POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XII. THE BILL OF RIGHTS

A. Private Acts and the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights in the 1987 Philippine Constitution primarily acts as a safeguard against abuses of power by the State. It enumerates the fundamental rights of individuals that the government must respect and protect. However, an important aspect of understanding the Bill of Rights is its applicability to private acts. The general rule is that the Bill of Rights applies only to state actions, not to acts committed by private individuals. Nevertheless, there are nuanced principles where private conduct can be scrutinized under constitutional rights.

Below is a detailed examination of the relationship between private acts and the Bill of Rights in the Philippines.

1. State Action Doctrine

The Bill of Rights serves as a limitation on government powers and does not typically apply to private actions. This is grounded on the principle of state action, which posits that only actions of the government, whether through legislation, executive orders, or actions by government officials, are subject to constitutional scrutiny.

State Action Doctrine entails:

The government is held accountable for any violation of constitutional rights.
Private individuals or entities are generally not bound by constitutional standards unless their actions are somehow attributable to the State.

Illustrative Case Law:

Flag Salute Case – Gerona v. Secretary of Education (106 Phil. 2 [1959]) emphasized that government-imposed sanctions that require public action, such as flag ceremonies, fall within the scope of constitutional review, and private individuals affected by such government actions can invoke their constitutional rights.

2. Exceptions to the State Action Doctrine: "Public Function" and "Entanglement" Theories

In certain circumstances, private actions may be subject to constitutional principles when there is significant government involvement or delegation of state powers. This can be categorized under two theories: the public function theory and the entanglement theory.

a. Public Function Theory

When private individuals or entities perform functions that are traditionally and exclusively reserved for the state, their actions may be subjected to constitutional scrutiny.
For example, private corporations running penal institutions or providing essential services like utilities may have their actions treated as government actions because they perform functions that are inherently governmental in nature.

b. Entanglement Theory

This theory applies when the government is sufficiently involved in private actions, either through regulation, coercion, or subsidy, to the point that the private party’s actions are attributable to the state.
Significant Involvement: If the government is significantly entangled in the operations or actions of a private entity, such as subsidizing a private school or hospital, those actions may be considered as state actions.

Relevant Jurisprudence:

Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc. (G.R. No. 162243, November 29, 2006) - This case emphasizes that private entities are usually not bound by constitutional principles unless their functions are intertwined with those of the state.

3. Application of Specific Rights Against Private Entities

While the general rule is that the Bill of Rights applies only to state actions, there are specific provisions that can extend to private entities, depending on statutory law or case law interpretation.

a. Equal Protection Clause (Article III, Section 1)

The equal protection clause mandates that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
While this is a limitation on state action, certain anti-discrimination laws enforce equal protection guarantees in private settings, such as in labor or commercial relationships.
- Labor Code of the Philippines: Prohibits discriminatory practices in employment, such as those based on gender, civil status, or religion, even in the private sector.

b. Freedom of Speech and Press (Article III, Section 4)

Free speech protections typically apply against the state. However, private entities like media companies or employers may have to respect these rights when they are deeply engaged with public functions or involve matters of public concern.
- Example: Private schools are often held to a higher standard regarding academic freedom and speech, subject to minimal government regulation.

c. Right to Privacy (Article III, Section 3)

The right to privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures is generally applicable only against the state.
However, Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012 imposes obligations on both public and private entities to protect personal data, indirectly extending the right to privacy to private actions.

Relevant Case Law:

People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991) – The Supreme Court ruled that a private party’s act of opening a package in a private courier company without government participation did not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This ruling underscores the principle that private actions, absent state involvement, do not trigger constitutional safeguards.

d. Rights of Workers and Freedom of Association (Article III, Section 8)

Labor laws have developed protections based on the Bill of Rights, particularly for workers. The right to form unions and engage in collective bargaining applies within both public and private employment sectors, under the Labor Code of the Philippines.

4. Horizontal Application of the Bill of Rights

There is debate regarding the horizontal application of constitutional rights, meaning the application of the Bill of Rights to disputes between private individuals. In general, the Philippines follows a vertical application, where constitutional rights bind the state. However, horizontal application can occur through the intermediary role of the courts, applying constitutional norms through private law doctrines like torts or contracts.

Example:

Labor Cases: Courts often apply the constitutional guarantee of due process in termination cases, extending protections to employees even when dealing with private employers.

Jurisprudence:

Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. (G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009) – This case emphasized the application of the due process clause in employer-employee relations, even in private employment, affirming that private individuals may be held to constitutional standards when engaging in quasi-judicial processes like employment termination.

5. Statutory Implementations Expanding Constitutional Protections

The Bill of Rights is further reinforced by statutory laws that mandate private individuals or entities to respect fundamental rights. These laws expand the scope of constitutional protections in private relations:

Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (R.A. 7877): Protects individuals from harassment in the workplace, schools, or training institutions, enforcing the dignity and privacy of individuals.
Magna Carta of Women (R.A. 9710): Provides protections for women, ensuring equal opportunities and treatment, and applying both to public and private sectors.
Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313): Extends the right to be free from harassment in private and public spaces, recognizing the overlap between state action and private behavior.

Conclusion

The Bill of Rights, while primarily designed to protect individuals from abuses by the state, can, in limited instances, apply to private actions under certain conditions. Private individuals or entities may be bound by constitutional norms when they perform public functions, are significantly entangled with state operations, or when specific statutory laws impose such duties. Although the state action doctrine is a foundational principle, Philippine law acknowledges certain exceptions, ensuring that fundamental rights are respected across a broader spectrum of social interactions.