THE BILL OF RIGHTS upon notice, they may claim the right to appear

therein and present their side and to refute the

The Right to Due Process of Law position of the opposing parties (Cruz, Philippine
Administrative Law, 1996 ed., p. 64). (Secretary
Section 1 of the Bill of Rights lays down what is of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160, 186-188,
known as the “due process clause” of the Jan. 18, 2000, En Banc [Melo])
Constitution. Instances when Prior Notice or Hearing may
In order to fall within the aegis of this provision, be dispensed with
two conditions must concur, namely, that there is These twin rights may, however, be considered
a deprivation and that such deprivation is done dispensable in certain instances, such as:
without proper observance of due process. When 1. In proceedings where there is an urgent need
one speaks of due process of law, however, a for immediate action, like the summary abatement
distinction must be made between matters of of a nuisance per se (Article 704, Civil Code), the
procedure and matters of substance. In essence, preventive suspension of a public servant facing
procedural due process “refers to the method or administrative charges (Section 63, Local
manner by which the law is enforced,” while Government Code, B.P. Blg. 337), the padlocking
substantive due process “requires that the law of filthy restaurants or theaters showing obscene
itself, not merely the procedures by which the law movies or like establishments which are
would be enforced, is fair, reasonable, and just.” immediate threats to public health and decency,
(De Leon, Textbook on the Philippine Constitution, and the cancellation of a passport of a person
1991, p. 81) (Corona v. United Harbor Pilots sought for criminal prosecution;
Association of the Phils., 283 SCRA 31, Dec.
12, 1997 [Romero]) 2. Where there is tentativeness of administrative
The due process clauses in the American and action, that is, where the respondent is not
Philippine Constitutions are not only worded in precluded from enjoying the right to notice and
exactly identical language and terminology, but hearing at a later time without prejudice to the
more importantly, they are alike in what their person affected, such as the summary distraint
respective Supreme Courts have expounded as and levy of the property of a delinquent taxpayer,
the spirit with which the provisions are informed and the replacement of a temporary appointee;
and impressed, the elasticity in their and
interpretation, their dynamic and resilient
character which make them capable of meeting 3. Where the twin rights have previously been
every modern problem, and their having been offered but the right to exercise them had not
designed from earliest time to the present to meet been claimed. (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,
the exigencies of an undefined and expanding 322 SCRA 160, 186-188, Jan. 18, 2000, En Banc
future. The requirements of due process are [Melo])
interpreted in both, the United States and the
Philippines as not denying to the law the capacity The Void-for-vagueness Doctrine
for progress and improvement. Toward this effect
and in order to avoid the confines of a legal The law should be declared void as it is vague,
straitjacket, the courts instead prefer to have the i.e., it lacks comprehensible standards so that
meaning of the due process clause “generally men of ordinary intelligence will probably have to
ascertained by the process of inclusion and guess as to its meaning and differ in its
exclusion in the course of the decisions of cases application.
as they arise (Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. Such vague law is repugnant to the Constitution
78). Capsulized, it refers to “the embodiment of in two (2) respects: one, it violates due process as
the sporting idea of fair play” (Ermita-Malate Hotel it fails to afford persons fair notice of the conduct
and Motel Owner’s Association v. City Mayor of to avoid and; second, it gives law enforcers
Manila, 20 SCRA 849 [1967]). It relates to certain unbridled discretion in carrying out provisions
immutable principles of justice which inhere in the and, therefore, in effect, it becomes an arbitrary
very idea of free government (Holden v. Hardy, flexing of the government’s muscle.
169 U.S. 366). However, for this to be validly invoked, the act or
Due process is comprised of two components – law must be utterly vague on its face that it cannot
substantive due process which requires the be clarified either by a saving clause or by
intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the statutory construction.
rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property, Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Growers &
and procedural due process which consists of the Exporters Association, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
two basic rights of notice and hearing, as well as 189185, August 16, 2016, En Banc (Bersamin)
the guarantee of being heard by an impartial and An Ordinance enacted by the City of Davao
competent tribunal (Cruz, Constitutional Law, prohibiting aerial spraying in all agricultural
1993 Ed., pp. 102-106). entities in that City and requiring affected parties
True to the mandate of the due process clause, to shift to other modes of pesticide application
the basic rights of notice and hearing pervade not within a three-month period under pain of penalty
only in criminal and civil proceedings, but in was declared unconstitutional as it violates due
administrative proceedings as well. Non- process for being oppressive.
observance of these rights will invalidate the Held:
proceedings. Individuals are entitled to be notified The impossibility of carrying out a shift to another
of any pending case affecting their interests, and mode of pesticide application within three months
can readily be appreciated given the vast area of may be treated and regulated differently from
the affected plantations and the corresponding another. In other words, a valid classification must
resources required therefor. X x x be: (1) based on substantial distinctions; (2)
Xxx germane to the purposes of the law; (3) not
The required civil works for the conversion to limited to existing conditions only; and (4) equally
truck-mounted boom spraying alone will consume applicable to all members of the class.
considerable time and financial resources given (Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Growers
the topography and geographical features of the & Exporters Association, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
plantations. As such, the completion could not be 189185, August 16, 2016, En Banc [Bersamin])
completed within the short timeframe of three The Three (3) Levels of Scrutiny to Determine
months. Requiring the respondents and other the Propriety of the Classification under the
affected individuals to comply with the Equal Protection Clause
consequences of the ban within the three-month The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency
period under pain of penalty like fine, of the justification given by the Government for its
imprisonment and even cancellation of business conduct is gauged by using the means-end test.
permits would definitely be oppressive as to This test requires analysis of: (1) the interests of
constitute abuse of police power.” the public that generally requires its exercise, as
distinguished from those of a particular class; and
Extradition and Due Process (2) the means employed that are reasonably
Secretary of Justice v. Honorable Ralph necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
Lantion, October 17, 2000 Resolution of the and are not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
Motion for Reconsideration To determine the propriety of the classification,
During the initial evaluation stage at the courts resort to three levels of scrutiny, viz: the
Department of Justice of an extradition rational scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and strict
proceeding, an extraditee is not yet entitled to the scrutiny.
documents he was requesting (like copy of The rational basis scrutiny (also known as the
request for his extradition from the requesting rational relation test or rational basis test)
government, and supporting documents and demands that the classification reasonably relate
evidences) so that he may be able to prepare for to the legislative purpose. The rational basis test
his defense. That is because an extradition is “sui often applies in cases involving economics or
generis;” it is not similar to a criminal proceeding social welfare, or to any other case not involving a
which will call into operation all of the rights of an suspect class.
accused as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. When the classification puts a quasi-suspect
He may be given copies of those documents once class at a disadvantage, it will be treated under
the petition for his extradition is filed in the RTC. intermediate or heightened review. Classifications
This is but a “soft restraint” on his right to due based on gender or illegitimacy receives
process at that stage. There is no denial of due intermediate scrutiny. To survive intermediate
process for as long as fundamental fairness is scrutiny, the law must not only further an
assured a party. important governmental interest and be
substantially related to that interest, but the
The Right to the Equal Protection of the Laws justification for the classification must be genuine
and must not depend on broad generalizations.
The constitutional right to equal protection The strict scrutiny review applies when a
requires that all persons or things similarly legislative classification impermissibly interferes
situated should be treated alike, both as to rights with the exercise of a fundamental right or
conferred and responsibilities imposed. It requires operates to the peculiar class disadvantage of a
public bodies and institutions to treat similarly suspect class. The Government carries the
situated individuals in a similar manner. The burden to prove that the classification is
guarantee of equal protection secures every necessary to achieve a compelling state interest,
person within the State’s jurisdiction against and that it is the least restrictive means to protect
intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether such interest. (Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino
occasioned by the express terms of a statute or Banana Growers & Exporters Association,
by its improper execution through the State’s duly Inc., et al., G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016,
constituted authorities. The concept of equal En Banc [Bersamin])
justice under the law demands that the State In Mosqueda, et al. v. Pilipino Banana Growers
governs impartially and not to draw distinctions & Exporters Association, Inc., et al., (G.R. No.
between individuals solely on differences that are 189185, August 16, 2016, En Banc [Bersamin]),
irrelevant to the legitimate governmental the Court, applying the rational basis test, ruled
objective. that the ordinance of Davao City prohibiting aerial
Equal protection neither requires universal spraying in all agricultural entities therein as the
application of laws to all persons or things without practice produces pesticide drift causing
distinction, nor intends to prohibit legislation by inconvenience and harm to the residents and
limiting the object to which it is directed or by the degrades the environment, violates the equal
territory in which it is to operate. The guaranty of protection clause, hence, should be declared
equal protection envisions equality among equals unconstitutional. The Court Held:
determined according to a valid classification. If The occurrence of pesticide drift is not limited to
the groupings are characterized by substantial aerial spraying but results from the conduct of any
distinctions that make real differences, one class mode of pesticide application. Even manual
spraying or truck-mounted boom spraying becomes evident when the land is presently
produces drift that may bring about the same devoted to the cultivation of root crops and
inconvenience, discomfort and alleged health vegetables, and trees or plants slightly taller than
risks to the community and to the environment. A the root crops and vegetables are then to be
ban against aerial spraying does not weed out the planted. It is seriously to be doubted whether
harm that the ordinance seeks to achieve. In the such circumstance will prevent the occurrence of
process, the ordinance suffers from being the drift to the nearby residential areas.
“underinclusive” because the classification does Section 6 also subjects to the 30-meter buffer
not include all individuals tainted with the same zone requirement agricultural entities engaging in
mischief that the law seeks to eliminate. A organic farming, and do not contribute to the
classification that is drastically underinclusive with occurrence of pesticide drift. The classification
respect to the purpose or end appears as an indisputably becomes arbitrary and whimsical.
irrational means to the legislative end because it A substantially overinclusive or underinclusive
poorly serves the intended purpose of the law. classification tends to undercut the governmental
Xxx claim that the classification serves legitimate
Aside from its being underinclusive, the assailed political ends. Where overinclusiveness is the
ordinance also tends to be “overinclusive” problem, the vice is that the law has a greater
because its impending implementation will affect discriminatory or burdensome effect than
groups that have no relation to the necessary. In this light, we strike down Section 5
accomplishment of the legislative purpose. Its and Section 6 of Ordinance 0309-07 for carrying
implementation will unnecessarily impose a an invidious classification, and for thereby
burden on a wider range of individuals than those violating the Equal Protection Clause.
included in the intended class based on the Xxx
purpose of the law. Evidently, the ordinance discriminates against
It can be noted that the imposition of the ban is large farmholdings that are the only ideal venues
too broad because the ordinance applies for the investment of machineries and equipment
irrespective of the substance to be aerially applied capable of aerial spraying. It effectively denies the
and irrespective of the agricultural activity to be affected individuals the technology aimed at
conducted. The respondents admit that they efficient and cost-effective operations and
aerially treat their plantations not only with cultivation not only of banana but of other crops
pesticides but also vitamins and other as well. The prohibition against aerial spraying will
substances. The imposition of the ban against seriously hamper the operations of the banana
aerial spraying of substances other than plantations that depend on aerial technology to
fungicides and regardless of the agricultural arrest the spread of the Black Sigatoka disease
activity being performed becomes unreasonable and other menaces that threaten their production
inasmuch as it patently bears no relation to the and harvest. X x x the effect of the ban will not be
purported inconvenience, discomfort, health risk limited to Davao City in view of the significant
and environmental danger which the ordinance contribution of banana export trading to the
seeks to address. The burden now will become country’s economy.
more onerous to various entities, including the The discriminatory character of the ordinance
respondents and even others with no connection makes it oppressive and unreasonable in light of
whatsoever to the intended purpose of the the existence and availability of more permissible
ordinance.” and practical alternatives that will not overburden
Xxx the respondents and those dependent on their
The overinclusiveness of Ordinance No. 0309-07 operations as well as those who stand to be
may also be traced to its Section 6 by virtue of its affected by the ordinance. X x x
requirement for the maintenance of the 30-meter
buffer zone. This requirement applies regardless The Right against Unreasonable Searches and
of the area of the agricultural landholding, Seizures
geographical location, topography, crops grown
and other distinguishing characteristics that Abdula v. Guiani
ideally should bear a reasonable relation to the In a criminal proceeding, there are two (2)
evil sought to be avoided. As earlier stated, only determinations of probable cause, i.e., one is
large banana plantations could rely on aerial made by the prosecutor during preliminary
technology because of the financial capital investigation for the purpose of filing the criminal
required therefor. The establishment and information in court; and the other is made by the
maintenance of the buffer zone will become more judge for the purpose of issuing a warrant of
burdensome to the small landholders because: arrest, or of a search warrant.
(1) they have to reserve the 30-meter belt The determination of probable cause for the
surrounding their property; (2) that will have to be purpose of filing the criminal information in court
identified through GPS; (3) the metes and bounds is an executive function. It is a function that
of the buffer zone will have to be plotted in a belongs to the prosecutor, an officer under the
survey plan for submission to the local Department of Justice, a department under the
government unit; and (4) will be limited as to the executive branch. On the other hand, the
crops that may be cultivated therein based on the determination of probable cause for the purpose
mandate that the zone shall be devoted to of issuing a warrant of arrest, or even that of a
“diversified trees” taller than what are being grown search warrant, is a judicial function, because
therein. The arbitrariness of Section 6 all the more under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution, only a judge may issue a warrant of The Mandatory Drug Testing under R.A. No. 9165
arrest or of a search warrant. For this reason, the (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) does
judge is not bound by the determination of not constitute unreasonable search prohibited by
probable cause by the prosecutor. In fact, he the Constitution. It falls under the category of an
should not rely solely on the finding of probable administrative search. In administrative searches,
cause by the prosecutor because he is mandated the strict probable cause requirement is not
by the Constitution to determine probable cause applied.
personally. He cannot abdicate the performance People v. Leila Johnson
of that function in favor of the prosecutor if he When one is at the nation’s airport and wanted to
wanted to remain faithful to the Constitution. travel by air, he has no reasonable expectation of
Government of the USA v. Judge Purganan privacy and can be subject to warrantless search.
Prior notice or hearing is not required before a This is in view of increased concern over airplane
judge issues a warrant of arrest of an extraditee hijacking and terrorism.
once the petition for extradition is filed in court on In the later case of People v. Susan Canton, the
two (2) basis, i.e., statutory (Sec. 6, P.D. No. SC held that this is now another instance of valid
1069); and constitutional (Sec. 2, Art. III of the Bill warrantless search – warrantless searches at
of Rights). airports.
On statutory basis People v. Doria
Section 6, P.D. No. 1069 (Extradition Law) The requisites for the “plain view” doctrine to be
provides that the moment the petition for validly invoked are:
extradition is filed in the RTC, the judge shall 1. The law enforcement officer must have a valid
cause the immediate issuance of a warrant of justification for an intrusion, or is in a position
arrest. Hearing entails sending of notices to where he can view a particular area;
opposing parties, and receiving facts and 2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view
arguments from them. Arrest subsequent to a must be inadvertent; and
hearing can no longer be considered “immediate.” 3. It is immediately apparent to him that the thing
The law could not have intended the use of the he sees is object of a crime, contraband, or
word “immediate” a superfluity. subject to seizure.
On constitutional basis
Even Section 2, Article III of the Bill of Rights does It is clear that if the object is inside a closed
not require notice or hearing before a judge container, “plain view” may not be invoked.
issues a warrant of arrest. On the contrary, what However, even if it inside a closed container but if
the Constitution provides is “after examination due to the configuration of the container, or due to
under oath or affirmation of the complainant (not its transparency, it can still be seen from the
of the accused) and the witnesses he may outside what is inside, “plain view” may still be
produce.” invoked.
Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest (Section
13, Rule 126, Rules of Court) The Right to Privacy
This is the most common among the instances of
valid warrantless searches. The object of this kind Is there a constitutional right to privacy? The
of warrantless search is to obtain object or effect essence of privacy is the “right to be let alone.” In
of a crime, like the stolen wallet or the knife used the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut (381
in hold-up. U.S. 479, 14 L. ed. 2D 510 [1965]), the United
The three (3) important features of this kind of States Supreme Court gave more substance to
warrantless search are: the right of privacy when it ruled that the right has
1. In this kind if warrantless search, the arrest a constitutional foundation. It held that there is a
always precedes the search; the process cannot right of privacy which can be found within the
be reversed; penumbras of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and
2. The precedent arrest must always be lawful Ninth Amendments x x x. In the 1968 case of
because, if the precedent arrest is unlawful, the Morfe v. Mutuc (22 SCRA 424, 444-445), we
subsequent search, although it may have yielded adopted the Griswold ruling that there is a
positive results, may never validate the unlawful constitutional right to privacy x x x.
arrest that preceded it; and Indeed, if we extend our judicial gaze we will find
3. The search must be limited or confined only to that the right of privacy is recognized and
the immediate vicinity of the place of the arrest. It enshrined in several provisions of our
may not be extended beyond that. Constitution. (Morfe v. Mutuc, 22 SCRA 424, 444
[1968]; Cortes, The Constitutional Foundations of
Valmonte v. De Villa Privacy, p. 18 [1970]). It is expressly recognized
For searches at checkpoints to be valid, the in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights x x x. Other
following must be observed: facets of the right to privacy are protected in
1. The checkpoint must be pre-announced; various provisions of the Bill of Rights (viz: Secs.
2. It must be stationary; and 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17. (Ople v. Torres, G.R. No.
3. The search at checkpoint must be limited to 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno])
visual search only. An intrusive search is not What are the zones of privacy recognized and
allowed protected in our laws?
The Civil Code provides that “[e]very person shall
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace
Board of mind of his neighbors and other persons” and
punishes as actionable torts several acts by a subject to the clear-and-present danger test. For
person of meddling and prying into the privacy of example, a rule such as that involved in Sanidad
another. It also holds a public officer or employee v. Comelec, prohibiting columnists,
or any private individual liable for damages for commentators, and announcers from
any violation of the rights and liberties of another campaigning either for or against an issue in a
person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and plebiscite must have compelling reason to support
other private communications. The Revised Penal it, or it will not pass muster under strict scrutiny.
Code makes a crime the violation of secrets by an These restrictions are censorial and therefore
officer, the revelation of trade and industrial they bear a heavy presumption of constitutional
secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of invalidity. In addition, they will be tested for
privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti- possible overbreadth and vagueness.
Wiretapping Law (R.A. 4200), the Secrecy of Content-neutral restrictions, on the other hand,
Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) and the Intellectual like Sec. 11(b) of R.A. No. 6646, which prohibits
Property Code (R.A. 8293). The Rules of Court on the sale or donation of print space and air time to
privileged communication likewise recognize the political candidates during the campaign period,
privacy of certain information (Section 24, Rule are not concerned with the content of the speech.
130[c], Revised Rules on Evidence). (Ople v. These regulations need only a substantial
Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 [Puno]) governmental interest to support them. A
Jose Jesus M. Disini, Jr., et al. v. The deferential standard of review will suffice to test
Secretary of Justice, et al., G.R. No,. 203335, their validity. The clear-and-present danger rule is
Feb. 11, 2014, En Banc (Abad) inappropriate as a test for determining the
The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone, constitutional validity of laws, like Sec. 11(b) of
was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution as a R.A. No. 6646, which are not concerned with the
facet of the right protected by the guarantee content of political ads but only with their
against unreasonable searches and seizures. But incidents. To apply the clear-and-present danger
the Court acknowledged its existence as early as test to such regulatory measures would be like
1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc, it ruled that the right to using a sledgehammer to drive a nail when a
privacy exists independently of its identification regular hammer is all that is needed.
with liberty; it is in itself fully deserving of The test for this difference in the level of
constitutional protection. justification for the restriction of speech is that
Relevant to any discussion of the right to privacy content-based restrictions distort public debate,
is the concept known as the “Zones of Privacy.” have improper motivation, and are usually
The Court explained in “In the Matter of the imposed because of fear of how people will react
Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of to a particular speech. No such reasons underlie
Sabio v. Senator Gordon” the relevance of these content-neutral regulations, like regulation of time,
zones to the right to privacy: place and manner of holding public assemblies
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in under B.P. Blg. 880, the Public Assembly Act of
our laws. Within these zones, any form of 1985. (Osmena v. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 447,
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law March 31, 1998 [Mendoza])
and in accordance with customary legal process. What is the most influential test for
The meticulous regard we accord to these zones distinguishing content-based from content-
arises not only from our conviction that the right to neutral regulations?
privacy is a “constitutional right” and “the right The United States Supreme Court held in United
most valued by civilized men,” but also from our States v. O’ Brien: [A] a governmental regulation
adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human is sufficiently justified (1) if it is within the
Rights which mandates that, “no one shall be constitutional power of the government; (2) if it
subjected to arbitrary interference with his furthers an important or substantial governmental
privacy” and “everyone has the right to the interest; (3) if the governmental interest is
protection of the law against such interference or unrelated to the suppression of free expression;
attacks.” and (4) if the incidental restriction on alleged First
Two constitutional guarantees create these zones Amendment freedoms (of speech, expression and
of privacy: (a) the right against unreasonable press) is no greater than is essential to the
searches and seizures, which is the basis of the furtherance of that interest (391 U.S. 367, 20 L.
right to be let alone, and (b) the right to privacy of Ed. 2df 692, 680 [1968] [bracketed numbers
communication and correspondence. added])
In assessing the challenge that the State has This is so far the most influential test for
impermissibly intruded into these zones of distinguishing content-based from content-neutral
privacy, a court must determine whether a person regulations and is said to have “become canonical
has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy in the review of such laws.” (G. Gunther & K.
and, if so, whether that expectation has been Sullivan, Constitutional Law 1217 [13th ed.
violated by unreasonable government intrusion. 1997]). It is noteworthy that the O’ Brien test has
been applied by this Court in at least two cases
Freedom of Expression (Adiong v. Comelec, 207 SCRA 712 [1992];
Osmena v. Comelec, supra.).
Content-based restrictions on free speech, Under this test, even if a law furthers an important
and content-neutral regulations or substantial governmental interest, it should be
Content-based restrictions are imposed because invalidated if such governmental interest is “not
of the content of the speech and are, therefore, unrelated to the suppression of free expression.”
Moreover, even if the purpose is unrelated to the Respondents considered the tarpaulin as a
suppression of free speech, the law should campaign material in their issuances. The above
nevertheless be invalidated if the restriction on provisions regulating the posting of campaign
freedom of expression is greater than is materials only apply to candidates and political
necessary to achieve the governmental purpose parties, and petitioners are neither of the two.
in question. (Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9006 on “Lawful
Comelec, G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001, En Election Propaganda” also states that these are
Banc [Mendoza]) “allowed for all registered political parties,
Chavez v. Secretary Gonzales national, regional, sectoral parties or
The Diocese of Bacolod, Represented by the organizations participating under the party-list
Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra, et al. v. elections and for all bona fide candidates seeking
COMELEC, GR No. 205728, January 21, 2015, national and local elective positions subject to the
En Banc (Leonen) limitation on authorized expenses of candidates
This case defines the extent that our people may and political parties. . .” Section 6 of COMELEC
shape the debates during elections. It is Resolution No. 9615 provides for a similar
significant and of first impression. We are asked wording.
to decide whether the Commission on Elections These provisions show that election propaganda
(COMELEC) has the competence to limit refers to matter done by or on behalf of and in
expressions made by the citizens – who are not coordination with candidates and political parties.
candidates – during elections. Some level of coordination with the candidates
Before us is a special civil action for certiorari and and political parties for whom the election
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court propaganda are released would ensure that these
seeking to nullify COMELEC’s Notice to Remove candidates and political parties maintain within
Campaign Materials. the authorized expenses limitation.
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES The tarpaulin was not paid for by any candidate or
A. COMELEC had no legal basis to regulate political party. There was no allegation that
expressions made by private citizens. petitioners coordinated with any of the persons
named in the tarpaulin regarding its posting. On
Respondents (COMELEC officials) cite the the other hand, petitioners posted the tarpaulin as
Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support part of their advocacy against the RH Law.
their position that they had the power to regulate X x x In this case, the tarpaulin contains speech
the tarpaulin. However, all of these provisions on a matter of public concern, that is, a statement
pertain to candidates and political parties. of either appreciation or criticism on votes made
Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they in the passing of the RH law. Thus, petitioners
belong to any political party. COMELEC does not invoke their right to freedom of expression.
have the authority to regulate the enjoyment of B. The violation of the constitutional right to
the preferred right to freedom of expression freedom of speech and expression
exercised by a non-candidate in this case.
First, respondents cite Article IX-C, Section 4 of No law. . .
the Constitution X x x We held that the “evil While it is true that the present petition assails not
sought to be prevented by this provision is the a law but an opinion by the COMELEC Law
possibility that a franchise holder may favor or Department, this Court has applied Article III,
give any undue advantage to a candidate in terms Section 4 of the Constitution even to
of advertising space or radio or television time.” governmental acts.
(Sanidad v. COMELEC, 260 Phil. 565 [1990]) This . . . shall be passed abridging. . .
Court found that “[m]edia practitioners exercising All regulations will have a impact directly or
their freedom of expression during plebiscite indirectly on expression. The prohibition against
periods are neither the franchise holders nor the the abridgment of speech should not mean an
candidates[,]” thus, their right to expression during absolute prohibition against regulation. The
this period may not be regulated by COMELEC. primary and incidental burden on speech must be
Similar to the media, petitioners in the case at bar weighed against a compelling state interest
are neither franchise holders nor candidates. clearly allowed in the Constitution. The test
Respondents likewise cite Article IX-C, Section depends on the relevant theory of speech implicit
2(7) of the Constitution x x x. in the kind of society framed by our Constitution.
Based on the enumeration made on acts that may Our Constitution has also explicitly included the
be penalized, it will be inferred that this provision freedom of expression, separate and in addition
only affects candidates. to the freedom of speech and of the press
Petitioners assail the “Notice to Remove provided in the US Constitution. The word
Campaign Materials” issued by COMELEC. This “expression” was added in the 1987 Constitution x
was followed by the assailed letter regarding the x x for having a wider scope x x x.
“election propaganda materials posted on the Speech may be said to be inextricably linked to
church vicinity promoting for or against the freedom itself as “[t]he right to think is the
candidates and party-list groups . . .” Section 9 of beginning of freedom, and speech must be
the Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006 [2001]) on protected from the government because speech
the posting of campaign materials only mentions is the beginning of thought.” (Freedom of Speech
“parties” and “candidates” x x x. and Expression, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 272, 277
Xxx [2002], quoting Justice Kennedy in Ashcroft v.
Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389, 1403 But this caricature, though not agreeable to some,
[2002]) is still protected speech.
Xxx Xxx
Communication is an essential outcome of Some may have thought that there should be
protected speech. more room to consider being more broad-minded
Communication exists when “(1) a speaker, and non-judgmental. Some may have expected
seeking to signal others, uses conventional that the authors would give more space to
actions because he or she reasonably believes practice forgiveness and humility.
that such actions will be taken by the audience in But, the Bill of Rights enumerated in our
the manner intended; and (2) the audience so Constitution is an enumeration of our fundamental
takes the actions.” (Heidi M. Hurd, Sovereignty in liberties. It is not a detailed code that prescribes
Silence, 99 Yale L. J. 945, 954 [1990]) “[I]n good conduct. It provides space for all to be
communicative action[,] the hearer may respond guided by their conscience, not only in the act that
to the claims by x x x either accepting the speech they do to others but also in judgment of the acts
act’s claims or opposing them with criticism or of others.
requests for justification.” (Hugh Baxter, System Freedom for the thought we can disagree with
and Lifeworld in Haberma’s Theory of Law, 23 can be wielded not only by those in the minority.
Cardozo L. Rev. 473, 499 [2002]) This can often be expressed by dominant
Speech is not limited to vocal communication. institutions, even religious ones. That they made
“[C]onduct is treated as a form of speech their point dramatically and in a large way does
sometimes referred to as ‘symbolic speech[,]’ not necessarily mean that their statements are
(Joshua Waldman, Symbolic Speech and Social true, or that they have basis, or that they have
Meaning, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1844, 1847 [1997]) been expressed in good taste.
such that “’when ‘speech’ and ‘nonspeech’ Embedded in the tarpaulin, however, are opinions
elements are combined in the same course of expressed by petitioners. It is a specie of
conduct,’ the ‘communicative element’ of the expression protected by our fundamental law. It is
conduct may be ‘sufficient to bring into play the an expression designed to invite attention, cause
[right to freedom of expression].’” (Id., citing US v. debate, and hopefully, persuade. It may be
O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 [1968]) motivated by the interpretation of petitioners of
The right to freedom of expression, thus, applies their ecclesiastical duty, but their parishioner’s
to the entire continuum of speech from utterances actions will have very real secular consequences.
made to conduct enacted, and even to inaction Certainly, provocative messages do matter for the
itself as a symbolic manner of communication. elections.
Even before freedom “of expression” was What is involved in this case is the most sacred of
included in Article III, Section 4 of the present speech forms: expression by the electorate that
Constitution, this court has applied its precedent tends to rouse the public to debate contemporary
version to expressions other than verbal issues. This is not speech by candidates or
utterances. political parties to entice votes. It is a portion of
the electorate telling candidates the conditions for
Freedom of expression and equality their election. It is the substantive content of the
right to suffrage.
The possibility of abuse This is a form of speech hopeful of a quality of
The guarantee of freedom of expression to democracy that we should all deserve. It is
individuals without any relationship to any political protected as a fundamental and primordial right
candidate should not be held hostage by the by our Constitution. The expression in the
possibility of abuse by those seeking to be medium chosen by petitioners deserves our
elected. X x x. However, labeling all expressions protection.
of private parties that tend to have an effect on
the debate in the elections as election Freedom of the Press
paraphernalia would be too broad a remedy that
can stifle genuine speech. Instead, to address this Four (4) Aspects of Press Freedom
evil, better and more effective enforcement will be Philippine jurisprudence, even as early as the
the least restrictive means to the fundamental period under the 1935 Constitution, has
freedom. recognized four aspects of freedom of the press.
Xxx These are (1) freedom from prior restraint; (2)
COMELEC”s general role includes a mandate to freedom from punishment subsequent to
ensure equal opportunities and reduce spending publication; (3) freedom of access to information;
among candidates and their registered political and (4) freedom of circulation. (Francisco
parties. It is not to regulate or limit speech of the Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales, et. al., G.R. No.
electorate as it strives to participate in the 168338, 15 February 2008, En Banc [Puno,
electoral exercise. CJ])
The tarpaulin in question may be viewed as Freedom of Assembly
producing a caricature of those who are running The first point to mark is that the right to
for public office. Their message may be construed peaceably assemble and petition for redress of
generalizations of very complex individuals and grievances is, together with freedom of speech, of
party-list organizations. They are classified into expression, and of the press, a right that enjoys
black and white: as belonging to “Team Patay” or primacy in the realm of constitutional protection.
“Team Buhay.” For these rights constitute the very basis of a
functional democratic polity, without which all the days from the date the application was filed,
other rights would be meaningless and failing which, the permit shall be deemed granted.
unprotected. (BAYAN, et al. v. Ermita, et al., Should for any reason the mayor or any official
G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006, En Banc acting in his behalf refuse to accept the
[Azcuna]) application for a permit, said application shall be
Batas Pambansa Blg. 880 – The Public posted by the applicant on the premises of the
Assembly Act of 1985 office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have
Meaning of Public Assembly been filed.
“Public assembly” means any rally,
demonstration, march, parade, procession or any (c) If the mayor is of the view that there is
other form of mass or concerted action held in a imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil
public place for the purpose of presenting a lawful warranting the denial or modification of the permit,
cause, or expressing an opinion to the general he shall immediately inform the applicant who
public on any particular issue; or protesting or must be heard on the matter.
influencing any state of affairs whether political,
economic or social; or petitioning the government (d) The action on the permit shall be in writing
for redress of grievances. and served on the applicant within twenty-four
The processions, rallies, parades, hours.
demonstrations, public meetings and
assemblages for religious purposes shall be (e) If the mayor or any official acting in his
governed by local ordinances; Provided, however, behalf denies the application or modifies the
That the declaration of policy as provided in terms thereof in his permit, the applicant may
Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed. contest the decision in an appropriate court of
The definition herein contained shall not include law.
picketing and other concerted action in strike
areas by workers and employees resulting from a Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Hon. Mayor
labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its Jose “Lito” Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, 24
implementing rules and regulations, and by the February 2010, 1st Div. (Carpio Morales)
Batas Pambansa Bilang 227. (Section 3[a], B.P. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
Blg. 880) applied for a permit to rally at Mendiola Bridge.
Permit when required and when not required However, then Manila Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza
A written permit shall be required for any person issued a permit to rally at Plaza Miranda instead.
or persons to organize and hold a public Issue: Whether or not the appellate court erred in
assembly in a public place. However, no permit holding that the modification of the venue in IBP’s
shall be required if the public assembly shall be rally permit does not constitute grave abuse of
done or made in a freedom park duly established discretion.
by law or ordinance or in a private property, in Held: Section 6(c) of the Public Assembly Act (BP
which case only the consent of the owner or the 880) provides that “If the mayor is of the view that
one entitled to its legal possession is required, or there is imminent and grave danger of a
in the campus of a government–owned and substantive evil warranting the denial or
operated educational institution which shall be modification of the permit, he shall immediately
subject to the rules and regulations of said inform the applicant who must be heard on the
educational institution. Political meetings or rallies matter.”
held during any election campaign period as In modifying the permit outright, Atienza gravely
provided for by law are not covered by this Act. abused his discretion when he did not
(Section 4, B.P. Blg. 880) immediately inform the IBP who should have
Freedom Parks been heard first on the matter of his perceived
Every city and municipality in the country shall imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil
within six months after the effectivity of this Act that may warrant the changing of the venue.
establish or designate at least one suitable Atienza failed to indicate how he had arrived at
“freedom park” or mall in their respective modifying the terms of the permit against the
jurisdictions which, as far as practicable, shall be standard of a clear and present danger test which
centrally located within the poblacion where x x x is an indispensable condition to such
demonstrations and meetings may be held at any modification. Nothing in the issued permit adverts
time without the need of any prior permit. (Section to an imminent and grave danger of a substantive
5, B.P. Blg. 880) evil, which “blank” denial or modification would,
Action to be taken on the application (Section when granted imprimatur as the appellate court
6, B.P. Blg. 880) would have it, render illusory any judicial scrutiny
(a) It shall be the duty of the mayor or any official thereof.
acting in his behalf to issue or grant a permit It is true that the licensing official is not devoid of
unless there is clear and convincing evidence that discretion in determining whether or not a permit
the public assembly will create a clear and would be granted. It is not, however, unfettered
present danger to public order, public safety, discretion. While prudence requires that there be
public convenience, public morals or public a realistic appraisal not of what may possibly
health. occur but of what may probably occur, given all
the relevant circumstances, still the assumption –
(b) The mayor or any official acting in his behalf especially so where the assembly is scheduled for
shall act on the application within two (2) working a specific public place – is that the permit must be
for the assembly being held there. It smacks of other than the maximum tolerance policy set forth
whim and caprice for Atienza to impose a change in B.P. No. 880. This is stated in the Affidavit of
of venue for an assembly that was slated for a respondent Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita,
specific public place. It is thus reversible error for submitted by the Solicitor General.
the appellate court not to have found such grave At any rate, the Court rules that in view of the
abuse of discretion and, under specific statutory maximum tolerance mandated by B.P. No. 880,
provision, not to have modified the permit “in CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same
terms satisfactory to the applicant.” thing as maximum tolerance and is illegal if it
Meaning of Maximum Tolerance means something else. Accordingly, what is to be
“Maximum tolerance” means the highest degree followed is and should be that mandated by the
of restraint that the military, police and other law itself, namely, maximum tolerance.
peace keeping authorities shall observe during a In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of
public assembly or in the dispersal of the same. upholding the fundamental rights of our people,
(Section 3[c], B.P. Blg. 880) especially freedom of expression and freedom of
B.P. No. 880 is merely a “content-neutral” assembly.
regulation For this reason, the so-called calibrated
It is very clear that B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute preemptive response policy has no place in our
ban of public assemblies but a restriction that legal firmament and must be struck down as a
simply regulates the time, place and manner of darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely
the assemblies. This was adverted to in Osmena confuses our people and is used by some police
v. Comelec (G.R. No. 132231, March 31, 1998, agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P.
288 SCRA 447), where the Court referred to it as No. 880 cannot be condemned as
a “content-neutral” regulation of the time, place, unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly
and manner of holding public assemblies (Ibid, p. restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of
478). public places as to the time, place and manner of
A fair and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus assemblies. Far from being insidious, “maximum
readily shows that it refers to all kinds of public tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists, not the
assemblies (except picketing and other concerted government., The delegation to the mayors of the
action in strike areas by workers and employees power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is
resulting from a labor dispute, which are governed subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and
by the Labor Code and other labor laws, political present danger” standard. (BAYAN, et al. v.
meeting or rallies held during election campaign Ermita, et al., G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006,
period, which are governed by the Election Code En Banc [Azcuna])
and other election related laws, and public Freedom of Religion
assemblies in the campus of a government- Ang Ladlad-LGBT Party v. Commission on
owned and operated educational institution, which Elections, G.R. No. 190582, 618 SCRA 32, April
shall be subject to the rules and regulations of 8, 2010, En Banc (Del Castillo)
said educational institution [Sec. 3(a) and Sec. 4 The decision of the COMELEC not to allow the
of B.P. No. 880]) that would use public places. Ang Ladlad-LGBT Party to participate in party-list
The reference to “lawful cause” does not make it elections because its members are “immoral,”
content-based because assemblies really have to citing verses from the Bible and the Koran, was
be for lawful causes, otherwise they would not be ruled by the SC to be tainted with grave abuse of
“peaceable” and entitled to protection. Neither are discretion and, therefore, nullified, as it violated
the words “opinion,” “protesting” and “influencing” the non-establishment clause of freedom of
in the definition of public assembly content-based, religion. In effect, the COMELEC used religious
since they can refer to any subject. The words standard in its decision by using verses from the
“petitioning the government for redress of Bible and the Koran. The COMELEC, as a
grievances” come from the wording of the government agency, is not supposed to be guided
Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided. Finally, by religious standards in its decisions and actions.
maximum tolerance is for the protection and Held:
benefits of all rallyists and is independent of the “Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5
content of the expressions in the rally. that”[n]o law shall be made respecting an
Furthermore, the permit can only be denied on establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
the ground of clear and present danger to public exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-
order, public safety, public convenience, public establishment clause calls for is “government
morals or public health. This is a recognized neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly,
exception to the exercise of the right even under “governmental reliance on religious justification is
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We thus
the International Covenant on Civil and Political find that it was grave violation of the non-
Rights x x x. (BAYAN, et al. v. Ermita, et al., G.R. establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize
No. 169838, April 25, 2006, En Banc [Azcuna]) the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of
The Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) Ang Ladlad.
Policy adopted by the Arroyo Administration “Rather than relying on religious belief, the
in dealing with public assemblies legitimacy of the Assailed Resolutions should
The Court now comes to the matter of the CPR. depend, instead, on whether the COMELEC is
As stated earlier, the Solicitor General has able to advance some justification for its rulings
conceded that the use of the term should now be beyond mere conformity to religious doctrine.
discontinued, since it does not mean anything Otherwise stated, government must act for
secular purposes and in ways that have primarily married individual, not in an emergency or life-
secular effects. X x x.” threatening case, as defined under Republic Act
What is a purely ecclesiastical affair to which No. 8344, to undergo reproductive health
the State can not meddle following the procedures without the consent of the spouse;
Separation of Church and State Doctrine?
An ecclesiastical affair is “one that concerns 4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding
doctrine, creed, or form of worship of the church, provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they limit the
or the adoption and enforcement within a religious requirement of parental consent only to elective
association of needful laws and regulations for the surgical procedures;
government of the membership, and the power of
excluding from such associations those deemed 5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding
not worthy of membership.” Based on this provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24
definition, an ecclesiastical affair involves the thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare
relationship between the church and its members service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a
and relate to matters of faith, religious doctrines, patient not in an emergency or life-threatening
worship and governance of the congregation. To case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to
be concrete, examples of this so-called another health care service provider within the
ecclesiastical affairs to which the State cannot same facility or one which is conveniently
meddle are proceedings for excommunication, accessible regardless of his or her religious
ordinations of religious ministers, administration of beliefs;
sacraments and other activities with attached
religious significance. (Pastor Dionisio V. 6) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision
Austria v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124382, Aug. 16, in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 thereof,
1999, 1st Div. [Kapunan]) insofar as they punish any public officer who
Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals refuses to support reproductive health programs
Under the non-establishment clause of freedom of or shall do any act that hinders the full
religion, when it comes to religious differences, implementation of a reproductive health program,
the State enjoys no banquet of options – regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
neutrality alone is its fixed and immovable stance.
It is not its task to defend one religion against an 7) Section 17 and the corresponding provision in
attack by another religion. After all, the remedy the RH-IRR regarding the rendering of pro bono
against bad theology is better theology. Let them reproductive health service in so far as they affect
duel in the market place of ideas. The the conscientious objector in securing Philhealth
marketplace of ideas demands that speech accreditation; and
should be met by more speech, for it is the spark
of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas, 8) Section 3.01(a) and Section 3.01(j) of the RH-
that can fan the embers of truth. IRR, which added the qualifier “primarily” in
James M. Imbong, et al. v. Hon. Paquito N. defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as they
Ochoa, Jr., et al., GR No. 204819, April 8, 2014, are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for
En Banc (Mendoza) contravening Section 4(a) of the RH Law and
Wherefore, THE PETITIONS ARE partially violating Section 12, Article II of the Constitution.
granted. Accordingly, the Court declares R.A. No.
10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL, except Liberty of Abode and Freedom of Movement
with respect to the following provisions which are
declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL: The liberty of abode and of changing the same
1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
RH-IRR insofar as they: a) require private health impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
facilities And non-maternity specialty hospitals Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except
and hospitals owned and operated by a religious in the interest of national security, public safety, or
group to refer patients, not in an emergency or public health, as may be provided by law. (Sec. 6,
life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Art. III, 1987 Constitution)
Act no. 8344, to another health facility which is
conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor- Limitation on the Right to Travel
parents or minors who have suffered a
miscarriage access to modern methods of family The right to travel is guaranteed by the
planning without written consent from their Constitution. However, the exercise of such right
parents or guardian/s; is not absolute. Section 6, Article III of the 1987
Constitution allows restrictions on one’s right to
2) Section 23(a)(1) and the corresponding travel provided that such restriction is in the
provision in the RH-IRR, particularly Section 5.24 interest of national security, public safety or public
thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare health as may be provided by law. This, however,
service provider who fails or refuses to should by no means be construed as limiting the
disseminate information regarding programs and Court’s inherent power of administrative
services on reproductive health regardless of his supervision over lower courts.
or her religious beliefs; OCA Circular No. 49-2003 does not restrict but
merely regulates, by providing guidelines to be
3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding complied by judges and court personnel, before
provision in the RH-IRR insofar as they allow a they can go on leave to travel abroad. To “restrict”
is to restrain or prohibit a person from doing The necessity of a law before a curtailment in the
something; to “regulate” is to govern or direct freedom of movement may be permitted is
according to rule. To ensure management of court apparent in the deliberations of the members of
dockets and to avoid disruption in the the Constitutional Commission. X x x.
administration of justice, OCA Circular No. 49- It is well to remember that under the 1973
2003 requires a judge who wishes to travel Constitution, the right to travel is compounded
abroad to submit, together with his application for with the liberty of abode in Section 5 thereof x x x.
leave of absence duly recommended for approval The provision, however, proved inadequate to
by his Executive Judge, a certification from the afford protection to ordinary citizens who were
Statistics Division, Court Management Office of subjected to “hamletting” under the Marcos
the OCA. The said certification shall state the regime. Realizing the loophole in the provision,
condition of his docket based on his Certificate of the members of the Constitutional Commission
Service for the month immediately preceding the agreed that a safeguard must be incorporated in
date of his intended travel, that he has decided the provision in order to avoid this unwanted
and resolved all cases or incidents within three (3) consequence. Thus, the Commission
months from date of submission, pursuant to meticulously framed the subject provision in such
Section 15(1) and (2), Article VIII of the 1987 a manner that the right cannot be subjected to the
Constitution. whims of any administrative officer. In addressing
Thus, for traveling abroad without having been the loophole, they found that requiring the
officially allowed by the Court, Judge Macarine is authority of a law most viable in preventing
guilty of violation of OCA Circular No. 49-2003. unnecessary intrusion in the freedom of
(Office of Administrative Services–Office of movement x x x.
the Court Administrator v. Judge Ignacio B. During the discussions, however, the Commission
Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, 18 July 2012, realized the necessity of separating the concept
2nd Div. [Brion]) of liberty of abode and the right to travel in order
Efraim C. Genuino, et al. v. Hon. Leila M. De to avoid untoward results. Ultimately, distinct
Lima, et al., G.R. Nos. 199034, 199046 and safeguards were laid down which will protect the
197930, April 17, 2018, En Banc (Reyes, Jr.) liberty of abode and the right to travel separately x
These consolidated Petitions x x x assail the x x.
constitutionality of Department of Justice (DOJ) It is clear from the foregoing that the liberty of
Circular No. 41, series of 2010, otherwise known abode may only be impaired by a lawful order of
as the “Consolidated Rules and Regulations the court and, on the one hand, the right to travel
Governing Issuance and Implementation of Hold may only be impaired by a law that concerns
Departure Orders, Watchlist Orders and Allow national security, public safety of public health.
Departure Orders,” on the ground that it infringes Therefore, when the exigencies of times call for a
on the constitutional right to travel. limitation on the right to travel, the Congress must
Xxx respond to the need by explicitly providing for the
The right to travel is part of the “liberty” of which a restriction in a law. This is in deference to the
citizen cannot be deprived without due process of primacy of the right to travel, being a
law. It is part and parcel of the guarantee of constitutionally-protected right and not simply a
freedom of movement that the Constitution statutory right, that it can only be curtailed by a
affords its citizen. X x x legislative enactment.
Xxx Xxx
It is apparent, however, that the right to travel is In any event, when there is a dilemma between
not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory an individual claiming the exercise of a
and inherent limitations regulating the right to constitutional right vis-à-vis the state’s assertion
travel. Section 6 itself provides that the right to of authority to restrict the same, any doubt must,
travel may be impaired only in the interest of at all times, be resolved in favor of the free
national security, public safety or public health, as exercise of the right, absent any explicit provision
may be provided by law. X x x of law to the contrary.
Clearly, under the provision, there are only three The issuance of DOJ Circular No. 41 has
considerations that may permit a restriction on the no legal basis
right to travel: national security, public safety or Guided by the foregoing disquisition, the Court is
public health. As a further requirement, there must in quandary of identifying the authority from which
be an explicit provision of statutory law or the the DOJ believed its power to restrain the right to
Rules of Court providing for the impairment. The travel emanates. To begin with, there is no law
requirement for a legislative enactment was particularly providing for the authority of the
purposely added to prevent inordinate restraints secretary of justice to curtail the exercise of the
on the person’s right to travel by administrative right to travel, in the interest of national security,
officials who may be tempted to wield authority public safety or public health. As it is, the only
under the guise of national security, public safety ground of the former DOJ Secretary in restraining
or public health. This is in keeping with the the petitioners, at that time, was the pendency of
principle that ours is a government of laws and the preliminary investigation of the Joint DOJ-
not of men and also with the canon that COMELEC Preliminary Investigation Committee
provisions of law limiting the enjoyment of liberty on the complaint for electoral sabotage against
should be construed against the government and them.
in favor of the individual. To be clear, DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is
not a legislative enactment which underwent the
scrutiny and concurrence of lawmakers, and done in pursuit of their official functions are public
submitted to the President for approval. It is a in character; hence, the records pertaining to
mere administrative issuance apparently such official acts and decisions are within the
designed to carry out the provisions of an ambit of the constitutional right of access to public
enabling law which the former DOJ Secretary records.
believed to be Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292, Under Republic Act No. 6713, public officials and
otherwise known as the “Administrative Code of employees are mandated to “provide information
1987.” X x x on their policies and procedures in clear and
Xxx understandable language, [and] ensure openness
Consistent with the foregoing, there must be an of information, public consultations and hearing
enabling law from which DOJ Circular No. 41 whenever appropriate x x x,” except when
must derive its life. Unfortunately, all of the “otherwise provided by law or when required by
supposed statutory authorities relied upon by the the public interest.” In particular, the law
DOJ did not pass the completeness test and mandates free public access, at reasonable
sufficient standard test. The DOJ miserably failed hours, to the annual performance reports of
to establish the existence of the enabling law that offices and agencies of government and
will justify the issuance of the questioned circular. government-owned or controlled corporations;
That DOJ Circular No. 41 was intended to aid the and the statements of assets, liabilities and
department in realizing its mandate only begs the financial disclosures of all public officials and
question. The purpose, no matter how employees.
commendable, will not obliterate the lack of In general, writings coming into the hands of
authority of the DOJ to issue the said issuance. public officers in connection with their official
Surely, the DOJ must have the best intentions in functions must be accessible to the public,
promulgating DOJ Circular No. 41, but the end consistent with the policy of transparency of
will not justify the means. To sacrifice individual governmental affairs. This principle is aimed at
liberties because of a perceived good is affording the people an opportunity to determine
disastrous to democracy. X x x. whether those to whom they have entrusted the
affairs of the government are honestly, faithfully
The Right of the People to Information on and competently performing their functions as
Matters of Public Concern public servants. Undeniably, the essence of
democracy lies in the free-flow of thought; but
In Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., the Court thoughts and ideas must be well-informed so that
emphasized that the information sought must be the public would gain a better perspective of vital
“matters of public concern,” access to which may issues confronting them and, thus, be able to
be limited by law. Similarly, the state policy of full criticize as well as participate in the affairs of the
public disclosure extends only to “transactions government in a responsible, reasonable and
involving public interest” and may also be “subject effective manner. Certainly, it is by ensuring an
to reasonable conditions prescribed by law.” As to unfettered and uninhibited exchange of ideas
the meanings of the terms “public interest” and among a well-informed public that a government
“public concern,” the Court, in Legaspi v. Civil remains responsive to the changes desired by the
Service Commission, elucidated: people. (Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744, Dec.
“In determining whether or not a particular 9, 1998, [Panganiban])
information is of public concern, there is no rigid Recognized Restrictions to the Right of the
test which can be applied. ‘Public concern’ like People to Information on Matters of Public
‘public interest’ is a term that eludes exact Concern
definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum 1) National security matters and intelligence
of subjects which the public may want to know, information. This jurisdiction recognizes the
either because these directly affect their lives, or common law holding that there is a governmental
simply because such matters naturally arouse the privilege against public disclosure with respect to
interest of an ordinary citizen. In the final analysis, state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and
it is for the courts to determine on a case by case other national security matters. Likewise,
basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or information on inter-government exchanges prior
importance, as it relates to or affects the public.” to the conclusion of treaties and executive
Considered a public concern in the above- agreements may be subject to reasonable
mentioned case was the “legitimate concern of safeguards for the sake of national interest;
citizens to ensure that government positions
requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only 2) Trade or industrial secrets (pursuant to the
by persons who are eligibles.” So was the need to Intellectual Property Code [R.A. No. 8293,
give the general public adequate notification of approved on June 6, 1997] and other related
various laws that regulate and affect the actions laws) and banking transactions (pursuant to the
and conduct of citizens, as held in Tanada. Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act [R.A. No. 1405, as
Likewise did the “public nature of the loanable amended]);
funds of the GSIS and the public office held by
the alleged borrowers (members of the defunct 3) Criminal matters, such as those relating to the
Batasang Pambansa)” qualify the information apprehension, the prosecution and the detention
sought in Valmonte as matters of public interest of criminals, which courts may not inquire into
and concern. In Aquino-Sarmiento v. Morato, the prior to such arrest, detention and prosecution;
Court also held that official acts of public officers
4) Other confidential information. The Ethical moral or material injury which their misuse might
Standards Act (R.A. No. 6713, enacted on inflict on others is the requestor’s responsibility
February 20, 1989) further prohibits public and lookout. While public officers in the custody
officials and employees from using or divulging or control of public records have the discretion to
“confidential or classified information officially regulate the manner in which records may be
known to them by reason of their office and not inspected, examined or copied by interested
made available to the public.” (Sec. 7[c], ibid.) parties, such discretion does not carry with it the
Other acknowledged limitations to information authority to prohibit access, inspection,
access include diplomatic correspondence, examination, or copying of the records. After all,
closed door Cabinet meetings and executive public office is a public trust.
sessions of either house of Congress, as well as The Custodial Investigation Rights
the internal deliberations of the Supreme Court. R.A. No. 7438 (An Act Defining Certain Rights
(Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744, Dec. 9, 1998, of Person Arrested, Detained or Under
[Panganiban]) Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties
of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating
Re: Request for Copy of 2008 Statement of Officers and Providing Penalties for Violations
Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) and Thereof)
Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the The Right to Bail
Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers In bail application where the accused is
and Employees of the Judiciary (A.M. No. 09- charged with a capital offense, will it be
8-6-SC, June 13, 2012, En Banc [Mendoza]) proper for the judge to grant bail without
Section 7 of Article III of the Constitution is conducting hearing if the prosecutor
relevant in the issue of public disclosure of SALN interposes no objection to such application?
and other documents of public officials. Jurisprudence is replete with decisions compelling
Emphasizing the import and meaning of the judges to conduct the required hearings in bail
foregoing constitutional provision, the Court, in applications, in which the accused stands
the landmark case of Valmonte v. Belmonte, Jr., charged with a capital offense. The absence of
elucidated that the right to information goes hand objection from the prosecution is never a basis for
in hand with the constitutional policies of full the grant of bail in such cases, for the judge has
public disclosure and honesty in the public no right to presume that the prosecutor knows
service. It is meant to enhance the widening role what he is doing on account of familiarity with the
of the citizenry in governmental decision-making case. “Said reasoning is tantamount to ceding to
as well as in checking abuse in government. The the prosecutor the duty of exercising judicial
importance of the said right was pragmatically discretion to determine whether the guilt of the
explicated that the incorporation of this right in the accused is strong. Judicial discretion is the
Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental domain of the judge before whom the petition for
role of free exchange of information in a provisional liberty will be decided. The mandated
democracy. There can be no realistic perception duty to exercise discretion has never been
by the public of the nation’s problems nor a reposed upon the prosecutor.”
meaningful democratic decision-making if they Imposed in Baylon v. Sison was this mandatory
are denied access to information of general duty to conduct a hearing despite the
interest. Information is needed to enable the prosecution's refusal to adduce evidence in
members of society to cope with the exigencies of opposition to the application to grant and fix bail.
the times. However, restrictions on access to (Joselito V. Narciso v. Flor Marie Sta. Romana-
certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, Cruz, G.R. No. 134504, March 17, 2000, 3rd Div.
while “public concern” like “public interest” eludes [Panganiban])
exact definition and has been said to embrace a Is a condition in an application for bail that
broad spectrum of subjects which the public may accused be first arraigned before he could be
want to know, either because such matters granted bail valid?
naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen, In the first place x x x in cases where it is
the Constitution itself, under Section 17, Article XI, authorized, bail should be granted before
has classified the information disclosed in the arraignment, otherwise the accused may be
SALN as a matter of public concern and interest. precluded from filing a motion to quash. For if the
In other words, a “duty to disclose” sprang from information is quashed and the case is dismissed,
the “right to know.” Both of constitutional origin, there would then be no need for the arraignment
the former is a command while the latter is a of the accused. In the second place, the trial court
permission. Hence, there is a duty on the part of could ensure the presence of petitioner at the
members of the government to disclose their arraignment precisely by granting bail and
SALNs to the public in the manner provided by ordering his presence at any stage of the
law. proceedings, such as arraignment. Under Rule
In the case at bar, the Court notes the valid 114, Sec. 2(b) of the Rules on Criminal
concerns of the other magistrates regarding the Procedure, one of the conditions of bail is that
possible illicit motives of some individuals in their “the accused shall appear before the proper court
requests for access to such personal information whenever so required by the court or these
and their publication. However, custodians of Rules,” while under Rule 116, Sec. 1(b) the
public documents must not concern themselves presence of the accused at the arraignment is
with the motives, reasons and objects of the required.
persons seeking to access to the records. The
On the other hand, to condition the grant of bail to “This national commitment to uphold the
an accused on his arraignment would be to place fundamental human rights as well as value the
him in a position where he has to choose between worth and dignity of every person has authorized
(1) filing a motion to quash and thus delay his the grant of bail not only to those charged in
release on bail because until his motion to quash criminal proceedings but also to extraditees upon
can be resolved, his arraignment cannot be held, a clear and convincing showing: (1) that the
and (2) foregoing the filing of a motion to quash detainee will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
so that he can be arraigned at once and community; and (2) that there exist special,
thereafter be released on bail. These scenarios humanitarian and compelling circumstances.
certainly undermine the accused’s constitutional “In our view, his social and political standing and
right not to be put on trial except upon valid his having immediately surrendered to the
complaint or information sufficient to charge him authorities upon his having been charged in court
with a crime and his right to bail. (Lavides v. CA, indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from
324 SCRA 321, Feb. 1, 2000, 2nd Div. this jurisdiction is highly unlikely. His personal
[Mendoza]) disposition from the onset of his indictment for
Government of Hongkong Special plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated
Administrative Region v. Judge Olalia his utter respect for the legal processes of this
The decision of the SC in Government of the USA country. We also do not ignore that at an earlier
v. Judge Purganan which says that “no bail rule time many years ago when he had been charged
applies in extradition since bail is available only to with rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
one who had arrested and detained for violation murder, he already evinced a similar personal
of Philippine criminal laws” was re-examined and, disposition of respect for the legal processes, and
after re-examination, the rule now is that an was granted bail during the pendency of his trial
extraditee may be allowed to post bail during the because he was not seen as a flight risk. With his
pendency of an extradition proceeding. However, solid reputation in both his public and his private
for him to be allowed to post bail, still he must lives, his long years of public service, and
prove that (1) once granted bail he will not be a history’s judgment of him being at stake, he
flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) should be granted bail.
that there exists special, humanitarian and “The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health
compelling circumstances that will justify the grant presents another compelling justification for his
of bail to him, by a clear and convincing evidence. admission to bail x x x.
The reason why the Purganan ruling was re- “X x x
examined is because of the modern trend in “Bail for the provisional liberty to the accused,
public international law where an individual regardless of the crime charged, should be
person is no longer considered a mere object of allowed independently of the merits of the charge,
international law but rather as a subject thereof, provided his continued incarceration is clearly
and the primacy given to human rights, among shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger
which is the right to liberty. his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite
Juan Ponce Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (3rd imperiling hid health and life would not serve the
Div.), G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015, En true objective of preventive incarceration during
Banc (Bersamin) the trial.
A close reading of the ruling of the SC in this case “Granting bail to Enrile on the foregoing reasons
allowing former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile to is not unprecedented. X x x
post bail although he was charged of plunder, a “It is relevant to observe that granting provisional
non-bailable offense, was because of the Olalia liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his
ruling. medical condition be properly addressed and
In this case, former Senator Enrile was shown not better attended to by competent physicians in the
to be a flight risk or a danger to the community hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his
(his voluntary surrender to the authorities and his adequate preparation of his defense but, more
record of respect for court processes in earlier importantly, will guarantee his appearance in
cases), and that there exist special, humanitarian court for the trial.
and compelling circumstances (his advanced age, “On the other hand, to mark time in order to wait
fragile state of health and medical predicament for the trial to finish before a meaningful
that will require the services of doctors of his consideration of the application for bail can be
choice) that will justify the grant of bail to him. had is to defeat the objective of bail, which is to
After all, the main purpose of bail is to assure the entitle the accused to provisional liberty pending
presence of an accused during the trial of the the trial. There may be circumstances decisive of
case as required by the court. Thus, the Court the issue of bail x x x that the courts can already
held: consider in resolving the application for bail
“Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for without awaiting the trial to finish. The Court thus
certiorari, the Court is guided by the earlier balances the scales of justice by protecting the
mentioned principal purpose of bail, which is to interest of the People through ensuring his
guarantee the appearance of the accused at the personal appearance at the trial, and at the same
trial, or whenever so required by the court. The time realizing for him the guarantees of due
Court is further mindful of the Philippine’s process as well as to be presumed innocent until
responsibility in the international community proven guilty.”
arising from the national commitment under the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights x x x. The Right against Self-incrimination
 derived from it will not be used against him or her
It bears emphasis, however, that under the in a subsequent prosecution. (Mapa, Jr. v.
above-quoted provisions, what is actually Sandiganbayan, 231 SCRA 783, 797-798, April
proscribed is the use of physical or moral 26, 1994, En Banc [Puno])
compulsion to extort communication from the Is the grant of immunity to an accused willing
accused-appellant and not the inclusion of his to testify for the government a special
body in evidence when it may be material. For privilege and, therefore, must be strictly
instance, substance emitted from the body of the construed against the accused?
accused may be received as evidence in [W]e reject respondent court’s ruling that the grant
prosecution for acts of lasciviousness (US v. Tan of section 5 immunity must be strictly construed
Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912]) and morphine forced against the petitioners. It simplistically
out of the mouth of the accused may also be used characterized the grant as a special privilege, as if
as evidence against him (US v. Ong Siu Hong, 36 it was gifted by the government, ex gratia. In
Phil. 735 [1917]). Consequently, although taking this posture, it misread the raison d’ etre
accused-appellant insists that hair samples were and the long pedigree of the right against self-
forcibly taken from him and submitted to the NBI incrimination vis-à-vis immunity statutes.
for forensic examination, the hair samples may be The days of inquisition brought about the most
admitted in evidence against him, for what is despicable abuses against human rights. Not the
proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or least of these abuses is the expert use of coerced
any evidence communicative in nature acquired confessions to send to the guillotine even the
from the accused under duress. (People v. guiltless. To guard against the recurrence of this
Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, 399-401, Dec. 9, 1999, totalitarian method, the right against self-
En Banc [Per Curiam]) incrimination was ensconced in the fundamental
Does the right against self-incrimination laws of all civilized countries. Over the years,
extend to administrative proceedings? however, came the need to assist government in
In Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners (28 its task of containing crime for peace and order is
SCRA 344 [1969]), we held that the right against a necessary matrix of public welfare. To
self-incrimination under Section 17, Article III of accommodate the need, the right against self-
the 1987 Constitution which is ordinarily available incrimination was stripped of its absoluteness.
only in criminal prosecutions, extends to Immunity statutes in varying shapes were enacted
administrative proceedings which possess a which would allow government to compel a
criminal or penal aspect, such as an witness to testify despite his plea of the right
administrative investigation of a licensed against self-incrimination. To insulate these
physician who is charged with immorality, which statutes from the virus of unconstitutionality, a
could result in his loss of the privilege to practice witness is given what has come to be known as
medicine if found guilty. The Court, citing the transactional or a use-derivative-use immunity x x
earlier case of Cabal v. Kapunan (6 SCRA 1059 x. Quite clearly, these immunity statutes are not a
[1962]), pointed out that the revocation of one’s bonanza from government. Those given the
license as a medical practitioner, is an even privilege of immunity paid a high price for it – the
greater deprivation than forfeiture of property. surrender of their precious right to be silent. Our
(Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA hierarchy of values demands that the right against
160, 184, Jan. 18, 2000, En Banc [Melo]) self-incrimination and the right to be silent should
May the Right against Self-incrimination be be accorded greater respect and protection. Laws
validly invoked during Inquiries in Aid of that tend to erode the force of these preeminent
Legislation? rights must necessarily be given a liberal
[I] t has been held that “a congressional interpretation in favor of the individual. The
committee’s right to inquire is ‘subject to all government has a right to solve crimes but it must
relevant limitations placed by the Constitution on do it, rightly. (Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 231
governmental action,’ including ‘the relevant SCRA 783, 805-806, April 26, 1994, En Banc
limitations of the Bill of Rights’.” [Puno])
[II] One of the basic rights guaranteed by the
Constitution to an individual is the right against The Right against Double Jeopardy
self-incrimination. (Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767, Nov. 20, The Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy:
1991, En Banc [Padilla]) Our Bill of Rights deals with two (2) kinds of
What are the two types of immunity statutes? double jeopardy. The first sentence of Clause 20,
Which has broader scope of protection? Section 1(now Sec. 21), Article III of the
Our immunity statutes are of American origin. In Constitution ordains that “no person shall be twice
the United States, there are two types of statutory put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
immunity granted to a witness. They are the offense.” The second sentence of said clause
transactional immunity and the use-and- provides that “if an act is punishable by a law and
derivative-use immunity. Transactional immunity an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
is broader in the scope of its protection. By its shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for
grant, a witness can no longer be prosecuted for the same act.” Thus, the first sentence prohibits
any offense whatsoever arising out of the act or double jeopardy of punishment for the same
transaction. In contrast, by the grant of use-and- offense whereas, the second contemplates
derivative-use immunity, a witness is only assured double jeopardy of punishment for the same act.
that his or her particular testimony and evidence Under the first sentence, one may be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment of the same act, provided attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishment
that he is charged with different offenses, or the without a judicial trial. Nowhere in the measure is
offense charged in one case is not included in, or there a finding of guilt and an imposition of a
does not include, the crime charged in the other corresponding punishment. What the decree does
case. The second sentence applies, even if the is to define the offense and provide for the penalty
offense charged are not the same, owing to the that may be imposed, specifying the qualifying
fact that one constitutes a violation of an circumstances that would aggravate the offense.
ordinance and the other a violation of statute. If There is no encroachment on the power of the
the two charges are based on one and the same court to determine after due hearing whether the
act, conviction or acquittal under either the law or prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the that the offense of illegal possession of firearms
other. Incidentally, such conviction or acquittal is has been committed and that the qualifying
not indispensable to sustain the plea of double circumstances attached to it has been established
jeopardy of punishment or the same offense. So also beyond reasonable doubt as the Constitution
long as jeopardy has been attached under one of and judicial precedents require. (Misolas v.
the informations charging said offense, the Panga, 181 SCRA 648, 659-660, Jan. 30, 1990,
defense may be availed of in the other case En Banc [Cortes])
involving the same offense, even if there has What is an ex post facto law? Is R.A. No. 8249
been neither conviction nor acquittal in either an ex post facto law?
case. Ex post facto law, generally, prohibits
Elsewhere stated, where the offense charged are retrospectivity of penal laws. R.A. 8249 is not a
penalized either by different sections of the same penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction
statute or by different statutes, the important which is not penal in character. Penal laws are
inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged. those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain
The constitutional protection against double acts and establish penalties for their violations; or
jeopardy is available only where an identity is those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and
shown to exist between the earlier and the provide for their punishment. R.A. 7975, which
subsequent offenses charged. The question of amended P.D. 1606 as regards the
identity or lack of identity of offenses is addressed Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction, its mode of appeal
by examining the essential elements of each of and other procedural matters, has been declared
the two offenses charged, as such elements are by the Court as not a penal law, but clearly a
set out in the respective legislative definitions of procedural statute, i.e., one which prescribes
the offenses involved. (People v. Quijada, 259 rules of procedure by which courts applying laws
SCRA 191, July 24, 1996) of all kinds can properly administer justice. Not
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, the being a penal law, the retroactive application of
following must be proven: R.A. 8249 cannot be challenged as
(1) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the unconstitutional.
second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been Petitioner’s and intervenors’ contention that their
validly terminated; (3) the second jeopardy must right to a two-tiered appeal which they acquired
be for the same offense, or the second offense under R.A. 7975 has been diluted by the
includes or is necessarily included in the offense enactment of R.A. 8249, is incorrect. The same
charged in the first information, or is an attempt to contention has already been rejected by the court
commit the same or is a frustration thereof. several times considering that the right to appeal
Legal jeopardy attaches only: (1) upon a valid is not a natural right but statutory in nature that
indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after can be regulated by law. The mode of procedure
arraignment; (d) when a valid plea has been provided for in the statutory right of appeal is not
entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or included in the prohibition against ex post facto
otherwise terminated without the express consent laws. R.A. 8249 pertains only to matters of
of the accused. (Cuison v. CA, 289 SCRA 159, procedure, and being merely an amendatory
April 15, 1998 [Panganiban]) statute it does not partake the nature of an ex
post facto law. It does not mete out a penalty and,
The Right against Ex Post Facto Law and Bill therefore, does not come within the prohibition.
of Attainder Moreover, the law did not alter the rules of
evidence or the mode of trial. It has been ruled
What is a bill of attainder? Is P.D. 1866 a bill of that adjective statutes may be made applicable to
attainder? actions pending and unresolved at the time of
[T]he Court, in People v. Ferrer, defined a bill of their passage.
attainder as a legislative act which inflicts At any rate, R.A. 8249 has preserved the
punishment on individuals or members of a accused’s right to appeal to the Supreme Court to
particular group without a judicial trial. Essential to review questions of law. On the removal of the
a bill of attainder are a specification of certain intermediate review of facts, the Supreme Court
individuals or a group of individuals, the still has the power of review to determine if the
imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, presumption of innocence has been convincingly
and the lack of judicial trial. This last element, the overcome. (Panfilo M. Lacson v. The Executive
total lack of court intervention in the finding of guilt Secretary, et. al., G.R. No. 128096, Jan. 20,
and the determination of the actual penalty to be 1999 [Martinez])
imposed, is the most essential. P.D. No. 1866
does not possess the elements of a bill of