Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 21

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

A. Non- impairment of Obligations coming from a civil case, but this is not possible
with a liability arising from a criminal case.)
of Contracts b) Morals
c) Good Customs
d) Public Order
e) Public Policy
Art III sec 10. No law impairing the obligation
of contracts shall be passed. Valid Stipulations include those onerous stipulations in
leonine contracts, stipulations in bond that surety’s
liability is solidary and primary, stipulations limiting
Civil Code Art 1306 The contracting parties liability on bond, etc.
may establish such stipulations, clauses,
terms and conditions as they may deem
convenient, provided they are not contrary to HOME BUILDERS & LOAN ASSOC. vs. BLAISDELL
law, morals, good customs, public order, or
public policy.
Hughes, C.J.


Minnesota passed a moratorium law providing that in a

Article 1306 (Civil Code)- The contracting parties may time of emergency, parties may seek judicial relief with
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and respect tp the foreclosure of mortgages & execution sales
conditions as they deem convenient, provided they are of real estate, in that sales may be postponed and
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, periods may be extended. The statute leaves it to the
or public policy. court's discretion as to the length of time that it will give
an applicant "as it will deem just & equitable." The Act is
The article was taken from Article 1255 of the Spanish to remain in effect "only during the continuance of the
Civil Code. The old provision stipulated that an emergency and in no event beyond May 1, 1935." No
agreement between contracting parties was the law extension of the period for redemption and no
between them, and such an agreement must be complied postponement of sale is to be allowed which would have
with in good faith. Under the old article, limitations to the effect of extending the period of redemption beyond
the freedom of contract included those against law, that date.The section also provides that the time for
morals or public order. Article 1306 adds those contrary redemption from foreclosure sales theretofore made,
to good customs and public policy to these limitations. which otherwise would expire less than thirty days after
the approval of the Act shall be extended to a date thirty
The freedom to contract is protected under the days after its approval, and application may be made to
constitutional clause that “ no person shall be deprived the court within that time for a further extension as
of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” provided in the section. By another provision of the Act,
The author explains that Liberty includes the freedom to no action, prior to May 1, 1935, may be maintained for a
contract. He illustrates this through the case of People deficiency judgment until the period of redemption as
vs. Pomar, where the Court held that “The right to enter allowed by existing law or as extended under the
into lawful contracts constitutes one of the liberties of provisions of the Act has expired. Prior to the expiration
the people of the state… A citizen cannot be compelled to of the extended period of redemption, the court may
give employment to another citizen, nor can any one be revise or alter the terms of the extension as changed
compelled to be employed against his will. Liberty circumstances may require. Blaisdell, under the statute,
includes not only the right to labor, but to refuse to applied for an order extending the period of redemption
labor, and consequently, the right to refuse to make from a foreclosure sale. Their petition stated that they
such contracts… To enter into legal contacts freely and owned a lot in Minneapolis which they had mortgaged to
without restraint, is one of the liberties guaranteed to appellant; that the mortgage contained a valid power of
the people of the state.” Also, freedom of contract is both sale by advertisement and that, by reason of their
a constitutional and statutory right. Parties to a contract default, the mortgage had been foreclosed and sold to
are free to stipulate terms and conditions. However, appellant on May 2, 1932, for $3,700.98; that appellant
freedom of contract is not absolute, and is subject to was the holder of the sheriff's certificate of sale; that,
several limitations. because of the economic depression appellees had been
unable to obtain a new loan or to redeem, and that,
The limitations to the freedom of contract are those unless the period of redemption were extended, the
against: property would be irretrievably lost, and that the
a) Law (The parties cannot stipulate against the reasonable value of the property greatly exceeded the
law, because the law is supreme and is always amount due on the mortgage, including all liens, costs
deemed to be an integral part of every contract. and expenses. Though initially denied by the district
It may be possible to compromise a liability court, upon appeal the extension was granted by the

consti 2 all stars 1

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

state supreme court, The state court upheld the statute law has over a hundred examples wherein a contract
as an emergency measure. Although conceding that the may be vioded.Societies exercise a positive control as
obligations of the mortgage contract were impaired, the well over the inception, construction and fulfillment of
court decided that what it thus described as an contracts as over the form and measure of the remedy to
impairment was, notwithstanding the contract clause of enforce them.
the Federal Constitution, within the police power of the
State as that power was called into exercise by the Therefore there is a need to determine: what is a
public economic emergency which the legislature had contract? What are the obligations of contracts? What
found to exist. constitutes impairment of these obligations? What
residuum of power is there still in the States in relation
PETITIONERS: to the operation of contracts, to protect the vital interests
of the community? The obligation of a contract is "the
the moratorium law is contrary to the contract clause law which binds the parties to perform their agreement."
(Art 1, S 10) and the due process and equal protection Sturges v. Crowninshield. The laws which subsist at the
clauses (14th Amd). time and place of the making of a contract, and where it
is to be performed, enter into and form a part of it, as if
ISSUE-HELD: they were expressly referred to or incorporated in its
terms. This principle embraces alike those which affect
WON the moratorium law is constitutional-YES its validity, construction, discharge and enforcement.
Nothing can be more material to the obligation than the
RATIO: means of enforcement. The ideas of validity and remedy
are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation,
At the outset the court made it very clear that except for which is guaranteed by the Constitution against
the time factor, no other aspect of the mortgage relation invasion.Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy. But there is a
was altered. The indebtness remains; in fact, the distinction betwwen an obligation & a remedy as pointed
mortgagor still has the right to the rentals for the time out in Sturges: The distinction between the obligation of
when the period is suspended. a contract and the remedy given by the legislature to
enforce that obligation has been taken at the bar, and
The court then discussed the historical backgorund of exists in the nature of things. Without impairing the
the contracts clause vis-a-vis the concept of emergency obligation of the contract, the remedy may certainly be
powers. Emergency does not create power. Emergency modified as the wisdom of the nation shall direct. It is
does not increase granted power or remove or diminish competent for the States to change the form of the
the restrictions imposed upon power granted or remedy, or to modify it otherwise, as they may see fit,
reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of provided no substantial right secured by the contract is
grave emergency. Its grants of power to the Federal thereby impaired. No attempt has been made to fix
Government and its limitations of the power of the States definitely the line between alterations of the remedy,
were determined in the light of emergency, and they are which are to be deemed legitimate, and those which,
not altered by emergency. While emergency does not under the form of modifying the remedy, impair
create power, emergency may furnish the occasion for substantial rights. Every case must be determined upon
the exercise of power. its own circumstances.

Although an emergency may not call into life a power The general doctrine of this court on this subject may be
which has never lived, nevertheless emergency may thus stated: in modes of proceeding and forms to enforce
afford a reason for the exertion of a living power already the contract, the legislature has the control, and may
enjoyed. In Wilson v. New, the constitutional question enlarge, limit, or alter them, provided it does not deny a
presented in the light of an emergency is whether the remedy or so embarrass it with conditions or restrictions
power possessed embraces the particular exercise of it in as seriously to impair the value of the right. Not only are
response to particular conditions. In other words, there existing laws read into contracts in order to fix
must be a compelling state interest coupled with a obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of
narrowly-tailored means to achieve it. essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into
contracts as a postulate of the legal order. The policy of
The "non-impairment of contracts" clause came to life protecting contracts against impairment presupposes
because at the time the Constitution was being drafted, the maintenance of a government by virtue of which
the drafters were mindful of the fact that there have contractual relations are worthwhile — a government
been an ignoble array of legislative schemes for the which retains adequate authority to secure the peace
defeat of creditors and the invasion of contractual and good order of society. Into all contracts, whether
obligations. Legislative interferences had been so made between States and individuals, or between
numerous and extreme that the confidence essential to individuals only, there enter conditions which arise not
prosperous trade had been undermined and the utter out of the literal terms of the contract itself; they are
destruction of credit was threatened.But as J. Johnson superinduced by the preexisting and higher authority of
wrote in Ogden v Saunders, to give such a sweeping the laws of nature, of nations or of the community to
protection to the sanctity of contracts could not have which the parties belong; they are always presumed, and
been the intent of the Constitution, given the fact that must be presumed, to be known and recognized by all,
are binding upon all, and need never, therefore, be
consti 2 all stars 2
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

carried into express stipulation, for this could add

nothing to their force. Every contract is made in ISSUE:
subordination to them, and must yield to their control,
as conditions inherent and paramount, wherever a WON RA 342, approved by Congress on July 26, 1948, if
necessity for their execution shall occur. Thus, the declared applicable to the present case is
economic interests of the State may justify the exercise of unconstitutional being violative of the constitutional
its continuing and dominant protective power provision forbidding the impairment of the obligation of
notwithstanding interference with contracts. The contracts  YES, unreasonable period (see sub-issue).
interdiction of statutes impairing the obligation of
contracts does not prevent the State from exercising RATIO:
such powers as are vested in it for the promotion of the
common weal, or are necessary for the general good of RA 342
the public, though contracts previously entered into o Sec 2: all debts and other monetary obligations
between individuals may thereby be affected. Sa contracted before December 8, 1941 shall not due
madaling sabi, police power measure ang nasabing and demandable for a period of 8 years from and
batas. after settlement of the war damage claim of the
debtor by the PWDC;
Taking all of this into account, the court concludes: o sec 3: should the provision of section 2 be declared
1)that there was an "emergency" in Minnesota that void and unenforceable, then as regards the
warranted the enactment of the moratorium law; 2)the obligation affected thereby, the provisions of EO 25
statute addressed a legitimate need, the protection of a dated November 18, 1944, as amended by EO 32,
basic interest of society (here the protection of the dated March 10, 1945, shall continue to be in force
economic system and the justness of giving debtors time; and effect
3)the conditions are not unreasonable; 4)the legislation Moratorium (def’n) - is postponement of fulfillment of
is temporary in operation. obligations decreed by the state through the medium of
the courts or the legislature. Its essence is the
Petition dismissed, judgment of Minn SC affirmed. application of the sovereign power"
The test of the constitutionality of the moratorium
statute: It is required that the period of a suspension of
the remedy be definite and reasonable.
RUTTER vs. ESTEBAN Impairs the obligation of contracts?
Yes, but it is justified as a valid exercise of police power.
Bautista Angelo, j.: Chief Justice Hughes says:
Not only are existing laws read into contracts in
FACTS: order to fix obligations as between the parties, but
the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign
August 20, 1941 Rutter sold to Esteban 2 parcels of land power is also read into contracts. The policy of
situated in the city of Manila for P9,600. P4,800 paid protecting contracts against impairment
outright, P2,400 on or before August 7, 1942, and presupposes the maintenance of a government to
P2,400 on or before August 27, 1943, with interest at secure the peace and good order of society. State
the rate of 7%. power must be consistent with the fair intent of the
constitutional limitation of that power. The
To secure the payment of the balance of P4,800, a 1st constitutional prohibition should not be construed
mortgage over the parcels of land has been constituted as to prevent limited and temporary interpositions
in favor of the plaintiff. New title was issued in favor of with respect to the enforcement of contracts if made
Placido J.Esteban with a mortgage duly annotated on necessary by great public calamity.
the back thereof.
Blaisdell case has its limitations:
Esteban failed to pay. On Aug 2, 1949, Rutter instituted o impairment should only refer to the remedy and not
this action in the CFI to recover the balance, interest, to a substantive right. The State may postpone the
and the attorney's fees. The complaint also contains a enforcement of the obligation but cannot destroy it
prayer for sale of the properties mortgaged. by making the remedy futile.
o propriety of the remedy. The rule requires that the
Esteban admitted the averments of the complaint, but alteration or change that the new legislation desires
set up a defense the moratorium clause embodied in RA to write into an existing contract must not be
342. He claims that this is a prewar obligation burdened with restrictions and conditions that
contracted on Aug 20, 1941; that he is a war sufferer, would make the remedy hardly pursuing
having filed his claim with the Philippine War Damage
Commission [PWDC] for the losses he had suffered as a Blaisdell summary: Police power may only be invoked
consequence of the last war; and that under sec 2 of RA and justified by an emergency, temporary in nature, and
342, payment of his obligation cannot be enforced until can only be exercised upon reasonable conditions in
after the lapse of 8 years from the settlement of his claim order that it may not infringe the constitutional
by the PWDC, and this period has not yet expired. provision against impairment of contracts

consti 2 all stars 3

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

bank in violation of the restrictions set in the

SUB-ISSUE: contract of sale that was imposed by the plaintiff as
part oif its general building scheme designed for the
WON the period of 8 years which RA 342 grants to beautification and development of the Highway Hills
debtors is unreasonable under the present Subd
circumstances.  YES • Defendant maintains that the area in question has
been declared as a commercial and industrial zone
RATIO: by the Zoning Regualtion of RESOLUTION no. 27 on
Feb 4, 1980 of the Municipal Councilk of
The purpose of the law is to afford to prewar debtors an Mandaluyong, Rizal
opportunity to rehabilitate themselves by giving them a • Trial Court ruled in favor of defendant bank Feati
reasonable time within which to pay their prewar. holding that the restrictions set by plaintiff Ortigas
were subordinate to Municipal Resolution 27
Case at bar: These obligations had been pending since because of the municipal’s valid exercise of police
1945 as a result of the issuance of EOs 25 and 32 and at power. It stressed that the private interest should
present their enforcement is still inhibited because of the “bow down to general interest & welfare.”
enactment of RA 342 and would continue to be • Plaintiff appealed till it finally reached the SC
unenforceable during the 8-year period granted to
prewar debtors to afford them an opportunity to ISSUES:
rehabilitate themselves, which in plain language means
that the creditors would have to observe a vigil of at least 1. WON Resolution No. 27 is a valid exercise of police
12 years before they could effect a liquidation of their power
investment dating as far back as 1941. This period 2. WON the said Resolution can nullify or supersede the
seems unreasonable, if not oppressive. And the contractual obligations assumed by defendants
injustice is more patent when, under the law, the debtor
is not even required to pay interest during the operation HELD & RATIO:
of the relief.
1. Yes. Although the validity of the resolution was
Reconstruction and rehabilitation has swept the country never questioned in the past proceedings, its validity
since liberation. it can now be safely stated that the was at least impliedly admitted from the facts. Sec 3
financial condition of our country and the people have of RA 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) empowers a
returned to normal. This is so not only as far as Municipal Council “to adopt zoning and subdivision
observation and knowledge are capable to take note but ordinances or regulations for the municipality. It
also because of the official pronouncements made by the gives more power to local governments in promoting
Chief Executive. the economic conditions, social welfare and material
progress of the community. The only exceptions are
existing vested rights arising out of a contract
between "a province, city or municipality on one
ORTIGAS vs. FEATI hand and a third party on the other," in which case
the original terms and provisions of the contract
should govern. The exceptions, clearly, do not apply
J. Santos (1979) in the case.

FACTS: 2. Yes, the resolution as an exercise of police power by

the municipality can supersede contractual
• March 4, 1952 – Ortigas & Co., a partnership obligations assumed by the defendants. While non-
involved in real estate particularly the Highway Hills impairment of contracts is constitutionally
Subd. along EDSA in Mandaluyong, entered into a guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to
contract of sale on installments over 2 parcels of be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police
land with Augusto and Natividad Angeles who later power.
transferred their rights and interests to a certain Police power is the most essential, insistent &
Emma Chavez illimitable of powers, the greatest & most illimitable
• Under the agreement, it was stipulated among of powers. It is the power to prescribe regulations to
others that: promote the health, morals, peace, education, good
xxx this shall be used exclusively for residential order or safety and general welfare of the people. Its
purposes xxx exercise may be judicially inquired into and
• Eventually, defendant Feati Bank and Trust corrected only if it is capricious, 'whimsical, unjust
company acquired the lots and started the or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due
construction of a building on the said lot devoted to process or a violation of any other applicable
banking purposes constitutional guarantee.
• Ortigas then filed for a writ of preliminary Philippine Long Distance Company vs. City of
injunction to restrain & enjoin the defendant from Davao . police power "is elastic and must be
continuing with the construction of the commercial responsive to various social conditions; it is not,

consti 2 all stars 4

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

confined within narrow circumscriptions of reasonably justified under the circumstances, in passing
precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the subject resolution.
the legal progress of a democratic way of life."

Dobbins v. Los Angeles - 'the right to exercise the

police power is a continuing one, and a business JUAREZ vs. CA
lawful today may in the future, because of changed
situation, the growth of population or other causes, CRUZ, J.:
become a menace to the public health and welfare,
and be required to yield to the public good. FACTS:

Vda. de Genuino vs. The Court of Agrarian Lot 502 (hereafter known as The Lot) was leased in early
Relations - "We do not see why public welfare when 1900s to Serviliano Ocampo who built a house therein
clashing with the individual right to property should and lived there w/ his parents and sister Angela. When
not be made to prevail through the state's exercise of he died in March 1956, Angela took over the lease and
its police power. stayed there with her children (including Virginia). In
1976, she moved to Virginia’s house and leased the lot to
The state, in order to promote the general welfare, Roberto Capuchino. Meantime, Aranetas sold it to
may interfere with personal liberty, with property, Susanna Realty. Inc. which sold it in 1985 to Cetus Dev’t
and with business and occupations. Persons may be Corp. After acquiring it, Cetus filed a complaint for
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in ejectment against petitioner on the ground that she
order to secure the general comfort health and violated BP877 by subleasing The Lot w/o its consent.
prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim
of our Government, the rights of the individual are Respondents:
CA ruled that BP 877 (effective on June 12, 1985) was
Philippine American Life Ins. Co. v. Auditor applicable because the orig’l contract of lease didn’t
General - the laws and reservation of essential specify a fixed term and payment of the rental was made
attributes of sovereign power are read into contracts on a monthly basis. Contract was deemed terminated
agreed upon by the parties. Thus not only are from month to month. Hence, when it was renewed in
existing laws read into contracts in order to fix July 1985, it became subject to BP 877, which had come
obligations as between the parties, but the into effect on June 12, 1985.
reservation of essential attributes of sovereign power
is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal Petitioner:
order. The policy of protecting contracts against
impairments presupposes the maintenance of a BP 877 should not be given retroactive application
government by virtue of which contractual relations because it would violate the impairment clause and the
are worthwhile – a government which retains prohibition against ex post facto laws. Relying on Art.
adequate authority to secure the peace and good 16501, she also claims that sublease was not prohibited
order of society. when it was concluded in 1976 and since it was valid at
that time, it should continue to be valid even now. Also,
Dolan vs. Brown - "A grantor may lawfully insert in she says her mom is the proper party defendant since
his deed conditions or restrictions which are not her mom was the one who inherited the leasehold right
against public policy and do not materially impair from Servillano, the original lessee.
the beneficial enjoyment of the estate.
Resolution No. 27, in declaring that the western part of
EDSA is an industrial and commercial zone, was WON the ejectment of lessee Virginia Suarez be allowed?
obviously passed by the Municipal Council of
Mandaluyong, Rizal in the exercise of police power to HELD:
safeguard or promote the health, safety, peace, good
order and general welfare of the people in the locality. Yes. Petitioner can no longer retain the leased lot since
Judicial notice may be taken of the conditions she is making a profitable business of subleasing it w/o
prevailing in the area. Industrial and commercial the written consent of the landlord.
complexes have flourished about the place. EDSA, a
main traffic artery which runs through several cities and
municipalities in the Metro Manila area, supports an RATIO
endless stream of traffic and the resulting activity, noise
and pollution are hardly conducive to the health, According to Art.16872, if the period for lease has not
safety or welfare of the residents in its route. Having been fixed, it is understood to be from month to month if
been expressly granted the power to adopt zoning and
subdivision ordinances or regulations, the municipality When in the contract of lease of thing there is no express prohibition, the lessee may
subject the thing leased, in whole or in part, without prejudice to his responsibility for
of Mandaluyong, through its Municipal council, was the performance of the contract toward the lessor.

consti 2 all stars 5

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

the rent agreed is from month to month. As the original Cetus. She has taken over the leasehold right for
contract of lease didn’t prescribe a fixed period and the all intents and purposes.
rentals were paid monthly, the same should be
considered renewable from month to month. When the
sublease was renewed by Capuchino in July 1985, it
became invalid under BP877, w/c already became
effective. The law then, operated prospectively upon the CALEON vs. AGUS DEVELOPMENT
new or renewed contract of sublease, w/c to be valid
needed the written consent of the lessor. Moreover,
BP877 provides that “all residential units (The Lot comes FACTS:
under this) the total monthly rental of w/c doesn’t
exceed P480.00 as of the effectivity of this Act shall be • Private respondent Agus Development is the
covered.” private owner of lot 39 block 28 situated in
Lealtad Sampaloc when it leased the property to
Impairment clause (IC)3 is now no longer inviolate. More Rita Calleon for a monthly rental of Php 180.00.
and more, interests of the public have become involved Petitioner constructed on the lot leased a 4-door
in what are supposed to be still private agreements, apartment building.
which have as a result been removed from the protection • Without the consent of the owner of the lot, the
of the IC. As long as the contract affects public welfare petitioner sub-leased two of the 4-door
one way or another so as to require the interference opf apartment building for a monthly rental of Php
the State, then must the police power be asserted and 350.00 each.
prevail, over the IC.
• After learning of the sublease private respondent
filed a complaint for ejectment, citing as ground
PVB Employees Union v. PVB – Contract is protected
thereof the provisions of Batas Pambansa blg.
by guaranty only if it doesn’t affect public interest.
25, section 5, which is the unauthorized
subleasing of part of the leased premises to third
Housing is one of the most serious social problems of the
persons without securing the consent of the
country. The regulation of rentals has long been the
lessor within the required 60 day period from
concern of the gov’t to prevent the lessor from imposing
the promulgation of the new law.
arbitrary conditions on the lessee while at the same time
• After the trial the court rendered its decision
deterring the lessee from abusing the statutory benefits
accorded to him. Purpose of BP877 is to protect both ordering petitioner and all persons claiming
landlord and tenant from their mutual impositions that possession over her to vacte the premises
can only cause detriment to society as a whole. alluded to the complaint and to remove whatever
improvement she introduced to the property.
Here, rental on The Lot is only P69.70/mo. while the • Rita moved for procedural appeals and of course
petitioner charges Capuchino a monthly rental of P400. the decision of the trial court was affirmed hence
While it is true that P400 covers the lot and building, the its elevation to the supreme court.
point is that she isn’t paying the lessor enough for the
use of the lot in light of the total rental she is charging ISSUE:
Capuchino for the use of building and lot. She has 1. W/o the lease of an apartment includes a
taken undue advantage of the rental laws by holding on sublease of the lot on which it is
to the leased premises although they no longer need constructed? YES
them for their own residence or administering them to 2. W/o B.P 25 is contrary to the promotion of
the prejudice of the landlord. social justice policy of the new constitution?
- BP877 is not an ex post facto law. It’s not penal
in nature. Virginia is not being prosecuted under HELD:
the said penal provisions as well.
- Angela is 92 yrs. Old and is now under the care 1. The issue has already been laid to rest in the case of
of Virginia. Thus, it is Virginia who is proper Duellome vs. Gotico where this court ruled that the lease
party defendant. She has been receiving the rent of a building naturally leases the lot therein, and the
from Capuchino and paying rent on the lot to rentals of the building includes those of the lot.

2. The objective of B.P 25 is to remedy the plight of the

If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, lessees, but such objective is not subject to the
if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to exploitation of lessees for whose benefit the law was
week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily. However,
even though a monthly rent is paid, and no period for the lease has been set, the courts
enacted. Thus the prohibition provided for in the law
may fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupied the premises for over against the sublease of the premises without the consent
one year. If the rent is weekly, the courts may likewise determine a longer period after of the owner.
the lessee has been in possession for over six months. In case of daily rent, the courts
may also fix a longer period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one
month. It must be remembered that the social
Impairment of obligation – any enactment of legislative character is said to “impair” justice cannot be invoked to trample on the rights of
the obligation of a contract w/c attempts to tgake from a party a right to w/c he is
entitled by its terms, or w/c deproves him of the means of enforcing such a right.
the property owner, who under our constitution and
consti 2 all stars 6
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

laws are also entitled to protection. The social Executive Order No. 2 was then issued by the governor
justice consecrated in our constitution was not directing all the Mangyans in Naujan, Pola, Dulangan
intended to take away the rights from a person to and Calapan [Rubi’s place] to take their habitation in the
give them to another who is not entitled thereto. site not later than December 31, 1917. Section
2759¸Revised Administrative Code provides for an
imprisonment not exceeding 60 days for those who
refuse to obey the order.
B. Involuntary Servitude
Rubi and his companions did not fix their dwelling
within the reservation and they were punished with
Sec18. (2) No involuntary servitude in any
imprisonment. On the other hand, Doroteo Dabalos was
form shall exist except as a punishment for a detained by the sheriff of Mindoro because he escaped
crime whereof the party shall have been duly from the reservation.
Rubi and the rest of the Manguianes sued out a writ of
habeas corpus alleging that they are deprived of their
RUBI vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD liberty. They are also questioning the validity of Section
2145 of the Administrative Code of 1917.
[‘If all are to be equal before the law, all must be
approximately equal in intelligence.’ – main opinion by Exposition of the Court (Baka magtanong si Dean)
Justice Malcolm]
II. History [Court wants to say that the ‘reservation
[‘They (Manguianes) are citizens of the Philippine approach’ is not new and in fact ‘accepted’ in the
Islands. Legally they are Filipinos. They are entitled to all past. In short, Court is saying that they deserve it.]
the rights and privileges of any other citizen of this
country.’ – dissenting opinion of Justice Moir] A. Before acquisition of the Philippines by the
United States
Malcolm, J.:
During the Spanish period, the ‘Indios” were already
FACTS: ‘reduced’ [‘reducciones’] into ‘poblaciones’ [communities].
The purpose is to instruct them in the Catholic faith so
Under Section 2145, Revised Administrative Code, that the Indios will forget the ‘blunders’ of their ancient
with prior approval of the Department Head, the rights and ceremonies – eventually allowing them to live
governor of any province in which non-Christian in a ‘civilized manner’. The crown offered tax exemptions
inhabitants are found is authorized, when he deems it for those who obeyed.
necessary in the interest of law and order, to direct non-
Christian inhabitants to make permanent settlements on Pueblos and reducciones were provided with basic
unoccupied public land – to be selected by the provincial facilities for survival. Lands previously owned by the
governor and approved by the provincial board. Indios were not confiscated. Each town contained
around 80 Indios supervised by an Indio mayor.
In February 1, 1917, the Provincial Board of Mindoro
adopted Resolution No. 25 which was presented by Later, the Governor General issued a decree in 1881,
Provincial Governor of Mindoro Juan Morente Jr. The saying that it is the ‘duty to conscience and humanity for
resolution presents that since several attempts and all governments to civilize those backward races’.
schemes of the past for the advancement of the ‘non- Provincial authorities should help the priests in their
Christian’ people of Mindoro have failed, it is ‘deemed mission to civilize. To attain their mission, the Spaniards
necessary’ to oblige the Manguianes to live in one place adopted the policy of ‘bringing under the bell’
in order to make a permanent settlement. The reasons [establish homes of Indios within the reach of the sound
for the resolution are: of the bell]. Incentives in terms of tax and labor
[1] failure of former attempts for the advancement of the reductions were offered.
non-Christian people of Mindoro
[2] the only successful method is to oblige them to live in B. After the Acquisition of the Philipines by the
a permanent settlement United States
[3] protection of the Manguianes
[2] protection of public forests President MacKinley’s Instructions was ratified by the
[3] introduce civilized customs Philippine Bill and the Act of Congress of 1902. In
essence, these laws provide that the reservation
Governor Morente Jr. chose the sitio of Tigbao on Lake approach was the same course used by US Congress in
Naujan, containing 800 hectares of public land for dealing with ‘tribes of North American Indians’. The
approximately 15,000 Manguianes. The resolution was approach was deemed a wise and firm regulation to
approved by the Secretary of the Interior. ‘prevent barbarous practices and introduce civilized

consti 2 all stars 7

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

Jones Law was later passed empowering the Philippine exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
Legislature. The law established the Bureau of non- cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be
Christian Tribes that recognized the dividing line made.’ Section 2145 was issued under the second mode
between the territory occupied by Christians and that of of delegation.
non-Christians. The distinction is latter recognized by
special laws. - Section 2145 falls under the exception to the
general rule sanctioned by immemorial practice: The
C.D. Terminology and Meaning central legislative body is permitted to delegate legislative
powers to local authorities. The Philippine Legislature
‘Non-Christian tribes’ was common term used. Religious conferred authority upon the Province of Mindoro.
signification of the term was removed. The whole intent
of the term is to denote the civilization or lack of - The reason is that provincial officers are better
civilization of the inhabitants. It relates to degree of fitted to select sites for reservations.
civilization rather than religious denomination.
2. WON there was religions discrimination
In United States v. Tubban, the term was used for an against ‘non-Christian tribes’ under Section 2145.
‘uncivilized tribe, of a low order of intelligence, - NO. It is clear that the Legislature meant that ‘non-
uncultured and uneducated’. It was held that mere Christian tribes’ refers to ‘natives’ of ‘low grade of
baptism in the Christian faith will not changed one’s civilization’ and does not discriminate on account of
degree of civilization. religious differences.

E. Manguianes 3. WON the protection afforded by President

MacKinley’s Instructions, the Philippine Bill and the
They are placed in the ‘third class’ in the ‘four-stage’ Jones Law providing that no person ‘shall be
classification approaching civilization used by the deprived of life, liberty and property without due
Philippine census. In local dialect, “Manguianes’ means process of law’ extends to members of non-Christian
‘ancient’, ‘savage’ etc. tribes.
- NO. Civil liberty can be said to mean that measure
III. Comparative – The American Indians [Court is of freedom which may be enjoyed ‘in a civilized
saying that the ‘reservation approach’ was used also community.’ It is a legal and refined idea, the offspring of
for the American Indians – which was perfectly ok.] high civilization. Considering the that the Manguianes
do not have a civilized conception of liberty, they cannot
The treatment for the Manguianes is no different form claim the they were deprived of it. Furthermore, Section
the methods used by the US Government in dealing with 2145 is applicable to all of a class. The classification
the Indian tribes. Their relationship is one ‘in a state of based on degree of civilization is not arbitrary.
pupilage’ – between a guardian and a ward. Congress
had plenary authority in this guardianship. - Due process means that:
[1] there is a law prescribed in harmony with the general
The Indians were not treated as having a state or nation. powers of the legislature
They are treated as a ‘separate people’. Thus, the US [2] that law is reasonable in its application
Government is there to protect the Indians form the [3] it is enforced according to the regular methods of
people of the State that harbor ill-feelings against them. procedure
[4] it is applicable to all the citizens of the state or to all
These laws were deemed political in nature not subject of a class
to the jurisdiction of the Courts.
- Liberty as understood in democracies, is not
In United States v. Crook, a group of Indians led by license; it is liberty regulated by law. It is not
Standing Bear who fled from their reservation to avoid unrestricted license. It is only freedom from restraint. It
disease and starvation were issued habeas corpus after is not an absolute right. However, it is not limited to
they were detained. freedom from physical restraint.

Using this case, Rubi was then declared as a citizen of - Chief elements of the civil liberty are right to
the Philippines, a ‘person’ within the Habeas Corpus Act. contract, right to chose one’s employment, right to labor
and right of locomotion.
4. WON bringing the Manguianes into the
1. WON there was Section 2145 involved an reservation amounts to slavery and involuntary
undue delegation of legislative power to the servitude.
provincial board of Mindoro. - NO. Slavery and involuntary servitude denote a
- NO. Judge Ranney declared that “the true condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to
distinction therefore is between the [1] delegation of another. In the reservation, the Manguianes are working
power to make the law, which necessarily involves a for no other but for themselves.
discretion as to what it shall be, and [2] conferring an
authority or discretion as to its execution, to be
consti 2 all stars 8
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

- If the Manguianes are not in the reservation, there - The Manguianes have never been a burden to the
are vulnerable subjects to involuntary servitude of State. They have not committed any crimes. In fact, they
civilized communities who may take advantage of their were described as ‘peaceful, timid, primitive, semi-
ignorance. They are being protection from involuntary nomadic’. When there are in reservations, there are
servitude and abuse. They are, through Bureau of non- more vulnerable to involuntary servitude. The needs
Christian Tribes, slowly ‘fused’ with the civilized world – for survival in an enclosed community like food and
‘bringing them under the bells’. clothing would be tempting incentives for the
Manguianes, who do not have the means to produce
5. WON Section 2145 is a valid exercise of police these things, to trade their freedom to involuntary
power. servitude.
- YES. Without attempting to define police power, it - The majority claim that Section 2145 is substantially
is the power co-extensive with self-protection. It is the the same as Act, No. 547 of the Philippine
inherent and plenary power to prohibit all things hurtful Commission. However, the constitutionality of this
to the welfare of society. Thus, the law protects the earlier Act was not passed upon by the Court.
forests from the illegal caingins [slash and burn - If the rationale of the Court is applied, then
agriculture in forested areas]. They are restrained for decapitation en masse will result. It will be an open air
their own good and the general good of the jail for all natives – even those who have proven their
Philippines. progress measured against standards of the civilized
world like the Ifugaos and Tinguianes.
- The ‘whole tendency’ therefore of the Court is - Like the case of Standing Bear in the US, I think that
toward ‘non-interference’ on the political ideas of the the Court should rule that the Manguianes were
legislature. deprived of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of
- In fact, the Manguianes ‘liked the plan’. There were
‘encouraging reactions’ from the children who attended
the schools. They were ‘eager’ to be receiving benefits of
civilization in the reservations. KAISAHAN vs. GOTAMCO
Section 2145 of the Administrative Code is valid. Their ponente: Hilado J
confinement in the reservation does not amount to
slavery and involuntary servitude. Habeas corpus cannot FACTS:
Kaisahan staged a strike which paralyzed Gotamco. The
Carson, J. concurring: two parties were brought to the Court of Industrial
- I agree that ‘non-Christian tribes’ denote a ‘low grade of Relations. A compromise was made: kaisahan returns to
civilization’. The test for civilizations has been: work if Gotamco raises wages by P2 w/o meal plus the
[1] mode of life right to bring back little pieces of firewood front gotamco,
[2] degree of advancement in civilization until the final determination of the case. Court issued
[3] connection or lack of connection with some civilized the compromise in their return to work order together
community with injunction 'company is enjoined not to lay-off,
- Degree of civilization can only increase by withdrawal suspend or dismiss any laborer affiliated with the
of permanent allegiance or adherence to non-Christian petitioning union, nor suspend the operation of the
tribes. temporary agreement, and the labor union is enjoined
not to stage a walk-out or strike during the pendency of
Johnson, J., dissenting: the hearing.'
- They were deprived of their liberty without a hearing. Afterwards gotamco filed another case w/ CIR because
All persons in the Philippines are entitled to a hearing, at Kaisahan resumed the strike. Kaisahan filed a counter-
least, before they are deprived of their liberty. petition saying that gotamco violated the terms first by
certain discriminations, by not hearing grievances, by
Moir., with Araullo and Street, dissenting: employing four new chinese laborers w/o authority of
- The case of the Indian nations in the US cannot apply the court and in violation of sec 19 of Commonwealth
to this case because the Indian nations were considered Act 103 and by firing a certain Naximino Millan.
a separate nations where the US dealt with them using
treaties. Also, the reservations given to them were very CIR held that there was a violation of the court order by
large – about thousand of square miles. kaisahan, that there was no clear proof that gotamco
- In this case, the Manguianes are not a separate state. employed 4 new chinese laborers and that Millan was a
There are not treaties. They are Filipinos, legally troublemaker and his petition for reinstatement was
speaking. They are entitled to all the rights and denied.
privileges of any other citizen of this country.
- The caingin argument will not lie because the fires Petitioner now contends that court order and sec 19 CA
never spread to the tropical undergrowth. These 103 is unconstitutional because it amounts to
burnings are isolated – these are not great abuses involuntary servitude.
meriting their ‘incarceration’.
consti 2 all stars 9
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

servitude ensuing. The court is satisfied that there were

ISSUE: formal hearings before the order was issued. As to public
WON sec 19 CA 103 creates involuntary servitude interest requiring that the court return the striking
laborers, the economic and social rehabilitation of the
HELD: country urgently demands reconstruction work from the
It can't be involuntary servitude if a person voluntarily late war that the government is striving to accelerate as
contracts employment and impliedly voluntarily puts much as is humanly possible.
himself under the province of sec 19 CA 103.
The court construes the provision to mean that the very
RATIONALE: impossibility of prompt decision or settlement of the
CIR: This section is presumed to be constitutional. dispute confers upon the court the power to issue the
Several laws promulgated which apparently infringe the order for the reason that the public has an interest in
human rights of individuals were "subjected to preventing undue stoppage or paralyzation of the wheels
regulation by the State basically in the exercise of its of industry. And, as well stated by the court's resolution
paramount police power". The provisions of Act No. 103 of July 11, 1947, this impossibility of prompt decision or
were inspired by the constitutional injunction making it settlement was a fact which was borne out by the entire
the concern of the State to promote social justice to record of the case and did not need express statement in
insure the well being and economic security of all the the order.
people. ...
Section 19 complements the power of the Court to settle Finally, this Court is not authorized to review the
industrial disputes and renders effective such powers findings of fact made by the Court of Industrial Relations
which are conferred upon it by the different provisions of
the Court's organic law, more particularly, sections 1 DISPOSITION:
and 4, and "other plenary powers conferred upon the Affirm CIR decision. Kaisahan in contempt of court with
Court to enable it to settle all questions matters, costs.
controversies or disputes arising between, and/or
affecting employers and employees", "to prevent non-
pacific methods in the determination of industrial or
agricultural disputes" C. Imprisonment for Non-
Payment of Debt
Manila Trading and Supply Company vs. Philippine
Labor Union: the ultimate effect of petitioner's theory is
to concede to the Court of Industrial Relations the power
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for
to decide a case under section 19 but deny it, the power
to execute its decision thereon. The absurdity of this debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
proposition, is too evident to require argument. In the
second place considering that the jurisdiction of the
Court of Industrial Relations under section 19 is merely LOZANO vs. MARTINEZ
incidental to the same jurisdiction it has previously
acquired under section 4 of the law, if follows that the December 18, 1986
power to execute its orders under section 19 is also Yap, J:
the same power that it possesses under section 4.
Sec 19 CA 103 does not offend against the constitutional
inhibition prescribing involuntary servitude. Whenever • The constitutionality of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing
an employee enters into a contract of employment, under Checks Law, which was approved on April 3, 1979,
the said law he also voluntarily accepts those comditions is the sole issue presented by the petitions for
prescribed in sec 19, among which is the "implied decision.
condition that when any dispute between the employer o An essential element of the offense under BP 22 is
or landlord and the employee, tenant or laborer has been knowledge on the part of the drawer of the check of
submitted to the Court of Industrial Relations for the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the
settlement or arbitration, pursuant to the provisions of bank to cover the check upon its presentment. It
this Act, and pending award or decision by it, the creates a prima facie presumption of such
employee, tenant or laborer shall not strike or walk out knowledge when the check is dishonored by the
of his employment when so joined by the court after bank if presented within 90 days from the date on
hearing and when public interest so requires, and if he the check.
has already done so, that he shall forthwith return to it, • BP 22 is aimed at stopping or curbing the practice of
upon order of the court, which shall be issued only after issuing worthless, i.e. checks that end up being
Hearing when public interest so requires or when the rejected or dishonored for payment.
dispute can not, in its opinion, be promptly decided or
• Before the enactment of said statute, issueing
settled ...". The employee has a free choice between
worthless checks was punished under the provisions
entering into a contract of employment or not. Such an
on estafa in the RPC but because of the reliance by
implied condition, negates the possibility of involuntary
the Court on the concept underlying the felony of

consti 2 all stars 10

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

estafa through false pretenses or deceit (i.e. the • It is not for the judiciary to question the wisdom
deceit or false pretense must be prior to or behind the statute. It is sufficient that there exists a
simultaneous with the commission of the nexus between means and ends.
fraud),checks as payments for pre-existing debts
were not covered. HELD:
o Statistics have shown that a greater bulk of
dishonored checks consisted of those issued in We find the enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of
payment of pre-existing debts. police power and is not repugnant to the
o BP 22 addressed the problem frontally and directly constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for
making the act of issuing a worthless check debt.
malum prohibitum. Regarding violation of freedom to contract: freedom
to contract which is protected is freedom to enter into
Constitutional Challenges to B.P. 22: lawful contracts. Besides, checks are commercial
1. offends the constitutional provision forbidding instruments and cannot be categorized as mere
imprisonment for debt; contracts.
2. impairs freedom of contract; Regarding violation of equal protection: contended
3. contravenes equal protection clause that is just as responsible for the crime as the drawer of
4. unduly delegates legislative and executive the check and should also be punished since without his
powers indispensable participation there is not crime.
5. enactment is flawed since Interim Batasan Unacceptable since it is tantamount to saying that
violated consti provision prohibiting swindled should be punished alongside the swindler.
amendments on third reading. Regarding undue delegation: What cannot be
delegated is the power to make laws which is the power
RATIO: to define the offense sough to be punished and to
Most serious of these challenges is that the statute runs prescribe the penalty, it does not cover the contention
counter to the inhibition in the Bill of Rights saying, “No that the offense is not completed by the sole act of the
person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a drawer but depends on the will of the payee in
poll tax.” presenting the check to the bank for payment.
• Petitioners claim that the statute is nothing more Regarding violation of prohibition against
than a veiled device to coerce payment of a debt amendments in 3rd reading: text approved by the body
under the threat of penal sanction. is the text approved on second reading.

• Prohibition in the Bill of Rights was intended to

prevent commitment of debtors to prison for
liabilities arising from actions ex contractu and was
never meant to include damages arising in actions D. Right Against Self

ex delicto.
In answering whether BP 22 violates the
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for
debt, it is necessary to examine what the statute U.S vs. NAVARRO
prohibits and punishes as an offense.
• The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is
the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a FACTS:
check that is dishonored upon its presentation for The defendants, Baldomero Navarro, Marcelo de Leon,
payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation and Fidel Feliciano (alias Bulag) are charged with the
which the law punishes. The law is not intended to crime of illegal detention. The said defendants, together
coerce a debtor to pay his debt but is to prohibit with other persons unknown armed with revolvers and
under pain penal sanction the making of daggers, went one night about the middle of November,
worthless checks and putting them into 1902, to the house of one Felix Punsalan, situated in
circulation because of the deleterious effects it Matang-tubig, barrio of Malinta, town of Polo, Province of
has on the public interest. Bulacan, and by force and violence took the said Felix
o An act may not be considered by society as Punsalan, without, up to the date of this information,
inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se, but having given any information as to his whereabouts or
because of the harm that inflicts on the having proven that they set him at liberty.
community, it can be outlawed and criminally The defendants on being arraigned pleaded not guilty.
punished as malum prohibitum in the exercise of The court below rendered judgment condemning each
the state’s police power. one of the defendants, Baldomero Navarro, Marcelo de
o The harmful practice of putting valueless Leon, and Feliciano Felix (alias Bulag), to life
commercial papers in circulation, multiplied a imprisonment and payment of the costs of prosecution.
thousandfold, can very well pollute the channels Against this judgment the defendants appealed.
of trade and commerce, injure the banking
system and eventually hurt the welfare of society Article 481 of the Penal Code provides that a private
and the public interest. person who shall lock up or detain another, or in any
consti 2 all stars 11
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

way deprive him of his liberty shall be punished with the out the delinquent, a record of all proceedings
penalty of prision mayor. connected with his arrest and imprisonment, the
The second paragraph of article 483 provides that one answers of the accused to the interrogatories put
who illegally detains another and fails to give to him as to any other witness to obtain from him
information concerning his whereabouts, or does not a statement of all he knows concerning the crime
prove that he set him at liberty, shall be punished with and those guilty of it.
cadena temporal in its maximum degree to life
imprisonment. Now let us apply the rules of law above indicated to the
case in question, supposing that the crime had been
committed prior to the passage of the Philippine bill or
ISSUE: General Orders, No. 58. The judicial authorities having
reason to believe that someone has been illegally
WON article 143 has the effect of forcing a defendant to detained or kidnapped proceed to make a secret
become a witness in his own behalf or to take a much investigation of the case, arrest the suspected culprit,
severer punishment ? and demand of him that he give any information he may
have concerning the act under investigation and to state
HELD: whatever may have been his own participation therein.
The evidence shows that someone has been taken away
Yes. Judgment reversed. Defendants are found guilty of from home and has not been heard of again, and the
the crime defined and punished in by article 482 of the facts point to the prisoner as the presumptive criminal.
Penal Code, with AC of nocturnity with legal accessory He is told to state what he knows of the matter. If he
penalties and payment of costs. does so, and proves that the person detained was
liberated by him, or that such person is living in such
RATIO: and such a place, then the prosecuting attorney will
-This provisions of the law has the effect of forcing a know that he must draw a charge under the first or
defendant to become a witness in his own behalf or to following sections of article 481, according to whether
take a much severer punishment. The burden is put the facts elicited by the preliminary or summary
upon him of giving evidence if he desires to lessen the investigation show only a detention in general, or for the
penalty, or, in other words, of criminating himself, for specific periods of time indicated in the latter part of the
the very statement of the whereabouts of the victim or section. But if the prisoner fails to prove the
the proof that the defendant set him at liberty amounts whereabouts of the person whom he is accused of
to a confession that the defendant unlawfully detained making away with, or that he liberated him, then the
the person. prosecuting attorney has a case falling within the last
paragraph of article 483.
And so in order to arrive at a true interpretation of
article 483 it is necessary to examine that system of It follows, therefore, from an examination of the old law
procedure. that no prosecution under this article would have ever
been possible without a concomitant provision of the
In Escriche's Dictionary of Legislation and procedural law which made it the duty of the accused to
Jurisprudence: testify and permitted the prosecution to draw an
unfavorable deduction from his refusal to do so. The
criminal prosecution is divided into two principal crime defined by article 483 was composed of three
parts or sections which are, first, the summary, elements:
and second, the penalty stages. The principal (a) The illegal detention of a person by the
purpose of the summary trial is to inquire accused.
whether a criminal act has been committed and (b) Lack of evidence up to the time of the
to determine by whom the act has been summary investigation that this person had
committed — that is to say, the object is to get recovered his liberty.
together all the date possible for the purpose of (c) A failure on the part of the accused in the
proving that an act falling within the sanction of course of the summary proceeding to prove that
the penal law has been committed by such and he had liberated the person detained, or to give
such persons. In the plenary stage the purpose information at that time of his whereabouts, or a
is a contradictory discussion of the question of refusal to give any evidence at all which left him
the guilt or innocence of the defendant, and the in the same position as would an unsuccessful
rendition of a judgment of conviction or attempt to prove the facts above mentioned, and
acquittal. It may well be that although it appears which were necessary to overcome the prima
in the summary stage of the proceeding that the facie case made out by the proof of the first two
act has been performed by the accused, still in elements
the plenary stage it may be shown that the act
was not really criminal or that there was a Now every one of these ingredients of the offense must
lawful excuse for its commission. exists before an information can be filed for a
The record of the summary proceeding should prosecution under this article. The real trial was the
contain evidence of the commission of a plenary and was very similar to out regular trial after
punishable act, all possible data tending to point
consti 2 all stars 12
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

arraignment. But the summary, with its secret and make certain statements or proofs, he is severely
inquisitorial methods, was vastly different from our punished.
preliminary investigation. If the right had been taken
away to question the accused and compel him to testify, It may be said that the defendant is only required to
then element (c) above indicated, would have always speak on one point in the case, that the prosecution
been lacking. And that right has been taken from the must prove the illegal detention, and that the burden of
prosecution by both General Orders, No. 58, and by the showing the whereabouts only is put upon the
guaranty embodied in the Philippine bill. That being the defendant.
case the crime defined in article 483 can not now be - it be urged that the defendant is not compelled to
committed, because the possibility of adding to the testify, that he remain mute, the answer is that, the
element (a) arising from the act of the accused the other illegal detention only being proved by the prosecution, if
two elements equally essential to the offense has been he does not make certain proof, if he remains mute, then
forever swept away by the extension to these Islands of not only the presumption but the fact of guilt follows as
the constitutional barrier against an inquisitorial a consequence of his silence, and such a conclusion is
investigation of crime. not permitted under American law.

- this case the prosecuting attorney charges the - It is the duty of the prosecution, in order to convict one
accused with kidnapping some person and with of a crime, to produce evidence showing guilt beyond a
not having given any information of the reasonable doubt; and the accused can not be called
whereabouts of that person, of having proved upon either by express words or acts to assist in the
that he — the accused — has set him at liberty. production of such evidence; nor should his silence be
To make out a case the Government must show taken as proof against him. He has a right to rely on the
that the prisoner has been guilty of every act or presumption of innocence until the prosecution proves
omission necessary to constitute the crime of him guilty of every element of the crime with which he is
which he is charged, and it will not be disputed charged.
that the exercise of an absolute right can not
form part of a crime. In this case the -In the language of Mr. Justice Bradley, in the Boyd
Government has proved that the defendant was case, "any compulsory discovery by extorting the party's
guilty of a breach of his duty to respect the oath . . . to convict him of a crime . . . is contrary to the
rights of others by showing that he, with others, principles of free government; it is abhorrent to the
carried a certain individual away from his house instincts of an Englishman; it is abhorrent to the
against his will, the accused not being vested instincts of an American. It may suit the purposes to
with authority to restrain his fellow-citizens of despotic power but it can not abide the pure atmosphere
liberty. It is impossible for the Government to of political liberty and personal freedom."
prove the other elements of the crime, because
the acts necessary to constitute them must be
anterior in point of time to the trial, and must
constitute some breach of duty under an VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS
existing law. It has been demonstrated that the
omission which, under the former law
constituted the two remaining elements, is no J. Malcolm
longer penalized but is nothing more than the
exercise of one of the most essential rights FACTS:
pertaining to an accused person.
Petitioner Emeteria Villaflor here was charged with
- The provision that no one is bound to criminate himself adultery. She was then asked to submit to a physical
is older than the Government of the United States. At an examination to determine if she was pregnant or not.
early day it became a part of the common law of She refused to obey and challenged the order on the
England. ground of being in violation of the constitutional
provision relating to self incrimination.
- It was established on the grounds of public policy and
humanity — of policy, because if the party were required ISSUE:
to testify, it would place the witness under the strongest
temptation to commit the crime of perjury, and of WON the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be
humanity, because it would prevent the extorting of examined violates the Bill of Rights and the Code of
confessions by duress. Criminal Procedure.

- It had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial HELD:

methods of interrogating the accused person, which had
long obtained in the continental system. (Jones's Law of No it does not. Writ of habeas corpus being prayed for is
Evidence, sec. 887; Black's Constitutional Law, 575.) denied.
Precisely the same of law applies to the case at bar. If
the defendant does not do certain things, if he does not RATIO:

consti 2 all stars 13

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

justice cannot hesitate.

The court here acknowledged that there are a number of
authorities that deal with the subject, though many are
he wants to discuss this)
Cited was the case of People v. McCoy, a case dealing in
infanticide, where the court deemed it a violation of the The object of having criminal laws is to purge the
Constitution to compel the defendant to submit her body community of persons who violate the laws to the great
to examination, being a violation of the right against self- prejudice of their fellow men. Criminal procedure, the
incrimination. rules of evidence, and constitutional provisions, are then
provided, not to protect the guilty but to protect the
In State v. Height, J. McClain recommended that the innocent. No evidence of physical facts can for any
general rule should be that “a defendant can be substantial reason be held to be detrimental to the
compelled to disclose only those parts of the body which accused except in so far as the truth is to be avoided in
are not usually covered”. order to acquit a guilty person.

The court in this case, however, looks to more

progressive decisions.
Cited was the decision of J. Holmes in Holt v. US, where
he said “based upon what he termed "an extravagant (2002, per curiam)
extension of the Fifth Amendment," said: "The
prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be PERTINENT PROVISIONS:
a witness against himself is a prohibition of the use of
physical or moral compulsion to extort communications Section 12 of Art. III of the Constitution provides in
from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when pertinent parts:
it may be material." "(1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
The Philippine SC also seemed to limit the protection, be informed of his right to remain silent and to
stating that the limitation was to be "simply a have competent and independent counsel,
prohibition against legal process to extract from the preferably of his own choice. If the person
defendant's own lips, against his will, an admission of cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
his guilt. provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of
While the court agrees with the latter two counsel.
interpretations, it does not attempt to draw any dividing "(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
line, as this would be too difficult to determine. This intimidation or any other means which vitiate
case, however, is seen as one of the most extreme cases the free will shall be used against him. Secret
which could be imagined. detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
Quote: “For the nonce we would prefer to forget them "(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
entirely, and here in the Philippines, being in the violation of this or Section 17 shall be
agreeable state of breaking new ground, would rather inadmissible in evidence against him."
desire our decision to rest on a strong foundation of There are two kinds of involuntary or coerced
reason and justice than on a weak one blind adherence confessions treated in this constitutional provision: (1)
to tradition and precedent.” coerced confessions, the product of third degree methods
such as torture, force, violence, threat, and intimidation,
Going into the history of the law, it is seen that it was which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12, and
made as a deterrent to “odious inquisitorial methods of (2) uncounselled statements, given without the benefit of
interrogating an accused person by which to extort Miranda warnings, which are the subject of paragraph 1
unwilling confessions with the ever-present temptation of the same section.
to commit the crime of perjury.” FACTS:

DUE PROCESS 1. Accused Vallejo was charged with the crime of

rape with homicide for the rape-slaying of a 9
Under the due process of law, every person has a natural year-old girl. The RTC convicted him and
and inherent right to the possession and control of his sentenced him with the penalty of death.
own body. However, superior to the complete immunity
of a person to be let alone is the inherent which the 2. Vallejo questions the validity of the oral and
public has in the orderly administration of justice. written confessions presented as evidence
Between a sacrifice of the ascertainment of truth to against him. He alleges that the oral confessions
personal considerations, between a disregard of the were inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay,
public welfare for refined notions of delicacy, law and

consti 2 all stars 14

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

while the extrajudicial confessions were obtained

through force and intimidation. • Vallejo admitted that he was first asked whether
he wanted the services of Atty. Leyva before the
3. According to him, the police forced him to admit
latter acted as his defense counsel. And counsel
that he had raped and killed the girl and that he
who is provided by the investigators is deemed
admitted having committed the crime to stop
engaged by the accused where the latter never
them from beating him up. He also claimed the
raised any objection against the former's
police even burned his penis with a lighted
appointment during the course of the
cigarette and pricked it with a needle.
investigation but, on the contrary, thereafter
subscribed to the veracity of his statement
4. He further claims that, although he admitted to
before the swearing officer.
Mayor Abutan and Atty. Leyva the commission
of the crime, this was because the police had
• In previous cases decided by the SC, the accused
maltreated him. He did not tell the mayor or
made extrajudicial confessions to the municipal
Atty. Leyva that he had been tortured because
mayor freely and voluntarily. In all of them, the
the policemen were around and he was afraid of
extrajudicial confessions were held admissible in
them. Mayor Abutan and Atty. Leyva were not
evidence, being the spontaneous, free, and
also present when he gave his confession to the
voluntary admissions of the guilt of the accused.
police and signed the same. He claims that
We note further that the testimony of Mayor
although the extrajudicial confession was in his
Abutan was never objected to by the defense. In
own handwriting, he merely copied the contents
this case, the mayor's questions to accused-
thereof from a pattern given to him by the police.
appellant were not in the nature of an
interrogation, but rather an act of benevolence by
a leader seeking to help one of his constituents.
WoN the extrajudicial confessions of the
accused are admissible as evidence as these were
allegedly obtained through force and intimidation • The bare assertions of maltreatment by the police
and without the aid of a lawyer. authorities in extracting confessions from the
accused are not sufficient. The standing rule is
HELD: that "where the defendants did not present
YES, these are admissible. The accused failed evidence of compulsion, or duress nor violence
to support his contention that these were obtained on their person; where they failed to complain
through fraud and intimidation and that he was not to the officer who administered their oaths;
assisted by proper counsel. where they did not institute any criminal or
administrative action against their alleged
intimidators for maltreatment; where there
appeared to be no marks of violence on their
RATIO: bodies; and where they did not have
themselves examined by a reputable physician
• Vallejo cannot now claim that he was not apprised to buttress their claim," all these will be
of the consequences of the statements he was to considered as indicating voluntariness.
make as well as the written confessions he was to
execute. Neither can he question the qualifications • Accused testified that he was made to stay in the
of Atty. Lupo Leyva who acted as his counsel municipal hall from 10:00 o'clock in the morning
during the investigation. until 11:00 o'clock that night of July 10, 1999,
during which time he was boxed, tortured, and hit
• To be an effective counsel, a lawyer need not with a piece of wood by policemen to make him
admit to the crime. However, accused was
challenge all the questions being propounded to
physically examined by Dr. Antonio Vertido at
his client. The presence of a lawyer is not
about 9:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day.
intended to stop an accused from saying
While the results show that accused-appellant did
anything which might incriminate him but,
rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to sustain injuries, the same are incompatible with
preclude the slightest coercion as would lead his claim of torture.
the accused to admit something false. Indeed,
counsel should not prevent an accused from freely
and voluntarily telling the truth. OBITER: At all events, even if accused-appellant was
truthful and his assailed confessions are
inadmissible, the circumstantial evidence, as already
• Atty. Leyva testified that he "sort of discouraged"
shown, is sufficient to establish his guilt beyond all
the former from making statements as anything he
reasonable doubt. The prosecution witnesses
said could be used against him. But, as accused-
presented a mosaic of circumstances showing
appellant was willing to be investigated, Atty.
accused-appellant's guilt. Their testimonies rule out
Leyva said he advised him to tell the truth
consti 2 all stars 15
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

the possibility that the crime was the handiwork of signature is in his own hand, he may on cross-
some other evil mind. These witnesses have not been examination but compelled to write in open court in
shown to have been motivated by ill will against order that the jury may be able to compare his
accused-appellant. handwriting with the one in question. It was so held in
the case of Bradford vs. People and Sprouse vs. Com.
However, in the case of Sprouse vs. Com., the defendant
voluntarily offered to write, to furnish a specimen of his
handwriting. We cite this case particularly because the
BELTRAN vs. SAMSON court there gave prominence to the defendant's right to
decline to write, and to the fact that he voluntarily wrote.
In this case, we are not concerned with a defendant, for
Ponente: J. Romualdez (1929) it does not appear that any information was filed against
the petitioner for the supposed falsification, and still less
FACTS: is it a question of a defendant on trial testifying and
The petitioner complains that Judge Samson ordered under cross-examination. This is only an investigation
him to appear before the provincial fiscal to take prior to the information and with a view to filing it.
dictation in his own handwriting from the latter. The
order was given upon petition of said fiscal for the Writing is something more than moving the body, or the
purpose of comparing the petitioner's handwriting and hand, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical
determining whether or not it is he who wrote certain and attention; and in the case at bar writing means that
documents supposed to be falsified. The respondents the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine
contend that the petitioner is not entitled to the remedy or not he is the falsifier, as the petition of the respondent
applied for, inasmuch as the order prayed for by the fiscal clearly states. Except that it is more serious, we
provincial fiscal and later granted by the court below, believe the present case is similar to that of producing
and against which the instance action was brought, is documents of chattels in one's possession. For the
based on the provisions of section 1687 of the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a
Administrative Code and on the doctrine laid down in similarity between one who is compelled to produce a
case law document, and one who is compelled to furnish a
specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases, the
The fiscal under section 1687 of the Administrative witness is required to furnish evidence against himself.
Code, and the proper judge, upon motion of the fiscal,
may compel witnesses to be present at the investigation And we say that the present case is more serious than
of any crime of misdemeanor. But this power must be that of compelling the production of documents or
exercised without prejudice to the constitutional rights chattels, because here the witness is compelled to write
of persons cited to appear. The petitioner, in refusing to and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence
perform what the fiscal demanded, seeks refuge in the which does not exist, and which may identify him as the
constitutional provision contained in the Jones Law and falsifier.
incorporated in General Orders, No. 58. It cannot be contended in the present case that if
permission to obtain a specimen of the petitioner's
The said provision is found in paragraph 3, section 3 of handwriting is not granted, the crime would go
the Jones Law which (in Spanish) reads: "Ni se le unpunished.
obligara a declarar en contra suya en ningun proceso
criminal" and has been incorporated in our Criminal Considering the circumstance that the petitioner is a
Procedure (General Orders, No. 58) in section 15 (No. 4) municipal treasurer, according to Exhibit A, it should
and section 56. As to the extent of this privilege, it not be a difficult matter for the fiscal to obtain genuine
should be noted first of all, that the English text of the specimens of his handwriting. But even supposing it is
Jones Law, which is the original one, reads as follows: impossible to obtain a specimen or specimens without
"Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a resorting to the means complained of herein, that is not
witness against himself." As to its scope, this privilege is reason for trampling upon a personal right guaranteed
not limited precisely to testimony, but extends to all by the constitution. It might be true that in some cases
giving or furnishing of evidence. criminals may succeed in evading the hand of justice,
but such cases are accidental and do not constitute the
ISSUE/HELD: raison d'etre of the privilege. This constitutional privilege
exists for the protection of innocent persons.
W/O Not writing from the fiscal's dictation by the
petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter's With respect to the judgments rendered by this court
handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain and cited on behalf of the respondents, it should be
documents supposed to be falsified, violates the remembered that in the case of People vs. Badilla (48
petitioner’s right against self-incrimination. YES Phil., 718), it does not appear that the defendants and
other witnesses were questioned by the fiscal against
RATIO: their will, and if they did not refuse to answer, they must
be understood to have waived their constitutional
Whenever a defendant, at the trial of his case, testifying privilege, as they could certainly do.
in his own behalf, denies that a certain writing or
consti 2 all stars 16
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

"The privilege not to give self-incriminating evidence, Moreover, where the position of the witness is is virtually
while absolute when claimed, may be waived by any one that of an accused on trial, as in the case at bar, he may
entitled to invoke it." invoke the right against self-incrimination in support of
a blanket refusal to answer any and all questions.



Col. Maristela filed w/ Sec of Natl Defense a complaint (20 November 1991)
charging Manuel Cabal, then AFP Chief of Staff, with Ponente: J. Padilla
“graft and corrupt practices, unexplained wealth,
conduct unbecoming…dictatorial tendencies, giving false FACTS:
statements as to financial life, etc.” A month later, the On 30 July 1987, the Republic of the Philippines,
President created a committee (3 former justices, 2 represented by the Presidential Commission on Good
generals) to investigate the administrative charge and Governance (PCGG), filed a complaint with
submit a report asap. Upon request of Maristela, Cabal Sandiganbayan against the petitioners of this case.
was asked to take the witness stand and be sworn to as PCGG allege, among others, that: defendants (petitioners
witness for Maristela. Cabal objected, invoking his right therein) Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez and Juliette
against self-incriminatn. Gomez Romualdez, alleged “cronies” of former President
Marcos and First Lady Imelda Romualdez Marcos,
Committee insisted he take the witness stand subject to engaged in schemes and stratagems to unjustly enrich
his right to refuse to answer incriminatory questions. themselves at the expense of the Filipino people. Among
Cabal still refused. Committee referred matter to City these stratagems are (1) obtained control of some
Fiscal of Manila who filed with the CFI a charge on Cabal bigbusiness enterprises such as MERALCO, Pilipinas
of contempt under section 580 of RAC. Respondent Shell, and PCI Bank, (2) manipulated the formation of
judge Kapunan ordered petitioner to show cause. Erectors Holding Inc, to appear viable and borrow more
Instead petitioner tried to have charges against him capital, reaching a total of more that P2 billion, (3)
quashed. collaborated with lawyers (petitioners therein) of the
Bengzon Law Offices in concealing funds and properties,
Note that an accused in a criminal case may refuse to in maneuvering the purported sale of interests in certain
answer incriminatory ?s and take the witness stand. corporations, in misusing the Meralco Pension Fund
Thus, the issue is: worth P25 million, and in cleverly hiding behind the veil
of corporate entity.
On 13 September 1988, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile
WON the proceedings before the committee is civil or delivered a speech before the Senate on the alleged take-
criminal, determining won Cabal may invoke right over of SolOil Incorporated by Ricardo Lopa (who died
against self-incrimination during the pendency of this case) and called upon the
senate to look into possible violation of the Anti Graft
HELD and Corrupt Practices Act or RA 3019. The Senate
Committee on Accountability of Public Officers or Blue
Yes. Although technically a civil proceeding, as a Ribbon Committee (SBRC) started its investigation
consequence of forfeiture being in the nature of a through a hearing on 23 May 1989, but Lopa and
penalty, proceedings for forfeiture of property are Bengzon declined to testify. The SBRC rejected petitioner
deemed criminal in substance and effect. Hence, Bengzon’s plea and voted to pursue its investigation.
exemption of Cabal in criminal case from obligation to be Petitioner claims that the SBRC, in requiring their
witnesses against himself is proper. attendance and testimony, acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and legislative purpose. Hence this petition.
The purpose of the charge is to apply RA 1379 Anti-Graft
Law, which authorizes the forfeiture of the State of 1. WON the court has jurisdiction over this case. YES.
property of a public officer or employee which is out of 2. WON the SBRC’s inquiry has a valid legislative
proportion of his salary and other lawful income. Such purpose. NO.
forfeiture is of the nature of a penalty as it is a 3. WON the sale or disposition of the Romualdez
divestiture of property w/o compensation, imposed by corporations is a purely private transaction which is
way of punishment by the lawmaking power to insure a beyond the power of the SBRC to inquire into. YES.
prescribed course of conduct. It restrains the 4. WON the inquiry violates the petitioners’ right to due
commission of an offense, the effect of which is to process. NO.
transfer the title to the specific thing from owner to the
sovereign power. RATIO:

consti 2 all stars 17

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

1. As the court held in Angara vs. Electoral Commission, Held: Petition is GRANTED. The SBRC is enjoined from
the Constitution provided for an elaborate system of compelling the petitioners and intervenor to testify before
checks and balances to secure coordination in the it and produce evidence at the said inquiry.
workings of the departments of the government, and it is
the judiciary that was vested of the powers to determine
the scope, nature and extent of such powers.
2 and 3. Sec 21, Art VI of the Consti provides:
“The Senate… may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation Cuevas, J. 08/30/85
in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.
The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such FACTS:
inquiries shall be respected.”
After the death of Ninoy, Marcos issued PD 1886,
The power of both houses of Congress to conduct creating the Agrava Fact-Finding Board to investigate on
inquries in aid of legislation is not, therefore, absolute or the tragedy. The statute gave the board broad powers,
unlimited. With regard to the rights that shall be among them :
respected, it should be considered to refer to the Bill of
Rights, particularly the right to due process and the Sec. 4 The Board may hold any person in direct
right not to be compelled to testify against one’s self. or indirect contempt, and impose appropriate
The speech of Sen. Enrile contained no suggestion on
contemplated legislation; he merely called upon the A person guilty...including...refusal to be sworn
Senate to look into a possible violation of Sec. 5 of RA or to answeras a witness or to subscribe to an
3019. The purpose of the inquiry to be conducted by affidavit or disposition when lawfully
respondent SBRC was to find out WON the relatives of required to do so may be summarily adjudged
President Aquino, particularly Ricardo Lopa, had in direct contempt by the Board.
violated the law in connection with the alleged sale of the
36/39 corporations of Kokoy Romualdez to the Lopa Sec. 5 No person shall be excused from
Group. There appears no intended legislation attending and testifying...on the ground that his
involved. testimony or evidence required of him may to
incriminate him...but his testimony or any
The inquiry also is not conducted pursuant to Senate evidence produced by him shall not be used
Resolution No. 2124 (SR 212), as the committee alleges. against him in connection with any transaction,
The inquiry under SR 212 is to look into the charges matter or thing concerning which he is
against PCGG filed by stockholders of Oriental compelled, after having invoked his privilege
Petroleum in connection with the implementation of against self-incrimination, to testify or produce
Section 26 Article XVIII of the Constitution. Mr. Lopa evidence, except that such individual son
and the petitioners are not connected with the testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution
government and did their acts as private citizens; hence, and punishment fro perjury committed in so
such a case of alleged graft and corruption is within the testifying...
jurisdiction, not of the SBRC, but of the courts. In fact,
the Sandiganbayan already took jurisdiction of this issue Sec 12. The findings...shall be made public.
before the SBRC did. The inquiry of the respondent Should it warrant the prosecution of any person,
committee into the same justiciable controversy already the Board may initiate the filing of the proper
before the Sandiganbayan would be an encroachment of complaint with the appropriate gov't agency.
into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction.
Among those who were called in by the Board were
4. One of the basic rights guaranteed by the Consti to an private respondents Gen. Fabian Ver and Maj. Gen.
individual is the right against self-incrimination. This Prospero Olivas. Eventually two reports came out of the
right construed as the right to remain completely silent Agrava Board and both were presented to Marcos; the
may be availed of by the accused in a criminal case; but majority report by board chair Justice Agrava and the
it may be invoked by other witnesses only as questions minority report authored by 4 others. They were turned
are asked of them (Chavez v CA). This extends also to over to the Tanodbayan, who filed two informations for
respondents in administrative investigation but only if murder (for the death of Ninoy, another for Rolando
they partake of the nature of a criminal proceeding. This Galman, the other dead person on the tarmac who was
is not so in this case. BUT since the court already held supposedly a Communist hitman) with the
that the inquiry is not in aid of legislation, the Sandiganbayan against private respondents herein
petitioners therein cannot be compelled to testify. charged as accesories, with several principals & 1
Senate Resolution wherein the activities of PCGG be investigated on
the ground, among others, that the Sandiganbayan has ordered the In the course of the trial, the prosecuting Tanodbayan
PCGG to answered charges filed by three stockholders of Oriental marked and offered as part of their evidence the
Petroleum that it has adopted a “get-rich quick” scheme.
consti 2 all stars 18
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

individual testimonies of the private respondents before merely immunity from use of any statement given before
the Agrava board, to which the respondents objected. the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by reason
The Sandiganbayan resolved to admit all the evidences or on the basis thereof. Merely testifying and/or
offered by the prosecution except the testimonies in view producing evidence do not render the witness immuned
of he immunity given by PD 1886. from prosecution notwithstanding his invocation of the
right against self-incrimination. This the Court said is
Petitioners: (Saturnina & Reynaldo Galman, contrary to due process, as they were not appraised of
Tanodbayan) their rights and also because such a
1. said testimonies are admissible because the "confession/testimony" is inadmissible under the
respondents failed to invoke before the Agrava Board the exclusionary rule in Sec20, Art 4 of the Consti.
immunity granted by PD1886 In order to save PD 1886 from unconstitutionality, the
2. non-invocation of privilege constitutes a valid waiver. Court held that in view of the potent sanction found in
3. right against self-incrimination functions only Sec4 of the said law on the refusal, the compelled
criminal cases testimonies are deemed immunized by Sec 5 of the same.

Repondents (Sandiganbayan, Ver, Olivas et.al) Petition dismissed.

1. evidences cannot be used against them as mandated
by Sec 5 PD1886 Makasiar, C.J. concurring: There can be no implied
2. without the immunity provided for in the 2nd clause waiver of the right against self incrimination. Also,
of Sec 5, the legal compulsion imposed by the 1st clause because of the nature of the proceedings, the invitations
of the same Sec would be unconstitutional for being to testify handed out by the Agrava board are effectively
violative of the right against self incrimination. subpoenas, hence it takes the nature of a criminal
proceeding. the respondents were under the impression
ISSUE/HELD: it was not, thus they were not fully appraised of their
w/n the testimonies of the respondents before the Board rights.
are admissible as evidence - NO (Escolin, Dela Fuente, Alampay hold essentially a similar
Though designated as a fact-finding commission, the Concepcion, concurring: testimony cannot be used in
Agrava board was for all intents and purposes an entity any subsequent proceeding.
charged with the determination of the person/s (Plana holds a similar view)
criminally responsible so that they may be brought
before the bar of justice. In the course of the Teehankee, dissent: It is wrong to exclude totally and
investigation it is but natural that those who are absolutely inadmissible the testimonies of teh private
suspected of the commission of the crime are to be called respondents. The right against self-incrimination in
in. And when suspects are summoned & called to testify, proceedings other than criminal is considered an option
they are not merely "sheding light' on the incident, they of refusal to answer, not a prohibition of inquiry. Thus, it
are in fact undergoing investigation (the crim law must be invoked at the proper time (according to him,
definition, which in this case can be analogized to a the proper time was during the testimony to the board);
prelim investigation). Therefore, they are supposed to be a person summoned to testify cannot decline to appear,
read their rights (remain silent, etc) and are supposed to nor can he decline to appear as a witness, and no claim
afford themselves the full protection of the law, which of privilege can be made until a question calling for a
includes the right against self incrimination. criminating answer is asked. Gonzales v Sec of Labor.
In this case, because of PD 1886 compelling respondents Nor were the respondents in a criminal trial, they were
to testify on pain of contempt, that option has effectively ordinary witnesses. An ordinary witness before the
been eliminated. However, the rights of the accused, Board could not invoke the right to silence and refuse to
being constitutional rights, cannot be set aside. Their act take the witness stand. Their right & privilege (which is
of continuing to testify before the board cannot be not self-executory/automatic ipso jure) was, while
accepted as a valid waiver of the right to remain silent, testifying, whether voluntary or by subpoena, to invoke
because in the first place they had no option to do so. the privilege and refuse to answer as and when a
The contempt power of the Board acted as a form of question calling for an incriminating answer is
compulsion. Lefkowitz v NJ. The right against self- propounded. Failure to invoke this personal privilege
incrimination is not limited to criminal cases, for it is not automatically results in loss ipso facto.
the character of the suit involved but the nature of te
proceedings that controls. Cabal v Kapunan.
The Court continues to rule that the private respondents E. Unlawful Search & Seizure
were not merely denied of the afore-mentioned rights but
more broadly the right to due process. While it is true STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO
that Sec 5 of PD 1886 provides some sort of immunity,
analyzed closely, it will be shown that it is a form of "use
immunity" (prohibiting the use of the witness' compelled PARTIES:
testimony & its fruits in any manner in connection with Petitioners: Harry Stonehill, Robert Brooks, John
the criminal prosecution of the witness) but it grants Brooks, Karl Beck

consti 2 all stars 19

consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

Respondents-Prosecutors: Hon. Jose Diokno (Sec of and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of
Justice), Jose Lukban (Acting Director, NBI), Special by third parties. Consequently, petitioners herein may
Prosecutors Cenzon, Plana, Villareal, and Asst. Fiscal not validly object to the use in evidence against them of
Maneses Reyes the documents, papers and things seized from the offices
Respondents-Judges: Judges Roan, Cansino, Clauag, and premises of the corporations, since the right to
Mencias, Jimenez object to the admission of said papers in evidence
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the
FACTS: seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their
Upon application of respondents-prosecutors, several individual capacity.
judges issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants
against petitioners and/or the corporations of which (Thus, the issues pertain to the second group…)
they were officers to search the persons above-named
and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or ISSUES:
residences, and to seize documents and papers “showing 1. WON the search warrants in question, and the
all business transactions” of petitioners as the subject of searches and seizures are valid. NO
the offense in violating “Central Bank Laws, Tariff and 2. if invalid, WON said documents, papers, and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and the RPC.” things may be used in evidence against
petitioners. NO
Petitioners alleged that the search warrants are null &
void as contravening the Constitution and Rules of Court RATIO:
(ROC) because:
1. they do not describe w/ particularity the Art III, Sec 1, par 3:
documents, books, and things to be seized The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
2. cash money not mentioned in the warrants were houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
actually seized searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no
3. they were issued to fish evidence against the warrants shall issue but upon a probable cause, to be
petitioners in deportation cases filed against determined by the judge after examination under oath or
them affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
4. searches and seizures were made in an illegal produce, and particularly describing the place to be
manner searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. the things seized were not delivered to the courts
that issued the warrants, to be disposed of in ISSUE #1
accordance with the law Constitution requires: 1) that no warrant shall issue but
Respondents-prosecutors alleged: upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in
1. the search warrants are valid & issued in the manners set forth; and 2) the warrant shall
accordance with the law particularly describe the things to be seized.
2. the defects, if any were cured by petitioners’
consent None of these has been complied with in the contested
3. the effects seized are admissible in evidence warrants. They were issued upon applications stating
against herein petitioners regardless of the that the natural and juridical persons named had
alleged illegality of the searches and seizures committed a “violation of CB Laws, Tariff and Custom
Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and RPC.” In other words,
The SC issued writ of prelim injunction prayed for. no specific offense had been alleged in said applications.
However, it was partially lifted insofar as the papers, The averments with respect to the offense committed
documents, and things seized from the offices of the were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for
corporations are concerned; but, the injunction was the judges who issued the warrants to have found the
maintained as regards those seized in the residences of existence of probable cause, for the same presupposes
petitioners herein. the introduction of competent proof that the party
against who it is sought has performed particular acts, or
Thus, the documents, papers, and things seized may be committed specific omissions, violating a given provision
split into 2 groups: 1) those found and seized in the of our criminal laws.
offices of the corporations, and 2) those seized in the
residences of petitioners. To uphold the validity of the warrants in question would
be to wipe out completely one of the most fundamental
ON FIRST GROUP Const’l rights, for it would place the sanctity of the
Petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality domicile and the privacy of communication and
of the warrants and seizures made for the simple reason correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or
that said corporations have their respective passion of peace officers. This is precisely the evil
personalities, separate and distinct from the personality sought to be remedied by the quoted provision – to
of petitioners. The legality of a seizure can be contested outlaw the so-called general warrants.
only by the party whose rights have been impaired The grave violation of the Consti made in the application
thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search for the search warrants was compounded by the
description made of the effects to be searched for and
consti 2 all stars 20
consti part 12: protected interests in liberty

seized. The warrants authorized the search for and

seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions
of petitioners, regardless of whether the transactions
were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure
of all records of the petitioners and the corporations,
whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the
explicit command of our Bill of Rights – that the things
to be seized be particularly described – as well as tending
to defeat its major objective, the elimination of general

The ruling in Moncado v. People’s court relied upon by
respondents – that illegally seized documents, papers
and things are admissible in evidence must be
abandoned. This ruling is in line with American
common law rule that the criminal should not be allowed
to go free just “because the constable has blundered”
upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition
against unreasonable searches and seizures is protected
by means other than the exclusion of evidence
unlawfully obtained (i.e. action for damages against
searching officer).

Most common law jurisdictions have already given up

this approach and eventually adopted the exclusionary
rule (exclusion of illegally obtained evidence), realizing
that this is the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches
and seizures.

Mapp vs. Ohio: All evidence obtained by searches and

seizures in violation of the Constitution, is, by that same
authority, inadmissible.

The non-exclusionary rule is contrary to the spirit of the

constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches
and seizures. If the applicant for a search warrant has
competent evidence to establish probable cause of the
commission of a given crime by the party against whom
the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why the
applicant should not comply with the requirements of
the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no
such competent evidence, then it is not possible for the
Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence,
no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only
possible explanation for its issuance is the necessity of
fishing evidence of the commission of the crime. But
then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence
of evidence to establish a probable cause.

consti 2 all stars 21