Arrests and the Miranda Rights The Miranda rights stem from the landmark decision of the UnitedStates Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires. This doctrine is enshrined in Article 3, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution, which provides: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. Compared to what is originally laid out in Miranda v. Arizona, Philippine law provides for more stringent standards – where the right to counsel was specifically qualified to mean competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect’s own choice. Waiver of the right to counsel likewise provided for stricter requirements compared to its American counterpart; it must be done in writing, and in the presence of counsel. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of the requirements under the Miranda rights shall be inadmissible in evidence against the accused (Art. 3, Sec. 12 [3], Constitution). The right to counsel was discussed in the leading cases of People vs. Galit andMorales, Jr. vs. Enrile, which rulings were subsequently incorporated into the present Constitution. The right against deprivation of liberty is guaranteed by no less than theConstitution, which states that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law xxx” (Article 3, Section 1) and that “[n]o search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (Art. 3, Sec.2) This right has been characterized by the Supreme Court as “a most basic and fundamental” right that has been “often violated and so deserving of full protection”. As a rule, no arrest may be made without a warrant of arrest. The exceptions [also referred to as warrantless arrests] under the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rule 113, Sec. 5) are arrests made by a peace officer or a private person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. another prisoner. is actually committing. There is no doubt that the confession was voluntarily made. with full understanding of its consequences. Tests of Validity of Waiver of Miranda Rights No valid waiver. That spontaneous statement. wherein two requisites must exist: (1) an offense has in fact just been committed. In another case where Avila was also a defendant. On June 14. waiver of right to counsel F: Jose Tampus and Rodolfo Avila were prisoners at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. The accused was warned in Tagalog that he had a right to remain silent and to counsel but despite this. they surrendered to the prison guard. after informing the suspect that he was under investigation. it was contended that Tampus was denied the right to a public trial and to counsel. here or here. When Roca was questioned on the incriminating answers in the statement. knowing and intelligent F: Respondent Paquito Yupo was accused of murder in the CFI of Bulacan. The separate statement signed by the defendant stating he was made to read the opening statement containing the Miranda warnings and that they were explained to him all the more engenders doubt as to whether the defendant was properly informed of his right. saying "surrender po kami. They were accused of murder and pleaded guilty. In this case. Rizal. HELD: The record does not show that the public was actually excluded from the place where the trial was held or that the accused was prejudiced by the holding of the trial there. ." The statement was in Tagalog which the defendant. Trial took place at the Penitentiary." Two days later. The truth is that shortly after the killing. the SC directed that. 1976. was part of the res gestae and at the same time was a voluntary confession of guilt. People v. a native of Samar. The prosecution presented Corporal Conrado Roca of the Meycauayan Police who identified a statement of the accused during a police interrogation and his alleged waiver of the right to remain silent and to counsel. Tampus was sentenced to death while Avila to reclusion temporal. On the other hand. Gumanti lang po kami. for security reasons. The date of execution of the statement before the municipal court was not indicated. or is attempting to commit a crime. Afterwards. the right to public trial may be waived. Tampus 96 SCRA 624 (1980) Public trial. HELD: The right to counsel during custodial interrogation may be waived provided the waiver is made intelligently and voluntarily. People v. elicited without interrogation. that he had a right to counsel and that anything he said could be used for or against him and after asking whether he was willing to answer questions and he answered "yes. Respondent Judge sustained the objection on the ground that the right to counsel cannot be waived. they gave extrajudicial confessions admitting the killing. Caguioa 95 SCRA 2 (1980) Right to counsel may be waived provided the waiver is voluntary. contending that Yupo's statement was given without the assistance of counsel. 5 (a) is also referred to as arrests in flagrante delicto. had not been shown to be fully acquainted with. click here. he was willing to answer questions of the police. wherein two elements must exist: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed. On review. and (2) the arresting officer has probable cause based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested committed the offense. Tampus and Avila admitted their guilt. and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.Sec. They took the witness stand and affirmed their confessions. Section 5 (b) refers to arrests made in hot pursuit. the defense objected. the statement made only a perfunctory opening question. they attacked and killed Celso Saminado. Avila's trial be held in the National Penitentiary. For an extended legal discussion on in flagrante delicto and hot pursuit arrests. Anyway. Since Royo's conviction for murder was based on a written confession showing that he was apprised of his right not only by the police but also by the fiscal. The Galit Rule (March 20. b. 135 SCRA 485 (1985). but the question itself was not since it spoke of a waiver only "for the moment. the adoption of the Morales obiter was also an obiter. which was obtained through torture. given the tenor of the question whether there was a definite waiver by the suspect of his right to counsel. Moreover. These constitute gross violations of his right. VV. the SC. Ponce Enrile where it laid the . the two waived their right to remain silent and to counsel. if indeed there was any waiver at all. then the waiver found to be voluntary. HELD: It is doubtful. ruled that no custodial investigation should be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel. The NBI investigators covered Galit's face with a rag and then pushed it into a toilet bowl full of human waste. and so the SC did not need the Morales obiter in order to disallow the confession. Poyos 143 SCRA 543 (1986) No valid waiver of right to counsel and to silence F: Poyos was convicted of the murder of a 77-year-old woman and sentence to death. and that although the right to counsel may be waived. he was told that he could hire a lawyer but not that one could be provided for him for free." As worded. In People v.By means of that statement given freely on the spur of the moment without any urging or suggestion. reiterating a dictum in Morales v. The SC cited the case of Morales v. but that he waived these rights. 1987. 1987) It is not enough that the confession is voluntary. 1985 to February 2. Waiver of the right to counsel must be made with the assistance of counsel. the question suggested a tentativeness that belied the suspect's supposed permanent foregoing of his right to counsel. It was only after they had broken his will that the defendant signed the confession and posed for pictures for reenactment as directed by the investigators. The defendant is from Samar and there is no showing that he understood Tagalog. Enrile. Galit 135 SCRA 465 (1985) F: Defendant was convicted of robbery with homicide by the Circuit Criminal Court. to be sure. 2. The principal prosecution witness testified that he heard the defendant and his wife. The confession in this case was traditionally involuntary. This rule applied from March 20. People v. 1985 to Feb. People v. Galit. quarrelling the morning after the crime. It was two weeks after he executed the salaysay that his relatives were permitted to visit him. knowing and intelligent and thus admissible. It was only after they had broken his will that he signed the confession and posed for pictures for re-enactment as directed by the investigators. The waiver must be made in the presence of counsel. the waiver should not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Under the facts of the case. His answer was categorical enough. who was the mother of the witness' wife. His statement does not contain any waiver or right to counsel and yet during the investigation he was not assisted by one. In the Galit case. He said the defendant wanted to leave their house because he and his companions had robbed "Aling Nene. however. 121 SCRA 538 (1983). His conviction was based solely on his extrajudicial confession which he disowned in court. The NBI investigators covered the defendant's face with a rag and then pushed in into a toilet bowl full of human waste." The prosecution also presented the extrajudicial confession of the defendant. knowing and intelligent. the accused Galit was convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis of his confession. The confession was given to the police and subscribed before the clerk of court and contains a waiver. HELD: The confession of the defendant is inadmissible because it was obtained through torture. Nabaluna et. 196 SCRA 809 (1991) In People v. Galit. in allowing the confession. she admitted. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or of anyone on his behalf. was laid to rest by the SC in People v. but these were not made in the presence of counsel. People v. The prosecution contends that the ruling in Morales v. Ponce Enrile and Moncupa v. The Court held that in People v. the prosecution sought to prove its charge of subversion against Asis by means of her confession given in the hospital. 1987) Art. shall be inadmissible in evidence. HELD: The waiver by the appellant of his right to counsel was made without the assistance of a counsel. or by any person on his behalf. People v. VV. however. which was decided en banc and concurred in by all Justices except one who took no part. Lim. People v. Galit. HELD: In the case of People v. The SC. Ponce Enrile that the right to counsel may be waived only with the assistance of counsel. Ponce Enrile. In that confession. III. and embraced its ruling. ruled that the GAlit ruling could not have a retroactive effect. Galit and People v. Enrile. Sison. especially since in this case the trial court decision was already rendered before the SC pronouncement. the Fiscal offered as evidence an extrajudicial confession given by her in the hospital. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. Sison 142 SCRA 219 (1986) F: Jocelyn de Asis was accused of subversion. the SC put to rest all doubts regarding the ruling in Morales v. among others. Nabaluna. in which she admitted through a leading question. through a leading question that she was a member of the NPA. Enrile. Any statement obtained in violation of this procedure shall be inadmissible in evidence. of extrajudicial confessions taken in 1977. New rule on waiver (Feb. Sec. which was decided en banc and concurred in by all the Justices except one who took no part. Any statement obtained in violation of this. People v. 142 SCRA 219 (1986). Lasac 148 SCRA 624 (1987) F: Appellant was convicted of parricide on the basis of a confession and circumstantial evidence which the trial court found substantial to establish guilt. The SC upheld the trial court's decision excluding the confession on the ground that the waiver of the Miranda rights was made without the assistance of counsel. the Court was out to rest all doubts regarding the ruling in Morales v. The trial court excluded the confession on the ground that the waiver of Miranda rights was made without the assistance of counsel. was only a dictum. al. Whatever doubt as to the validity of the Galit rule. The SC has held in Morales v. in whole or in part. 12 (1): Waiver must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel . 142 SCRA 446 (1986).procedure in custodial investigations: No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the precense of counsel engaged by the person arrested. At the trial. The confessions and the special counsel before whom the confessions were signed prove that the Miranda warnings were given. In this case. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. Sison (1986) that this requirement is mandatory. that she was a member of the NPA and that she was wounded in the encounter. 2. c. were convicted of robbery with homicide on the basis. 1982.. L-61016 April 26. MONCUPA. the right to remain silent. L-61107 April 26. vs. 1982. this Court in a resolution en banc dated July 22. were charged with rebellion (Art. 1983 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF ANTONIO C. CONCEPCION. And on February 8. that they did not have the opportunity to present their defense before the inquest fiscal and therefore asked this Court to order the reinvestigation of the charges against them. 1983 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF HORACIO R. FABIAN C. petitioner. The continued detention of petitioners to answer for the offense charged is therefore legal. 2. JR. ANTONIO C. FABIAN C. G. J. Revised Penal Code) before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Criminal Case No. MONCUPA. JR. Since their arrest. Augusto Sanchez. Tañada. Lorenzo M. The trial of the case has yet to be terminated. together with several others. We believe in human rights and we protect . However. Quezon City. GALILEO KINTANAR.R. vs. They also air the charge that they were subjected to maltreatment and torture. Petitioners allege that they were arrested without any warrant of arrest.m. while petitioner Moncupa filed his on July 19. On July 20. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.R.” On September 28. particularly the right to counsel. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE. 1 We have a Constitution framed by a constitutional convention and duly ratified by the people.: 1. the City Fiscal submitted his report on the reinvestigation affirming the existence of a prima facie case for rebellion against petitioners and several others. JR.. Acting on such plea. that their constitutional rights were violated. GEN. MINISTER JUAN PONCE ENRILE.Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G. GEN. the Philippines is a republican state. 1982 ordered the City Fiscal of Quezon City to conduct such reinvestigation and at the same time appointed him “to act as commissioner of this Court and receive evidence of the charges made by petitioners before this Court of alleged torture and violation of their constitutional rights. 4. among them the right to counsel. VER and COL. respondents. If petitioners had been arrested in a communist country. while they were riding together in a motor vehicle on Laong-Laan Street. by elements of Task Force Makabansa of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. GALILEO KINTANAR. 3. No. Q-21091 filed by the City Fiscal of Quezon City. respondents. 1982 at about 9:45 a. Jejomar Binay and Antonio Quintos for petitioners. JR. Petitioner Morales filed his petition for habeas corpus with this Court on July 9. 134. the right to a speedy and public trial. and the right to bail. No. they have been under detention. We subscribe to the rule of law. they would have no rights to speak of. 1983 he submitted to this Court the transcript of the notes taken at the reception of the evidence on the charges of petitioners. 1982 petitioners. 1982. VER and COL. Petitioners were arrested on April 21.. MORALES. The Solicitor General for respondents. The petitions are without merit and are hereby DISMISSED. petitioner. in the jail or any other place of custody. and particularly describing the place to be searched. Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to counsel. in the same manner and to the same extent. And this Court stands as the guarantor of those rights. An arrest may be made with or without a warrant. The detainee is brought to an army camp or police headquarters and there questioned and cross-examined not only by one but as many investigators as may be necessary to break down his morale. 2 6. in whole or in part. and every person he meets he considers hostile to him. No force. Our Constitution provides: SEC. threat. by any person on his behalf. He shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. 12. 3 Arrest. of the night. or what may pass for it. alone and privately. The investigators are well-trained and seasoned in their work. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. the intimidating and coercive presence of the officers of the law in such an atmosphere overwhelms them into silence. as a warrant of arrest issued by a judge issuance must .” It also lays down in unmistakable terms the procedure required before a search warrant or warrant of arrest may issue. 7. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. And even if they were.and defend them. 9. They employ all the methods and means that experience and study has taught them to extract the truth. shall be inadmissible in evidence. Any confession obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence. intimidation. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. 20. SEC. and the persons or things to be seized. 6 Its issuance must therefore comply with the requirements of the Constitution. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. 8. At the time a person is arrested. After a person is arrested and his custodial investigation begins a confrontation arises which at best may be termed unequal. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. The right to counsel may be waived but the waiver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined by the judge. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. 3. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. 4 10. Section 20 of the Bill of Rights seeks to remedy this imbalance. 5 11. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means-by telephone if possible or by letter or messenger. He finds himself in a strange and un familiar surrounding. Most detainees are unlettered and are not aware of their constitutional rights. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. During the period of his detention. houses. a relative. he shall have the right to confer with his counsel at any hour of the day or. or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. Petitioners are entitled to the full enjoyment of all the rights granted to them by law. in urgent cases. or such other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. if any. out of the detainee. Our Constitution clearly defines the persons who may issue a warrant of arrest and limits them to a “judge. and to be informed of such right. papers. A Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order is a warrant of arrest issued by the President of the Philippines. violence. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be forthcoming to answer for the commission of an offense. 5. the subversive documents seized from them and the results of the ensuing tactical interrogation. Where there is no justification for the arrest. From the results of the said surveillance. President of the Republic of the Philippines. nine hours. as amended. The Memorandum to the President dated April 21. the periods within which arrested persons shall be delivered to the judicial authorities as provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. 16. petitioners were already under surveillance on suspicion of committing rebellion. in the same manner and to the same extent. for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties. 1404) WHEREAS. After a person is arrested either without a warrant or by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued by a judge or by virtue of a Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order. the proper complaint or information against him must be filed with the courts of justice within the time prescribed by law. (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. as a warrant of arrest by a judge. therefore. it would appear that they had committed or were actually committing the offense of rebellion. Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. 125. wherein he reported the arrest of petitioners. -The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of: six hours. An arrest may also be made without a warrant. The petitioners claim they were arrested without a warrant. (b) When an offense has in fact been committed. 7 14. 1982. as amended: SECTION 1. Procedure after Arrest.— A peace officer or a private person may. I. are on occasions inadequate to enable the government to file within the said periods the criminal information against persons arrested for certain crimes against national security and public order. However. arrest a person: (a) When the person to be arrested has committed. MARCOS.therefore comply with the requirements of the Constitution. by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution. Fabian C. Delay in the delivery of detained persons. is actually committing. Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. or their equivalent. THEREFORE. to wit: FURTHER AMENDING ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE. for . 13. was approved by the President only on April 23. is hereby further amended to read as follows: ART. without a warrant. Their arrest without a warrant for the said offense is therefore clearly justified. months before their arrest. 1982 from Gen. as amended. SEC. 6. Arrest without warrant — When lawful. FERDINAND E. Ver. AS AMENDED (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. the evidence then at hand. petitioners were arrested without a warrant. with a recommendation for the issuance of a Presidential Arrest and Commitment Order. and in the interest of national security as well as public safety and order. do hereby decree and order as part of the law of the land the following amendment to Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. NOW. and he has reasonable ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed it. the public officer could be criminally liable for arbitrary detention 8 or unlawful arrest 9 or for some other offense. or is about to commit an offense in his presence. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Care should be exercised in making an arrest without a warrant. Indeed. 15. and the documents seized from them at the time of their arrest. It is the most expeditious way of securing the release of one who has been illegally detained. 21. Done in the City of Manila this 9th day of June. 14. nineteen hundred and seventyeight. Failure of the public officer to do so without any valid reason would constitute a violation of Art. inconsistent with the provisions of this decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Revised Penal Code. for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties. in the year of Our Lord. General Orders. 1700 as amended by Presidential Decree No. Presidential Decrees. unless he is detained under subsisting process issued by a competent court. the number of persons arrested. 42 SCRA 448. SEC 4. 20. the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed. 885. SEC. respectively.” 17. We stated that ‘a majority of the court ‘had ‘tentatively arrived at a consensus that it may inquire in order to satisfy itself of the existence of the factual bases for the issuance of Presidential Proclamations Nos. or their equivalent. 136. as amended. 142. rules and regulations.-Pending the preparation and promulgation by the President of the Executive Order referred to in Section 1 hereof. and to be visited by his immediate relatives. In every case. authorize by Executive Order longer periods. Book 11 of this Code. sec. for the delivery of persons arrested for crimes or offenses against public order as defined in Title III. but not the writ itself. and eighteen hours. No person shall be deprived of life. or property without due process of law. 1972 as amended by General Order Nos. and for acts in violation of Republic Act No. upon his request. 10.Garcia. par. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended. to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. 3. dated September 24. 2. liberty. 1977 and October 22. 139. 889 and 889A … and thus determine the constitutional sufficiency of such bases in the light of the requirements of Article III. We reiterate this doctrine. 18. All acts. And the person detained would be entitled to be released on a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus has often been referred to as the great writ of liberty. 1972.crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties. namely: Articles 134. 146 and 147. which in no case shall exceed 30 days. 60 and 62. . 19.473. and Article VII. however. 143. the members of the Court are nowunanimous in the conviction that it has the authority to inquire into the existence of said factual bases in order to determine the constitutional sufficiency thereof. Transitory provision. par. 1. 2. 141. or for as long as the conspiracy to commit the crime against national security and public order continues or is being implemented. in the interest of national security and public order. 144. 10 Power of the Courts. SEC. This decree shall take effect immediately. executive order. or parts thereof. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. or their equivalent. taking into consideration the gravity of the offense or offenses. 138. proclamations. The Bill of Rights provides: SECTION 1. the threat to national security or to public safety and order. 1977. sec. Provided. of the Philippine Constitution …’ Upon further deliberation. the detention of persons arrested for any of the abovementioned offenses against public order shall continue to be governed by the provisions of General Orders No. dated September 22. and/or the occurrence of a public calamity or other emergency situation preventing the early investigation of the cases and the filing of the corresponding information before the civil courts. Letters of Instruction. In Lansang vs. 2. 125.We said: In our resolution of October 5. That the President may. 23. Provided. or incident thereto. But because the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus remains suspended “with respect to persons at present detained as well as other who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion. except those charged with capital offenses when evidence of guilt is strong. 11 26. We hold that under the judicial power of review and by constitutional mandate. and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion therefore. Because of this presumption and inasmuch as every man has a natural desire to be free. rebellion being a non-capital offense is bailable. 1081 (Proclaiming a State of Martial Law in the Philippines) and Proclamation No.22. do hereby revoke Proclamation No. The crimes of rebellion. FERDINAND E. Some men love their freedom even more than their life. subversion. 18. THEREFORE. rebellion and subversion shall continue to be in force and effect. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. The submission that a person may be detained indefinitely without any charges and the courts cannot inquire into the legality of the restraint goes against the spirit and letter of the Constitution and does violence to the basic precepts of human rights and a democratic society. upon the request of the residents therein. so does the State. and Provided that in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao. and for all other crimes and offenses committed by them in furtherance of or on the occasion thereof. Although martial law was terminated on January 17. the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall continue. in all petitions for habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner’s detention from the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition. and in all other places the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall also continue with respect to persons at present detained as well as others who may hereafter be similarly detained for the crimes of insurrection or rebellion. The Right to Bail. be bailable by sufficient sureties. The suspension of the privilege of the writ is to enable the State to hold in preventive imprisonment pending investigation and trial those persons who plot against it and commit acts that endanger the State’s very existence. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpuscontinues to be suspended in the two autonomous regions in Mindanao and in all other places with respect to certain offenses. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. Next to life a man loves his freedom. For this measure of self-defense to be effective. President/Prime Minister of the Philippines. 28. In all criminal prosecutions the accused is presumed innocent. Normally. or incident thereto. 2045). by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution. and crimes or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct attacks on the life of the State. before conviction. subversion. 1104 (Declaring the Continuation of Martial Law) and proclaim the termination of the state of martial law throughout the Philippines. thus: NOW. Only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been satisfied. I. . To hold otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the suspension. … (Presidential Proclamation No. the right to bail must also be deemed suspended with respect to these offenses. where the offense for which the detainee was arrested is anyone of the said offenses he has no right to bail even after the charges are filed in court. or in connection therewith. Excessive bail shall not be required. Furthermore. 24.” the natural consequence is that the right to bail for the commission of anyone of the said offenses is also suspended. subversion. or in connection therewith. Just as an individual has right to self-defense when his life is endangered. MARCOS. 27. by virtue of Proclamation No. 2045 of the President of the Philippines. our Constitution laid down the right to bail in these words: SEC. All persons. Therefore. 25. 29. 1981. insurrection. that the call to the Armed Forces of the Philippines to prevent or suppress lawless violence. conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes. shall. the Court decided to appoint the City Fiscal of Quezon City to hear the charges and to receive the evidence. and other necessities that make life worth living. they are invariably the victims of injustice. the detention becomes punitive in character and the detainee regains his right to freedom. unless we achieve complete peace in our land. both under the Ministry of Defense. with the end in view that together we may explore the free market of Ideas and arrive at what is best for our country and our people. 32. In everyone of these areas much can be done to achieve our ultimate goal-that in this fair land of ours. 33. The Charges of Torture. It was a wise man who once said: “Tell me how a country’s poor receive their justice and I will tell you how stable its government is. Where the filing of charges in court or the trial of such charges already filed becomes protracted without any justifiable reason. and we cannot have complete peace unless we improve the administration of justice. But the poor can only pray to God and hope to find relief in the system of justice established by their government. Nor are We a trier of facts. Not knowing their rights. Whenever we speak of the administration of justice we refer to four principal areas: the preservation of peace and order which is the primary task of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Integrated Police. the judiciary serves as the check and balance to the merged executive and legislative branches. lawlessness and disorder have increased and continue to increase to undesirable proportions. It is wishful thinking to believe otherwise. As mentioned earlier. Only by knowing their needs can we give them what they rightfully deserve. Our people cry out for a better life. 35. Members of parliament are at the same time cabinet ministers. They want it and they want it now. possessing no influence whatsoever. no man. They cannot be denied. which is the responsibility of the Office of the Solicitor General. 34. We must open all avenues for complaints and keep them open so that the grievance procedure may be made more readily available to the masses of our people. and they can engage the services of the best counsel. 1822-A and 1850. and others. to all intents and purposes. But because petitioners’ charges are material and relevant to the petitions before Us. they should be filed before the body which has jurisdiction over them as provided for in Presidential Decrees Nos. Securities and Exchange Commission. we cannot lead them to a truly better life. health services for themselves and their families. no matter how poor shall thirst for justice. The present form of our government. the application and interpretation of laws and the trial and adjudication of cases which fall under the jurisdiction of the courts. and appearance as counsel for the government particularly in appealed criminal cases and as counsel for the Commission on Elections. They are better aware of their rights. Timely indeed are the thrusts of the KKK and the BLISS programs. Our machinery of justice should be geared towards helping and protecting the poor among us. The affluent can take care of themselves. merged the executive and legislative branches into one. When petitioners charged in their petitions that they had been tortured and maltreated. not having the means to pay for the services of a lawyer. They want more food in their stomachs. Under the system of checks and balances ordained by the Constitution.” 12 37. 40. An efforts must be exerted now to reverse the trend. Not because We are an investigating body. roofs over their heads. It is undeniable that throughout the length and breadth of our land. the Court Commissioner submitted the transcript of the proceedings held before him. However.30. 36. no matter how humble. We will not pass upon the merits of the torture charges. 1822. they have influence. And we . 39. there is a difference between preventive and punitive imprisonment. However. the investigation and prosecution of offenses and the administration of our penal system which are under the Ministry of Justice. 38. However. The judiciary is therefore called upon to express its thoughts on areas outside the traditional and narrow confines of decision making. We cannot afford any delay. education for their children. 31. In the Philippines such a system would never work because in our culture we have values peculiarly our own-value like “utang na loob”. For graft and corruption are like termites gnawing away the foundation of government. . and kidnapping for ransom.estimated. communists threatened the established order. “tayu-tayo”.” 13 45. One lesson our people have learned-painfully but well-is that politics and a good administration of justice-like oil and water-do not mix. They were driven back by the Armed Forces. it is required that all fiscals be appointed in a permanent capacity. We must keep. social. and prostitution dens. In the process. and trust in the government of our brothers in the rural areas. Not a few have enriched themselves by abusing the powers of their position. aided by the New People’s Army. or even if realized. and lawless elements. Therefore. Leninist. rebels. And with the judicial revamp just effected under B. Some are involved in extortion. more appointments to the existing vacancies should be made. under.father mentality”. And still others have . The campaign against venality in office-malfeasance. 43. “compadre”. there are those who are not worthy of the uniforms they wear. There are others who maintain gambling. drug rings. that when politics infiltrates the administration of justice. Our penal system should be further updated to make more effective the rehabilitation of criminals. loyalty.P. 42. Let us do away with instances of first offenders who serve sentence in order to be reformed but who come out instead as hardened criminals. kidnapped and killed public functionaries. Many criminal cases initiated by complainants are just harassment suits and should never have been filed in court. Can you imagine how criminal cases would be investigated and prosecuted if fiscals (prosecutors) were chosen by election? How would our laws be enforced if policemen and members of the Armed Forces were elected by the people? And yet the heads of the Ministries of Justice and Defense and the Office of the Solicitor General are all active politicians. injustice is often the outcome. there are sheriffs (peace officers) and district attorneys (prosecutors) who are elected by the voters and who run for office as the candidates of a political party. smuggling. Whether Marxist. the Armed Forces are composed of good and disciplined men. how can it protect private property? If the government cannot guarantee the safety and lives of its officials. Maoist.should begin by bringing to the bar of justice the culprits in particular who burned and destroyed public property. radicals. But it must be remembered that courts which are not filled are as good as no courts at all. 48. “bigayan”. Once before. The harm done is sometimes not realized. The burdens of office fall heavily on their shoulders. 44. 129. Their security of tenure is the foundation stone of their independence. By and large. For the questions may validly be asked: If the government cannot protect public property. . 46. mainly because of the support of our people. . thus contributing to the unclogging of court dockets. However. We can accomplish this only by giving them better government. “amo ko“. economic. misfeasance and nonfesance should be pursued with renewed vigor. . In some jurisdictions of the United States. “pakikisama”. they all have but one aim-one single purpose-one defined objective: to bring down by violence the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and to forcibly seize political power in order that they may replace our existing political. In the process let us remember to stress preventive measures to save public property from loss. . faith. The communist threat remains a nagging problem of government. Values like these have derailed and may derail the administration of justice. “bata ko”. 47. how can it guarantee the safety and lives of private individuals? 41. strengthen and solidify the sympathy. and the “god. and legal order with an entirely new one based on communism. and attacked. . The investigation and prosecution of cases should be further improved so that only meritorious cases shall reach the courts. Guns and bullets alone will not do it. the trial and decision making process has been modified and vastly improved to achieve better results. Our Constitution foresaw the need for heads of ministries who are not active politicians in providing that “. in the early fifties. It is a condition sine qua non to achieve success in the fight against subversion. At least a majority of the Members of the Cabinet who are heads of ministries shall come from the Regional Representations of the Batasang Pambansa. Political followers commit abuses in the belief that come what may their political bosses would shield them from punishment. Perhaps it is time we relieve them of the additional burdens that being politicians entail. it should always be remembered that whatever action is taken must always be within the framework of our Constitution and our laws. 49. What will be our answer? 53. as they are hereby. and other offenses. The Filipinos are a God-loving and a God-fearing people. While the government should continue to repel the communists. . we shall be asked to account not only for what we did. We can never willingly accept communism and what it stands for. WHEREFORE. 51. as aforestated. the rebels. and the lawless with all the means at its command. SO ORDERED. 50. For indeed victims of abuse are often alienated from the government. 52.committed robbery. as leaders of our people. We believe in the family and its strong ties. not only for what we did not do. the petitions should be. We believe in peace and freedom. The campaign to rid the organization of such misfits should be carried out with missionary zeal. When the judgment of history is written. 54. With costs against the petitioners. but also for what visions we have today of our tomorrow. the subversives. murder. rape. DISMISSED.