacy That dual aspect of privacy means that the individual should
rather than property as the principal purpose of the Fourth have the freedom to select for himself the time and
Amendment, this Court declared the avowed purposes of the circumstances when he will share his secrets with others and
guarantee in the 1981 case of People v. CFI of Rizal, Branch decide the extent of the sharing (footnote omitted). This is
IX, Quezon City, 243 viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
his prerogative not the States’. The Framers, who were as
knowledgeable as we, knew what police surveillance meant
"The purpose of the constitutional guarantee against and how the practice of rummaging through one’s personal
unreasonable searches and seizures is to prevent violations effects could destroy freedom.
of private security in person and property and unlawful
invasion of the security of the home by officers of the law x x x
Page 21 of 28
exclusionary rule in the state system in Mapp v. Ohio 254
because other means of controlling illegal police behavior
I would . . . leave with the individual the choice of opening had failed. 255 We quote at length the Mapp ruling as it had
his private effects (apart from contraband and the like) to a significant influence in the exclusionary rule in Philippine
the police and keeping their contents as secret and their jurisdiction, viz:
integrity inviolate. The existence of that choice is the very

essence of the right of privacy.’" 246 (Emphasis supplied) ". . . Today we once again examine the Wolf’s constitutional
documentation of the right of privacy free from
Thus, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 247 the United States unreasonable state intrusion, and after its dozen years on
Supreme Court upheld the right to marital privacy and ruled our books, are led by it to close the only courtroom door
that lawmakers could not make the use of contraceptives a remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness
crime and sanction the search of marital bedrooms, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons
as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful
"Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of conduct. . .
marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of
contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of Since the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy has been
privacy surrounding the marriage relationship. declared enforceable against the States through the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights them by the same sanction of exclusion as it is used against
— older than our political parties, older than our school the Federal Government. Were it otherwise, then just as
system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for without the Weeks rule the assurance against unreasonable
worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of federal searches and seizures would be a ‘form of words’,
being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter
life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the
bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so
an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus
prior decisions." 248 (Emphasis supplied) with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing
evidence as not to permit this Court’s high regard as
In relation to the right against unreasonable searches and freedom ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ At that
seizures, private respondent Dimaano likewise claims a right time that the Court held in Wolf that the amendment was
to the exclusionary rule, i.e., that evidence obtained from an applicable to the States trough the Due Process Clause, the
unreasonable search cannot be used in evidence against cases of this court as we have seen, had steadfastly held
her. To determine whether this right is available to her, we that as to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included
again examine the history, concept, and purpose of this the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation of its
right in both the American and Philippine jurisdictions. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary provisions. Even Wolf ‘stoutly adhered’ to that proposition.
The right to privacy, when conceded operatively enforceable
The exclusionary rule has had an uneven history in both the against the States, was not susceptible of destruction by
United States and Philippine jurisdictions. In common law, avulsion of the sanction upon which its protection and
the illegal seizure of evidence did not affect its admissibility enjoyment had always been deemed dependent under the
because of the view that physical evidence was the same Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne Cases. Therefore, in
however it was obtained. As distinguished from a coerced extending the substantive protections of due process to all
confession, the illegal seizure did not impeach the constitutionally unreasonable searches — state or federal —
authenticity or reliability of physical evidence. This view it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the
prevailed in American jurisdiction until the Supreme Court exclusion doctrine — an essential part of the right to privacy
ruled in the 1914 Weeks case that evidence obtained in — be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the
violation of the Fourth Amendment was inadmissible in right newly recognized by the Wolf case. In short, the
federal court as it amounted to theft by agents of the admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf could not
government. This came to be known as the exclusionary consistently tolerate denial of its most important
rule and was believed to deter federal law enforcers from constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the
violating the Fourth Amendment. In 1949, the Fourth evidence which an accused had been forced to give by
Amendment was incorporated into the Due Process Clause reason of the unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant
under the Fourteenth Amendment 249 and made applicable the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and
in the state system in Wolf v. Colorado, 250 but the Court enjoyment. Only last year the Court itself recognized that
rejected to incorporate the exclusionary rule. At the time the purpose of the exclusionary rule ‘is to deter — to compel
Wolf was decided, 17 states followed the Weeks doctrine respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only available
while 30 states did not. 251 The Court reasoned: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph way — by removing the incentive to disregard it.’ (Elkins v.
United States, 364 US at 217)
"We cannot brush aside the experience of States which
deem the incidence of such conduct by the police too slight x x x
to call for a deterrent remedy not by way of disciplinary
measures but by overriding the relevant rules of evidence.
There are, moreover, reasons for excluding evidence The ignoble shortcut to conviction left open to the State
unreasonably obtained by the federal police which are less tends to destroy the entire system of constitutional
compelling in the case of police under State or local restraints on which the liberties of the people rest. (Cf.
authority. The public opinion of a community can far more Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property, 6 L ed 2d post, p.
effectively be exerted against oppressive conduct on the 1127) Having once recognized that the right to privacy
part of police directly responsible to the community itself embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against
than can local opinion, sporadically aroused, be brought to the States, and that the right to be secure against rude
bear upon remote authority pervasively exerted throughout invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore
the country." 252 constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to
remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the
This difference in treatment on the federal and state level of same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured
evidence obtained illegally resulted in the "silver platter" by its Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be
doctrine. State law enforcement agents would provide revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name
federal officers with illegally seized evidence, which was of law enforcement itself, chooses to suspend its enjoyment.
then admissible in federal court because, as with illegally Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the
seized evidence by private citizens, federal officers were not individual no more than that which the Constitution
implicated in obtaining it. Thus, it was said that state law guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to
enforcers served up the evidence in federal cases in "silver which honest law enforcement is entitled, and to the courts,
platter." This pernicious practice was stopped with the that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration
United States Supreme Court’s 1960 decision, Elkins v. of justice." 256 (Emphasis supplied)
United States. 253 Twelve years after Wolf, the United
States Supreme Court reversed Wolf and incorporated the It is said that the exclusionary rule has three purposes. The
Page 22 of 28
major and most often invoked is the deterrence of obtaining it." It condemned the "pernicious influence" of
unreasonable searches and seizures as stated in Elkins v. Boyd and totally rejected the doctrine in Weeks as
United States 257 and quoted in Mapp:" (t)he rule is "subversive of evidentiary rules in Philippine jurisdiction."
calculated to prevent, not repair. Its purpose is to deter — The ponencia declared that the prosecution of those guilty of
to compel respect for constitutional guaranty in the only violating the right against unreasonable searches and
effective available way — by removing the incentive to seizures was adequate protection for the people. Thus it
disregard it." 258 Second is the "imperative of judicial became settled jurisprudence that illegally obtained
integrity", i.e., that the courts do not become "accomplices evidence was admissible if found to be relevant to the case
in the willful disobedience of a Constitution they are sworn 271 until the 1967 landmark decision of Stonehill v. Diokno
to uphold . . . by permitting unhindered governmental use of 272 which overturned the Moncado rule. The Court held in
the fruits of such invasions. . . A ruling admitting evidence in Stonehill, viz:
a criminal trial . . . has the necessary effect of legitimizing

the conduct which produced the evidence, while an ". . . Upon mature deliberation, however, we are
application of the exclusionary rule withholds the unanimously of the opinion that the position taken in the
constitutional imprimatur." 259 Third is the more recent Moncado case must be abandoned. Said position was in line
purpose pronounced by some members of the United States with the American common law rule, that the criminal
Supreme Court which is that "of assuring the people — all should not be allowed to go free merely ‘because the
potential victims of unlawful government conduct — that the constable has blundered,’ (People v. Defore, 140 NE 585)
government would not profit from its lawless behavior, thus upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition against
minimizing the risk of seriously undermining popular trust in unreasonable searches and seizures is protected by means
government." 260 The focus of concern here is not the other than the exclusion of evidence unlawfully obtained
police but the public. This third purpose is implicit in the (Wolf v. Colorado, 93 L.Ed. 1782), such as common-law
Mapp declaration that "no man is to be convicted on action for damages against the searching officer, against the
unconstitutional evidence." 261 party who procured the issuance of the search warrant and
against those assisting in the execution of an illegal search,
In Philippine jurisdiction, the Court has likewise swung from their criminal punishment, resistance, without liability to an
one position to the other on the exclusionary rule. In the unlawful seizure, and such other legal remedies as may be
1920 case of Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 262 the Court citing provided by other laws.
Boyd, ruled that "seizure or compulsory production of a
man’s private papers to be used against him" was However, most common law jurisdictions have already given
tantamount to self-incrimination and was therefore up this approach and eventually adopted the exclusionary
"unreasonable search and seizure." This was a proscription rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of
against "fishing expeditions." The Court restrained the enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable
prosecution from using the books as evidence. Five years searches and seizures." 273
later or in 1925, we held in People v. Carlos 263 that
although the Boyd and Silverthorne Lumber Co. and The Court then quoted the portion of the Mapp case which
Silverthorne v. United States 264 cases are authorities for we have quoted at length above in affirming that the
the doctrine that documents obtained by illegal searches exclusionary rule is part and parcel of the right against
were inadmissible in evidence in criminal cases, Weeks unreasonable searches and seizures. The Stonehill ruling
modified this doctrine by adding that the illegality of the was incorporated in Article 4, Section 4(2) of the 1973
search and seizure should have initially been directly Constitution and carried over to Article 3, Section 3(2) of the
litigated and established by a pre-trial motion for the return 1987 Constitution.
of the things seized. As this condition was not met, the
illegality of the seizure was not deemed an obstacle to V. Application of the Natural Law
admissibility. The subject evidence was nevertheless
excluded, however, for being hearsay. Thereafter, in 1932, Culled from History and Philosophy: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
the Court did not uphold the defense of self-incrimination

when "fraudulent books, invoices and records" that had Are the Rights Against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
been seized were presented in evidence in People v. Rubio.
265 The Court gave three reasons: (1) the public has an and to the Exclusion of Illegally Seized Evidence Natural
interest in the proper regulation of the party’s books; (2) Rights
the books belonged to a corporation of which the party was
merely a manager; and (3) the warrants were not issued to which Private Respondent Dimaano Can Invoke?
fish for evidence but to seize "instruments used in the
violation of [internal revenue] laws" and "to further prevent In answering this question, Justice Goldberg’s concurring
the perpetration of fraud." 266 opinion in the Griswold case serves as a helpful guidepost to
determine whether a right is so fundamental that the people
The exclusionary rule applied in Uy Kheytin was reaffirmed cannot be deprived of it without undermining the tenets of
seventeen years thence in the 1937 case of Alvarez v. Court civil society and government, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
of First Instance 267 decided under the 1935 Constitution.

The Court ruled that the seizure of books and documents for "In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are
the purpose of using them as evidence in a criminal case not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and
against the possessor thereof is unconstitutional because it private notions. Rather, they must look to the ‘traditions and
makes the warrant unreasonable and the presentation of [collective] conscience of our people’ to determine whether
evidence offensive of the provision against self- a principle is ‘so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as
incrimination. At the close of the Second World War, fundamental.’ (Snyder v. Com. of Massachusetts, 291 U.S.
however, the Court, in Alvero v. Dizon, 268 again admitted 97, 105 (1934)). The inquiry is whether a right involved ‘is
in evidence documents seized by United States military of such character that it cannot be denied without violating
officers without a search warrant in a prosecution by the those ‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie
Philippine Government for treason. The Court reasoned that at the base of all our civil and political institutions.’ . . .
this was in accord with the Laws and Customs of War and Powell v. State of Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 67 (1932)" 274
that the seizure was incidental to an arrest and thus legal. (Emphasis supplied)
The issue of self-incrimination was not addressed at all and
instead, the Court pronounced that even if the seizure had In deciding a case, invoking natural law as solely a matter of
been illegal, the evidence would nevertheless be admissible the judge’s personal preference, invites criticism that the
following jurisprudence in the United States that evidence decision is a performative contradiction and thus self-
illegally obtained by state officers or private persons may be defeating. Critics would point out that while the decision
used by federal officers. 269 invokes natural law that abhors arbitrariness, that same
decision is tainted with what it abhors as it stands on the
Then came Moncado v. People’s Court 270 in 1948. The judge’s subjective and arbitrary choice of a school of legal
Court made a categorical declaration that "it is established thought. Just as one judge will fight tooth and nail to defend
doctrine in the Philippines that the admissibility of evidence the natural law philosophy, another judge will match his
is not affected by the illegality of the means used for fervor in defending a contrary philosophy he espouses.
Page 23 of 28
However, invoking natural law because the history, tradition I shall first deal with the right against unreasonable search
and moral fiber of a people indubitably show adherence to it and seizure. On February 25, 1986, the new president,
is an altogether different story, for ultimately, in our political Corazon Aquino, issued Proclamation No. 1 where she
and legal tradition, the people are the source of all declared that she and the vice president were taking power
government authority, and the courts are their creation. in the name and by the will of the Filipino people and
While it may be argued that the choice of a school of legal pledged "to do justice to the numerous victims of human
thought is a matter of opinion, history is a fact against which rights violations." 278 It is implicit from this pledge that the
one cannot argue — and it would not be turning somersault new government recognized and respected human rights.
with history to say that the American Declaration of Thus, at the time of the search on March 3, 1986, it may be
Independence and the consequent adoption of a constitution asserted that the government had the duty, by its own
stood on a modern natural law theory foundation as this is pledge, to uphold human rights. This presidential issuance
"universally taken for granted by writers on government." was what came closest to a positive law guaranteeing
275 It is also well-settled in Philippine history that the human rights without enumerating them. Nevertheless,
American system of government and constitution were even in the absence of a positive law granting private
adopted by our 1935 Constitutional Convention as a model respondent Dimaano the right against unreasonable search
of our own republican system of government and and seizure at the time her house was raided, I respectfully
constitution. In the words of Claro M. Recto, President of the submit that she can invoke her natural right against
Convention, the 1935 Constitution is "frankly an imitation of unreasonable search and seizure.
the American Constitution." Undeniably therefore, modern
natural law theory, specifically Locke’s natural rights theory, The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a core
was used by the Founding Fathers of the American right implicit in the natural right to life, liberty and property.
constitutional democracy and later also used by the Our well-settled jurisprudence that the right against
Filipinos. 276 Although the 1935 Constitution was revised in unreasonable search and seizure protects the people’s rights
1973, minimal modifications were introduced in the 1973 to security of person and property, to the sanctity of the
Constitution which was in force prior to the EDSA home, and to privacy is a recognition of this proposition. The
Revolution. Therefore, it could confidently be asserted that life to which each person has a right is not a life lived in fear
the spirit and letter of the 1935 Constitution, at least insofar that his person and property may be unreasonably violated
as the system of government and the Bill of Rights were by a powerful ruler. Rather, it is a life lived with the
concerned, still prevailed at the time of the EDSA assurance that the government he established and
Revolution. Even the 1987 Constitution ratified less than a consented to, will protect the security of his person and
year from the EDSA Revolution retained the basic provisions property. The ideal of security in life and property dates
of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions on the system of back even earlier than the modern philosophers and the
government and the Bill of Rights, with the significant American and French revolutions, but pervades the whole
difference that it emphasized respect for and protection of history of man. It touches every aspect of man’s existence,
human rights and stressed that sovereignty resided in the thus it has been described, viz: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
people and all government authority emanates from them.

"The right to personal security emanates in a person’s legal
Two facts are easily discernible from our constitutional and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body,
history. First, the Filipinos are a freedom-loving race with his health, and his reputation. It includes the right to exist,
high regard for their fundamental and natural rights. No and the right to enjoyment of life while existing, and it is
amount of subjugation or suppression, by rulers with the invaded not only by a deprivation of life but also of those
same color as the Filipinos’ skin or otherwise, could things which are necessary to the enjoyment of life
obliterate their longing and aspiration to enjoy these rights. according to the nature, temperament, and lawful desires of
Without the people’s consent to submit their natural rights the individual." 279
to the ruler, 277 these rights cannot forever be quelled, for
like water seeking its own course and level, they will find The individual in the state of nature surrendered a portion of
their place in the life of the individual and of the nation; his undifferentiated liberty and agreed to the establishment
natural right, as part of nature, will take its own course. of a government to guarantee his natural rights, including
Thus, the Filipinos fought for and demanded these rights the right to security of person and property, which he could
from the Spanish and American colonizers, and in fairly not guarantee by himself. Similarly, the natural right to
recent history, from an authoritarian ruler. They wrote these liberty includes the right of a person to decide whether to
rights in stone in every constitution they crafted starting express himself and communicate to the public or to keep
from the 1899 Malolos Constitution. Second, although his affairs to himself and enjoy his privacy. Justice Douglas
Filipinos have given democracy its own Filipino face, it is reminds us of the indispensability of privacy in the Hayden
undeniable that our political and legal institutions are case, thus: "Those who wrote the Bill of Rights believed that
American in origin. The Filipinos adopted the republican every individual needs both to communicate with others and
form of government that the Americans introduced and the to keep his affairs to himself." A natural right to liberty
Bill of Rights they extended to our islands, and were the indubitably includes the freedom to determine when and
keystones that kept the body politic intact. These how an individual will share the private part of his being and
institutions sat well with the Filipinos who had long yearned the extent of his sharing. And when he chooses to express
for participation in government and were jealous of their himself, the natural right to liberty demands that he should
fundamental and natural rights. Undergirding these be given the liberty to be truly himself with his family in his
institutions was the modern natural law theory which home, his haven of refuge where he can "retreat from the
stressed natural rights in free, independent and equal cares and pressures, even at times the oppressiveness of
individuals who banded together to form government for the the outside world," to borrow the memorable words of Chief
protection of their natural rights to life, liberty and property. Justice Fernando. For truly, the drapes of a man’s castle are
The sole purpose of government is to promote, protect and but an extension of the drapes on his body that cover the
preserve these rights. And when government not only essentials. In unreasonable searches and seizures, the
defaults in its duty but itself violates the very rights it was prying eyes and the invasive hands of the government
established to protect, it forfeits its authority to demand prevent the individual from enjoying his freedom to keep to
obedience of the governed and could be replaced with one himself and to act undisturbed within his zone of privacy.
to which the people consent. The Filipino people exercised Finally, indispensable to the natural right to property is the
this highest of rights in the EDSA Revolution of February right to one’s possessions. Property is a product of one’s toil
1986. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary and might be considered an expression and extension of
oneself. It is what an individual deems necessary to the
I will not endeavor to identify every natural right that the enjoyment of his life. With unreasonable searches and
Filipinos fought for in EDSA. The case at bar merely calls us seizures, one’s property stands in danger of being
to determine whether two particular rights — the rights rummaged through and taken away. In sum, as pointed out
against unreasonable search and seizure and to the in De Los Reyes, persons are subjected to indignity by an
exclusion of evidence obtained therefrom — have the force unreasonable search and seizure because at bottom, it is a
and effect of natural rights which private respondent violation of a person’s natural right to life, liberty and
Dimaano can invoke against the government. property. It is this natural right which sets man apart from
other beings, which gives him the dignity of a human being.
Page 24 of 28
the right against unreasonable search and seizure merely
It is understandable why Filipinos demanded that every requires some effective remedy, and thus Congress may
organic law in their history guarantee the protection of their abolish or limit the exclusionary right if it could replace it
natural right against unreasonable search and seizure and with other remedies of a comparable or greater deterrent
why the UDHR treated this right as a human right. It is a effect. But these contentions have merit only if it is
right inherent in the right to life, liberty and property; it is a conceded that the exclusionary rule is merely an optional
right "appertain(ing) to man in right of his existence", a remedy for the purpose of deterrence. 283
right that "belongs to man by virtue of his nature and
depends upon his personality", and not merely a civil right Those who defend the constitutional status of the
created and protected by positive law. The right to protect exclusionary right, however, assert that there is nothing in
oneself against unreasonable search and seizure, being a Weeks that says that it is a remedy 284 or a manner of
right indispensable to the right to life, liberty and property, deterring police officers. 285 In Mapp, while the court
may be derived as a conclusion from what Aquinas identifies discredited other means of enforcing the Fourth Amendment
as man’s natural inclination to self-preservation and self cited in Wolf, the thrust of the opinion was broader. Justice
actualization. Man preserves himself by leading a secure life Clarke opined that "no man is to be convicted on
enjoying his liberty and actualizes himself as a rational and unconstitutional evidence" 286 and held that "the
social being in choosing to freely express himself and exclusionary rule is an essential part of both the Fourth and
associate with others as well as by keeping to and knowing Fourteenth Amendments." 287
himself. For after all, a reflective grasp of what it means to
be human and how one should go about performing the Formulated in the Aquinian concept of human law, the
functions proper to his human nature can only be done by debate is whether the exclusionary right is the first kind of
the rational person himself in the confines of his private human law which may be derived as a conclusion from the
space. Only he himself in his own quiet time can examine natural law precept that one should do no harm to another
his life, knowing that an unexamined life is not worth living. man, in the same way that conclusions are derived from
scientific principles, in which case the exclusionary right has
Every organic law the Filipinos established (the Malolos, force from natural law and does not depend on positive law
1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions) and embraced (the for its creation; or if it is the second kind of human law
Instruction, Philippine Bill of 1902, and Jones Law) in the which is derived by way of determination of natural law, in
last century included a provision guaranteeing the people’s the same way that a carpenter determines the shape of a
right against unreasonable search and seizure because the house, such that it is merely a judicially or legislatively
people ranked this right as fundamental and natural. chosen remedy or deterrent, in which case the right only has
Indeed, so fundamental and natural is this right that the force insofar as positive law creates and protects it.
demand for it spurred the American revolution against the
English Crown. It resulted in the Declaration of In holding that the right against unreasonable search and
Independence and the subsequent establishment of the seizure is a fundamental and natural right, we were aided by
American Constitution about 200 years ago in 1789. A philosophy and history. In the case of the exclusionary right,
revolution is staged only for the most fundamental of philosophy can also come to the exclusionary right’s aid,
reasons — such as the violation of fundamental and natural along the lines of Justice Clarke’s proposition in the Mapp
rights — for prudence dictates that "governments long case that no man shall be convicted on unconstitutional
established should not be changed for light and transient evidence. Similarly, the government shall not be allowed to
reasons." 280 convict a man on evidence obtained in violation of a natural
right (against unreasonable search and seizure) for the
Considering that the right against unreasonable search and protection of which, government and the law were
seizure is a natural right, the government cannot claim that established. To rule otherwise would be to sanction the
private respondent Dimaano is not entitled to the right for brazen violation of natural rights and allow law enforcers to
the reason alone that there was no constitution granting the act with more temerity than a thief in the night for they can
right at the time the search was conducted. This right of the disturb one’s privacy, trespass one’s abode, and steal one’s
private respondent precedes the constitution, and does not property with impunity. This, in turn, would erode the
depend on positive law. It is part of natural rights. A people’s trust in government.
violation of this right along with other rights stirred Filipinos
to revolutions. It is the restoration of the Filipinos’ natural Unlike in the right against unreasonable search and seizure,
rights that justified the establishment of the Aquino however, history cannot come to the aid of the exclusionary
government and the writing of the 1987 Constitution. I right. Compared to the right against unreasonable search
submit that even in the absence of a constitution, private and seizure, the exclusionary right is still in its infancy stage
respondent Dimaano had a fundamental and natural right in Philippine jurisdiction, having been etched only in the
against unreasonable search and seizure under natural law. 1973 Constitution after the 1967 Stonehill ruling which
finally laid to rest the debate on whether illegally seized
We now come to the right to the exclusion of evidence evidence should be excluded. In the United States, the
illegally seized. From Stonehill quoting Mapp, we can distill exclusionary right’s genesis dates back only to the 1885
that the exclusionary rule in both the Philippine and Boyd case on the federal level, and to the 1961 Mapp case
American jurisdictions is a freedom "implicit in the concept in the state level. The long period of non-recognition of the
of ordered liberty" for it is a necessary part of the guarantee exclusionary right has not caused an upheaval, much less a
against unreasonable searches and seizures, which in turn is revolution, in both the Philippine and American jurisdictions.
"an essential part of the right to privacy" that the Likewise, the UDHR, a response to violation of human rights
Constitution protects. If the exclusionary rule were not in a particular period in world history, did not include the
adopted, it would be to "grant the right (against exclusionary right. It cannot confidently be asserted
unreasonable search and seizure) but in reality to withhold therefore that history can attest to its natural right status.
its privilege and enjoyment." Thus, the inevitable conclusion Without the strength of history and with philosophy alone
is that the exclusionary rule is likewise a natural right that left as a leg to stand on, the exclusionary right’s status as a
private respondent Dimaano can invoke even in the absence fundamental and natural right stands on unstable ground.
of a constitution guaranteeing such right. Thus, the conclusion that it can be invoked even in the
absence of a constitution also rests on shifting sands.
To be sure, the status of the exclusionary right as a natural
right is admittedly not as indisputable as the right against Be that as it may, the exclusionary right is available to
unreasonable searches and seizures which is firmly private respondent Dimaano as she invoked it when it was
supported by philosophy and deeply entrenched in history. already guaranteed by the Freedom Constitution and the
On a lower tier, arguments have been raised on the 1987 Constitution. The AFP Board issued its resolution on
constitutional status of the exclusionary right. Some assert, Ramas’ unexplained wealth only on July 27, 1987. The
on the basis of United States v. Calandra, 281 that it is only PCGG’s petition for forfeiture against Ramas was filed on
a "judicially-created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth August 1, 1987 and was later amended to name the
Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, Republic of the Philippines as plaintiff and to add private
rather than a personal constitutional right of the party respondent Dimaano as co-defendant. Following the
aggrieved." 282 Along the same line, others contend that petitioner’s stance upheld by the majority that the
Page 25 of 28
exclusionary right is a creation of the Constitution, then it people" in disregard of the "provisions of the 1973
could be invoked as a constitutional right on or after the Constitution." 1 It was said to be revolutionary in the sense
Freedom Constitution took effect on March 25, 1986 and that it came into existence in defiance of existing legal
later, when the 1987 Constitution took effect on February 2, processes, and President Aquino assumed the reigns of
1987. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary government through the extra-legal action taken by the
people. 2
VI. Epilogue
A revolution is defined by Western political scholars as being
The Filipino people have fought revolutions, by the power of a "rapid fundamental and violent domestic change in the
the pen, the strength of the sword and the might of prayer dominant values and myths of a society in its political
to claim and reclaim their fundamental rights. They set institutions, social structure, leadership, and government
these rights in stone in every constitution they established. I activity and policies." 3 A revolution results in a complete
cannot believe and so hold that the Filipinos during that one overthrow of established government and of the existing
month from February 25 to March 24, 1986 were stripped legal order. 4 Notable examples would be the French,
naked of all their rights, including their natural rights as Chinese, Mexican, Russian, and Cuban revolutions.
human beings. With the extraordinary circumstances before, Revolution, it is pointed out, is to be distinguished from
during and after the EDSA Revolution, the Filipinos simply rebellion, insurrection, revolt, coup, and war of
found themselves without a constitution, but certainly not independence. 5 A rebellion or insurrection may change
without fundamental rights. In that brief one month, they policies, leadership, and the political institution, but not the
retrieved their liberties and enjoyed them in their rawest social structure and prevailing values. A coup d’état in itself
essence, having just been freed from the claws of an changes leadership and perhaps policies but not necessarily
authoritarian regime. They walked through history with bare more extensive and intensive than that. A war of
feet, unshod by a constitution, but with an armor of rights independence is a struggle of one community against the
guaranteed by the philosophy and history of their rule by an alien community and does not have to involve
constitutional tradition. Those natural rights inhere in man changes in the social structure of either community. 6
and need not be granted by a piece of paper.
The 1986 People Power Revolution is a uniquely Philippine
To reiterate, the right against unreasonable search and experience. Much of its effects may not be compared in
seizure which private respondent Dimaano invokes is among good substance with those of the "great revolutions." While
the sacred rights fought for by the Filipinos in the 1986 a revolution may be accomplished by peaceful means, 7 it is
EDSA Revolution. It will be a profanity to deny her the right essential, however, that there be an accompanying basic
after the fight had been won. It does not matter whether transformation in political and social structures. The
she believed in the righteousness of the EDSA Revolution or "revolution" at Edsa has not resulted in such radical change
she contributed to its cause as an alleged ally of the though it concededly could have. The offices of the
dictator, for as a human being, she has a natural right to executive branch have been retained, the judiciary has been
life, liberty and property which she can exercise regardless allowed to function, the military, as well as the constitutional
of existing or non-existing laws and irrespective of the will commissions and local governments, have remained intact.
or lack of will of governments. 8 It is observed by some analysts that there has only been a
change of personalities in the government but not a change
I wish to stress that I am not making the duty of the Court of structures 9 that can imply the consequent abrogation of
unbearably difficult by taking it to task every time a right is the fundamental law. The efficacy of a legal order must be
claimed before it to determine whether it is a natural right distinguished from the question of its existence 10 for it may
which the government cannot diminish or defeat by any kind be that the efficacy of a legal order comes to a low point
of positive law or action. The Court need not always twice which may, nevertheless, continue to be operative and
measure a law or action, first utilizing the constitution and functioning. 11
second using natural law as a yardstick. However, the 1986
EDSA Revolution was extraordinary, one that borders the The proclamations issued, as well as the Provisional
miraculous. It was the first revolution of its kind in Philippine Constitutions enacted by the Aquino administration shortly
history, and perhaps even in the history of this planet. after being installed, have revealed the new government’s
Fittingly, this separate opinion is the first of its kind in this recognition of and its intention to preserve the provisions of
Court, where history and philosophy are invoked not as aids the 1973 Constitution on individual rights. Proclamation No.
in the interpretation of a positive law, but to recognize a 1, 12 dated 25 February 1986, has maintained that
right not written in a papyrus but inheres in man as man. "sovereignty resides in the people and all government
The unnaturalness of the 1986 EDSA revolution cannot authority emanates from them." It has expressed that the
dilute nor defeat the natural rights of man, rights that government would be "dedicated to uphold justice, morality
antedate constitutions, rights that have been the beacon and decency in government, freedom and democracy." In
lights of the law since the Greek civilization. Without respect lifting the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
for natural rights, man cannot rise to the full height of his corpus throughout the Philippines, for, among other
humanity. reasons, the "Filipino people have established a new
government bound to the ideals of genuine liberty, and
I concur in the result. freedom for all," Proclamation No. 2 of March 1986, has
declared: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
Ynares-Santiago, J., concur.
"Now, therefore, I, Corazon C. Aquino, President of the
VITUG, J.: Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the
Constitution and the Filipino people, do hereby . . . lift the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
The unprecedented 1986 People Power Revolution at EDSA corpus . . . ." cralaw virtua1aw library
remains to be such an enigma, still confounding political

scientists on its origins and repercussions, to so many. Now, What Constitution could the proclamation have been
before the Court is yet another puzzle: Whether or not the referring to? It could not have been the Provisional
Bill of Rights may be considered operative during the Constitution, adopted only later on 25 March 1986 under
interregnum from 26 February 1986 (the day Corazon C. Proclamation No. 3 which, in fact, contains and attests to
Aquino took her oath to the Presidency) to 24 March 1986 the new government’s commitment to the "restoration of
(immediately before the adoption of the Freedom democracy" and "protection of basic rights," announcing that
Constitution). Indeed, there are differing views on the other the "the provisions of Article I (National Territory), Article III
related question of whether or not the 1973 Constitution has (Citizenship), Article IV (Bill of Rights), Article V (Duties and
meanwhile been rendered, ipso facto, without force and Obligations of Citizens), and Article VI (Suffrage) of the
effect by the successful revolution." 1973 Constitution, as amended, (shall) remain in force and
effect," (Emphasis supplied), 13 superseding only the
cralaw virtua1aw library
The government under President Corazon C. Aquino was articles on "The Batasang Pambansa", "The Prime Minister
described as revolutionary for having been so installed and the Cabinet", "Amendments", and "Transitory
through a "direct exercise of the power of the Filipino Provisions." 14 Verily, Proclamation No. 3 is an
Page 26 of 28
acknowledgment by the Aquino government of the as jewelry and land titles. The Philippine Commission on
continued existence, subject to its exclusions, of the 1973 Good Government (PCGG) filed a petition for forfeiture of all
Charter. the items seized under Republic Act No. 1397, otherwise
also known as an "Act for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully
The new government has done wisely. The Philippines, a Acquired Property," against private respondents Elizabeth
member of the community of nations and among the Dimaano and Josephus Q. Ramas. The Sandiganbayan
original members of the United Nations (UN) organized in issued a resolution on 18 November 1991 dismissing the
1941, has had the clear obligation to observe human rights complaint, directing the return of the illegally seized items,
and the duty to promote universal respect for and and ordering the remand of the case to the Ombudsman for
observance of all fundamental freedoms for all individuals appropriate action. The resolution should be affirmed. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. 15

In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted WHEREFORE, I concur in the results.
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaiming that
basic rights and freedoms are inherent and inalienable to Davide, Jr., C.J., concur.
every member of the human family. One of these rights is
the right against arbitrary deprivation of one’s property. 16 TINGA, J.:
Even when considered by other jurisdictions as being a mere
statement of aspirations and not of law, the Philippine
Supreme Court has, as early as 1951, acknowledged the In a little less than a fortnight, I find myself privileged with
binding force of the Universal Declaration in Mejoff v. my involvement in the final deliberation of quite a few
Director of Prisons, 17 Borovsky v. Commissioner of significant public interest cases. Among them is the present
Immigration, 18 Chirskoff v. Commissioner of Immigration, case.
19 and Andreu v. Commissioner of Immigration. 20 In
subsequent cases, 21 the Supreme Court has adverted to With the well-studied and exhaustive main opinion of Justice
the enumeration in the Universal Declaration in upholding Antonio Carpio, the scholarly treatise that the separate
various fundamental rights and freedoms. The Court, in opinion of Justice Reynato Puno is, and the equally incisive
invoking the articles in the Universal Declaration has relied separate opinion of Justice Jose Vitug, any other opinion
both on the Constitutional provision stating that the may appear unnecessary. But the questions posed are so
Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of challenging and the implications so far-reaching that I feel it
international law as being part of the law of the nation 22 is my duty to offer my modest views.
and, in no little degree, on the tenet that the acceptance of
these generally recognized principles of international law are To begin with, there is unanimity as regards the nullity of
deemed part of the law of the land not only as a condition the questioned seizure of items which are not listed in the
for, but as a consequence of, the country’s admission in the search warrant. The disagreement relates to the juridical
society of nations. 23 The Universal Declaration "constitutes basis for voiding the confiscation. At the core of the
an authoritative interpretation of the Charter of the highest controversy is the question of whether the Bill of Rights was
order, and has over the years become a part of customary in force and effect during the time gap between the
international law." 24 It "spells out in considerable detail the establishment of the revolutionary government as a result of
meaning of the phrase ‘human rights and fundamental the People Power Revolution in February 1986, and the
freedoms,’ which Member States have agreed to observe. promulgation of the Provisional or Freedom Constitution by
The Universal Declaration has joined the Charter . . . as part then President Corazon C. Aquino a month thereafter.
of the constitutional structure of the world community. The
Declaration, as an authoritative listing of human rights, has According to the majority, during the interregnum the
become a basic component of international customary law, Filipino people continued to enjoy, under the auspices of the
indeed binding all states and not only members of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights ("Universal
United Nations."25 cralaw:red
Declaration") and the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights ("International Covenant"), practically the
It might then be asked whether an individual is a proper same rights under the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution
subject of international law and whether he can invoke a although the said Constitution itself was no longer operative
provision of international law against his own nation state. then. Justice Puno posits that during that period, the right
International law, also often referred to as the law of against unreasonable search and seizure still held sway, this
nations, has in recent times been defined as that law which time under the aegis of natural law. Justice Vitug is of the
is applicable to states in their mutual relations and to view that the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution
individuals in their relations with states. 26 The individual as remained in force and effect manly because the
the end of the community of nations is a member of the revolutionary government was bound to respect the
community, and a member has status and is not a mere Universal Declaration.
object. 27 It is no longer correct to state that the State
could only be the medium between international law and its Interestingly, the case has necessitated a debate on
own nationals, for the law has often fractured this link as jurisprudential thought.
and when it fails in its purpose. Thus, in the areas of black
and white slavery, human rights and protection of Apparently, the majority adheres to the legal positivist
minorities, and a score of other concerns over individuals, theory championed by nineteenth century philosopher John
international law has seen such individuals, being members Austin, who defined the essence of law as a distinct branch
of the international community, as capable of invoking rights of morality or justice. 1 He and the English positivists
and duties even against the nation State. 28 believed that the essence of law is the simple idea of an
order backed by threats. 2
At bottom, the Bill of Rights (under the 1973 Constitution),
during the interregnum from 26 February to 24 March 1986 On the other side is Justice Puno’s espousal of the natural
remained in force and effect not only because it was so law doctrine, which, despite its numerous forms and varied
recognized by the 1986 People Power but also because the disguises, is still relevant in modern times as an important
new government was bound by international law to respect tool in political and legal thinking. Essentially, it has afforded
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. a potent justification of the existing legal order and the
social and economic system it embodies, for by regarding
There would appear to be nothing irregular in the issuance positive law as based on a higher law ordained by divine or
of the warrant in question; it was its implementation that natural reason, the actual legal system thus acquires
failed to accord with that warrant. The warrant issued by the stability or even sanctity it would not otherwise possess. 3
Municipal Trial Court of Batangas, Branch 1, only listed the
search and seizure of five (5) baby armalite rifles M-16 and While the two philosophies are poles apart in content, yet
five (5) boxes of ammunition. The raiding team, however, they are somehow cognate. 4 To illustrate, the Bill of Rights
seized the following items: one (1) baby armalite rifle with in the Constitution has its origins from natural law. Likewise
two (2) magazines; forty (40) rounds of 5.56 ammunition; a natural law document is the Universal Declaration. 5
one (1) .45 caliber pistol; communications equipment; cash
in the amount of P2,870,000.00 and US$50,000.00; as well A professor of Jurisprudence notes the inexorable trend to
Page 27 of 28
codify fundamental rights: chanrob1es virtual 1aw library or at least the provisions thereof proscribing unreasonable
search and seizure 12 and excluding evidence in violation of
The emphasis on individual liberty and freedom has been a the proscription. 13
distinctive feature of western political and legal philosophy
since the seventeenth century, associated particularly with Markedly departing from the typical, the revolutionary
the doctrine of natural rights. In the twentieth century this government installed by President Aquino was a benign
doctrine has resulted in the widespread acceptance of the government. It had chosen to observe prevailing
existence of fundamental rights built into the constitutional constitutional restraints. An eloquent proof was the fact that
framework as a bill of rights, as well as receiving recognition through the defunct Philippine Constabulary, it applied for a
internationally by means of Covenants of Human Rights search warrant and conducted the questioned search and
agreed upon between states. seizure only after obtaining the warrant. Furthermore,
President Aquino definitely pledged in her oath of office to
As such bill of rights — whether proffered as a statement of uphold and defend the Constitution, which undoubtedly was
the inalienable and immutable rights of man vested in him the 1973 Constitution, including the Bill of Rights thereof.
by natural law, or as no more than a set of social and
economic rights which the prevailing consensus and the True, the Aquino government reorganized the government,
climate of the times acknowledge to be necessary and including the judiciary and the local officialdom. It did so to
fundamental in a just society — will inevitably take the form protect and stabilize the revolutionary government and not
of a catalogue of those rights, which experience has taught for the purpose of trampling upon the fundamental rights of
modern western society to be crucial for the adequate the people.
protection of the individual and the integrity of his
personality. We may therefore expect, in one form or While arguably the due process clause was not observed in
another, the inclusion of a variety of freedoms, such as the case of the sequestration orders issued by the
freedom of association, of religion, of free speech and of a Presidential Commission on Good Government, the fact
free press. 6 remains that by and large, the Aquino Government elected
and managed to uphold and honor the Bill of Rights. chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In the case at bar, in the ultimate analysis both

jurisprudential doctrines have found application in the In light of the foregoing, I concur in the result.
denouement of the case. The Bill of Rights in the
Constitution, the Universal Declaration and the International
Covenant, great documents of liberty and human rights all,
are founded on natural law.
Going back to the specific question as to the juridical basis

for the nullification of the questioned confiscation, I
respectfully maintain that it is no less than the Freedom
Constitution since it made the Bill of Rights in the 1973
Constitution operable from the incipiency of the Aquino
government.
In the well-publicised so-called "OIC cases," 7 this Court

issued an en banc resolution 8 dismissing the petitions and
upholding the validity of the removal of the petitioners who
were all elected and whose terms of office under the 1973
Constitution were to expire on June 30, 1986, on the basis
of Article III, Section 2 of the Freedom Constitution, which
reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
SEC. 2. All elective and appointive officials and employees

under the 1973 Constitution shall continue in office until
otherwise provided by proclamation or executive order or
upon the designation or appointment and qualification of
their successors, if such appointment is made within a
period of one year, from February 25, 1986.
This Court perforce extended retroactive effect to the above-

quoted provision as the petitions except one 9 were filed
before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution on March
25, 1986. That being the case, with greater reason should
the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution be accorded
retroactive application pursuant to the Freedom
Constitution.
But the more precise statement is that it was the

unmistakable thrust of the Freedom Constitution to bestow
uninterrupted operability to the Bill of Rights in the 1973
Constitution. For one thing, the title 10 itself of Proclamation
No. 3 which ordained the Freedom Constitution, as well as
one of the vital premises or whereas clauses 11 thereof,
adverts to the "protection of the basic rights" of the people.
For another, the Freedom Constitution in Article 1, Section 1
mandates that the Bill of Rights and other provisions of the
Freedom Constitution specified therein "remain in force and
effect and are hereby adopted in toto as part of this
Provisional Constitution." cralaw virtua1aw library
Of course, even if it is supposed that the Freedom

Constitution had no retroactive effect or it did not extend
the effectivity of the Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution,
still there would be no void in the municipal or domestic law
at the time as far as the observance of fundamental rights is
concerned. The Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution would
still be in force, independently of the Freedom Constitution,
Page 28 of 28

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC Affidavits of members of the Military Security Unit, Military

Security Command, Philippine Army, stationed at Camp

Camp Eldridge, Los Baños, Laguna, the existence and

The Statement of Assets and Liabilities of respondent were

associates. EO No. 1 vested the PCGG with the power" (a) to

tasked to investigate reports of unexplained wealth and

III. FINDINGS and EVALUATION:

General Francisco I. Chavez filed an Amended Complaint

Subdivision, Quezon City, valued at P700,000, which was

On 9 November 1988, petitioner asked for a deferment of SO ORDERED.

Sandiganbayan proceeded with petitioner’s presentation of

vague and not related to the existing complaint. The

revert to its preliminary stage when in fact the case had

court to take drastic action.

LAND TITLES CONFISCATED FROM THE HOUSE OF

(a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by

respondent Ramas unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue

We disagree. Thus, we hold that the Sandiganbayan did not err in

of this case, we find that petitioner has only itself to blame

constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives

order of a community is nullified and replaced by a new

From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution

system then in effect, had ceased to be obeyed by the

the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional Commission still

A. I think it was dismissed, sir. Quisumbing and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., on official leave.

Q. In the fiscal’s office? Separate Opinions

Dimaano could invoke her rights against unreasonable

exclusionary right. Using a different lens in viewing the

out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical reforms

single, self-consistent and overarching system of law under

and his natural rights. 41

theory was used to justify resistance to Charles II over the

of humans to preserve themselves." 60 As individuals are

with powers." 63 That individuals "give up a part of their

natural rights from interference by others and of desisting

constitutions or other laws, but also in the sense that they

Thereafter, the phrase "rights of man" gradually replaced

collective effort of 58 states on matters generally considered

the legal and political arena.

assemble and petition the Government for redress of

the 1973 Constitution, including the Bill of Rights which was

citing Laski, wrote about the basic purpose of a civil society

"That the right to be secure against unreasonable searches

Then came the 1935 Constitution which provides in Article

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

Sections 3 and 4 of the 1973 Constitution were adopted in

"It is deference to one’s personality that lies at the core of

jurisdiction has consistently been understood as respect for

one’s dignity and standing as a human being, not only to his

"To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would be x x x

integrity inviolate. The existence of that choice is the very

a criminal trial . . . has the necessary effect of legitimizing

the Court did not uphold the defense of self-incrimination

of First Instance 267 decided under the 1935 Constitution.

people and all government authority emanates from them.

remains to be such an enigma, still confounding political

without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. 15

Declaration") and the International Covenant on Civil and

In the case at bar, in the ultimate analysis both