Scope and Limitations | Right Against Self-incrimination | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Scope and Limitations of the Right Against Self-Incrimination

1. Constitutional Foundation
The right against self-incrimination is enshrined in the 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article III, Section 17, which provides:

"No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

This provision guarantees individuals the right to refuse to testify against themselves in any criminal, civil, administrative, or legislative proceeding when such testimony could be self-incriminating.

---

2. Scope of the Right

The right against self-incrimination covers several aspects:

a. Protection Against Testimonial Compulsion

• The right is limited to testimonial evidence. It only applies when the individual is being compelled to give testimonial or communicative evidence that may be used to incriminate themselves.
• Testimonial evidence refers to statements, admissions, or confessions that require the mental faculties and voluntary disclosure of knowledge by the individual.
• Non-testimonial evidence, such as blood samples, DNA, fingerprints, handwriting, voice, and physical appearance, are not covered by the right because they do not involve a person's mental faculties.

b. Available to Witnesses and Accused

• For the accused in criminal cases, the right is absolute. They cannot be forced to take the witness stand. If the accused chooses to testify, they may be cross-examined, but still cannot be compelled to answer incriminating questions.
• For witnesses, the right is not absolute. Witnesses can be compelled to testify, but they can invoke the right when a specific question is asked that could potentially incriminate them. They may refuse to answer such questions to avoid self-incrimination.

c. Use in Different Proceedings

• The right against self-incrimination applies to:
  • Criminal proceedings – The core of the right is aimed at preventing the state from coercing individuals to testify against themselves.
  • Civil and administrative proceedings – The right also applies in these settings if answering the question may lead to criminal liability.
  • Legislative investigations – Persons summoned in legislative inquiries can invoke this right if the testimony could be self-incriminating. The Constitution, under Article VI, Section 21, provides that the power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation must respect the right against self-incrimination.

d. Miranda Rights in Custodial Investigation

• The Miranda Doctrine protects individuals during custodial investigations. This requires law enforcement to inform a person under custodial investigation of their right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination. Failure to do so renders any confession or admission inadmissible in court.
• Custodial investigation begins when a person is arrested or deprived of freedom of action in any significant way.

---

3. Limitations of the Right

While the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental safeguard, it has certain limitations:

a. Physical Evidence is Not Protected

• As mentioned, the right does not extend to non-testimonial evidence. A person may be compelled to provide physical evidence, such as:
  • Blood samples for alcohol or drug tests
  • Handwriting or voice samples
  • Fingerprints or photographs
  • Physical examination or appearance

This is based on the principle that these forms of evidence are not testimonial in nature; they are forms of identification or objective evidence.

b. Voluntary Testimony Waives the Right

• If a person voluntarily chooses to take the witness stand or provide a statement, they may be deemed to have waived the right against self-incrimination.
• However, even if the accused or witness waives the right, they still retain the right to refuse to answer specific questions if the answers could incriminate them further.

c. No Blanket Invocation

• Witnesses may not invoke the right against self-incrimination preemptively or in a blanket manner. They cannot refuse to testify entirely on the basis of potential self-incrimination. They must answer non-incriminating questions and may only invoke the right in response to specific questions that could directly incriminate them.

d. Not Applicable to Corporations

• The right is a personal privilege and applies only to natural persons. Corporations or artificial entities are not entitled to invoke the right against self-incrimination. Officers or employees of a corporation may invoke the right personally, but the corporation as a separate legal entity cannot.

---

4. Judicial Interpretations

Philippine jurisprudence has refined the application of the right against self-incrimination. Below are landmark cases elucidating its scope and limitations:

a. People v. Ayson (1989)
The Supreme Court held that the right against self-incrimination is primarily available to the accused and to witnesses. The accused may refuse to take the witness stand altogether, but witnesses cannot refuse to testify entirely. Witnesses must answer all questions except those that may incriminate them, in which case they can invoke the right.

b. Chavez v. Court of Appeals (1997)
The Court ruled that a person cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination unless there is real and substantial danger of incrimination. Mere apprehension of potential legal consequences is insufficient to invoke the right. The danger must be immediate and evident from the nature of the question.

c. Mallari v. People (2007)
In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right against self-incrimination is personal and may not be asserted by parties other than the person whose right is at stake.

d. Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2007)
In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right against self-incrimination does not apply to corporations. It also highlighted that individuals can still be compelled to produce documents or evidence, provided it does not require testimonial compulsion.

---

5. Implications and Practical Considerations

a. Custodial Investigations and Miranda Rights

• Law enforcement must strictly observe the Miranda Doctrine, ensuring that individuals are informed of their right against self-incrimination. Any statement given in violation of these rights is inadmissible in court.

b. Legislative Inquiries

• The exercise of the right against self-incrimination in legislative inquiries must be respected by Congress. The witness can refuse to answer if the question may incriminate them, but cannot refuse to testify entirely. Any attempt to compel incriminating testimony is a violation of this right.

c. Judicial Proceedings

• In court, particularly in criminal cases, the accused has an absolute right not to testify. However, once they voluntarily testify, they may be subject to cross-examination and may waive the right against self-incrimination concerning matters already disclosed.

---

Conclusion

The right against self-incrimination is a cornerstone of due process and fair trial rights under Philippine law. Its scope is primarily limited to testimonial evidence and applies not only to criminal proceedings but also to civil, administrative, and legislative processes when testimony may expose the individual to criminal liability. The right, however, has limitations, particularly in its inapplicability to physical or non-testimonial evidence, voluntary waivers, and corporate entities. Proper understanding and application of this right are essential for safeguarding the dignity and freedom of individuals within the justice system.

Scope and Limitations | Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Liberty of Abode and Right to Travel: Scope and Limitations

Legal Basis:
The liberty of abode and the right to travel are enshrined in Section 6, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

"The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law."

This provision affirms two distinct but related freedoms: the liberty of abode and the right to travel, both of which are subject to limitations grounded in law.

1. Liberty of Abode

Definition:
The liberty of abode refers to the right of an individual to choose where to live, and to change one’s place of residence. It is a fundamental aspect of personal freedom, connected to the right to privacy, autonomy, and self-determination.

Scope:

• A person is free to choose and change their place of residence within the country without interference, except as provided by law.
• This right includes both domestic and international relocation, subject to lawful constraints.

Limitations:

• Lawful Order of the Court:
  The liberty of abode may only be restricted upon a lawful order of the court. For example, a person may be ordered by a court to live within a certain jurisdiction (e.g., house arrest, probation, or parole).

• Specific Orders (Example of Restraining Orders):
  In cases involving protective or restraining orders, such as those related to domestic violence, a court may mandate that the individual cannot reside within a certain distance of another person.

• Special Restrictions (Military and Public Officers):
  Certain public officers and military personnel may be subject to limitations on their place of residence, especially if it affects their ability to perform public functions.

Jurisprudence:

• Villavicencio v. Lukban (G.R. No. L-14639, 1919):
  In this early case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the liberty of abode cannot be violated without legal authority. In this instance, women were forcibly relocated by the government to Davao, and the Court ruled that this was a violation of their liberty of abode.

2. Right to Travel

Definition:
The right to travel guarantees the freedom to move from one place to another, either within the country or across international borders.

Scope:

• The right to travel encompasses both domestic and international travel.
• It includes the right to leave the country and return without arbitrary interference by the government.

Limitations: The Constitution provides that the right to travel may be restricted only in three specific instances:

• In the interest of national security:
  Restrictions may be imposed if a person’s travel is deemed to pose a threat to the country’s security. For example, those suspected of espionage or terrorism might have their travel curtailed.

• In the interest of public safety:
  This includes circumstances where travel might endanger the general public, such as during states of emergency or periods of martial law.

• In the interest of public health:
  Travel restrictions may be imposed during times of public health crises, such as during pandemics or outbreaks of contagious diseases (e.g., COVID-19 travel restrictions).

Statutory and Jurisprudential Exceptions:

• Hold Departure Orders (HDO):
  Courts may issue Hold Departure Orders to prevent individuals from leaving the country if they are facing criminal charges or are under investigation. The authority to issue HDOs is found in the Rules of Court and specific laws such as Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act).

• Watchlist Orders:
  Similar to HDOs, Watchlist Orders may be issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) under Department Circular No. 41, placing individuals under monitoring for travel abroad if there are pending legal cases against them. However, in Leila M. De Lima v. Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr. (G.R. No. 212426, 2015), the Supreme Court ruled that DOJ Circular No. 41 was unconstitutional, affirming that only courts have the power to restrict the right to travel through lawful orders.

• Bail and Travel:
  Under the Rules of Court, a person out on bail is generally required to secure permission from the court before traveling abroad. Failure to secure this permission may result in the forfeiture of bail or other sanctions.

• Citizenship Issues:
  Travel restrictions may also apply in cases involving dual citizenship or expatriation, as regulated by laws such as Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003). A person who has renounced their Filipino citizenship may be barred from entering or exiting the Philippines without proper documentation.

• Terrorism and Anti-Money Laundering Laws:
  Under Republic Act No. 11479 (Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020), individuals designated as terrorists may have their right to travel curtailed in the interest of national security. Similarly, travel may be restricted under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) when financial transactions linked to criminal activities are suspected.

Special Considerations for Public Officials:
Public officials are sometimes required to secure travel authority from higher government offices before traveling abroad. For instance:

• Government employees must seek permission from their department heads.
• Military personnel must secure travel clearance in certain cases.

3. Balancing Test: Fundamental Right vs. State Interests

In interpreting and applying the limitations on the right to travel and liberty of abode, courts have consistently employed a balancing test. This test weighs an individual's fundamental right to travel against the state's interest in imposing restrictions based on national security, public safety, or public health.

• Strict Scrutiny:
  In cases where fundamental rights are involved, courts often apply strict scrutiny to assess whether the restriction serves a compelling state interest and whether it is the least restrictive means available.

• Proportionality:
  The principle of proportionality demands that restrictions be narrowly tailored and not broader than necessary to achieve the legitimate state purpose.

4. Right to Travel and International Law

Philippines' Obligations under International Law:
The right to travel is also recognized under international human rights instruments to which the Philippines is a signatory, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 12 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to freedom of movement, subject to certain restrictions for reasons of national security, public order, or public health.

Extradition and International Travel:
Extradition laws, particularly Presidential Decree No. 1069 (Philippine Extradition Law), may also affect the right to travel, as persons facing extradition may be subject to temporary detention and travel bans while their case is being processed.

Conclusion:

The liberty of abode and the right to travel are fundamental rights guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution but are not absolute. They may be restricted by lawful court orders or for reasons of national security, public safety, or public health. Any restriction on these rights must comply with statutory and constitutional safeguards, ensuring that the government’s actions are justified, narrowly tailored, and consistent with both domestic law and international obligations.

Scope and Limitations | Pardoning Power | Powers of the President | EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

Pardoning Power of the President: Scope and Limitations

The pardoning power is one of the executive powers granted to the President under the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. This power is embodied in Article VII, Section 19 of the Constitution, which provides:

“Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.”

This provision provides a broad authority to the President to intervene in criminal convictions, with certain specific exceptions and limitations.

I. Scope of the Pardoning Power

1. Types of Clemency The pardoning power includes the following forms of executive clemency:

   • Pardon: This is the most commonly known form of clemency. It may be absolute (unconditional) or conditional, and it results in the full or partial remission of the legal consequences of a conviction.
     • Absolute Pardon: Fully extinguishes the criminal liability of the individual and restores his civil and political rights, although it does not restore property rights forfeited under the conviction.
     • Conditional Pardon: This pardon is subject to certain conditions, which, if violated, may result in the restoration of the original penalty.
   • Commutation of Sentence: A reduction of the length of a sentence without absolving the underlying conviction.
   • Reprieve: A temporary postponement of the execution of a sentence, typically used in death penalty cases.
   • Remission of Fines and Forfeitures: The President may remit fines and forfeitures imposed as part of a criminal conviction, essentially reducing or eliminating financial penalties.

2. After Conviction by Final Judgment The exercise of the pardoning power can only be done after conviction by final judgment. This means:

   • A pardon or other forms of clemency cannot be granted before a person is convicted by a court of law.
   • The judicial process must be completed, and the judgment must have attained finality, meaning there can no longer be any appeal or motion for reconsideration available to the convicted individual.

   Note: A pardon does not imply that the President finds the individual innocent; it is an act of grace, not a judicial act.

3. No Power to Pardon Administrative Offenses The pardoning power of the President extends only to criminal offenses. It cannot be exercised over administrative cases or penalties. This is a distinction upheld in various Supreme Court rulings, emphasizing that administrative penalties (such as those imposed on government officials) are outside the scope of the pardoning power.

4. Effect on Civil and Political Rights

   • In cases of absolute pardon, the criminal liability is fully extinguished, and the individual's civil and political rights are restored. However, the restoration of property rights is not automatic, as this would require a separate legal process.
   • A conditional pardon does not restore civil and political rights until all conditions are fulfilled.

II. Limitations of the Pardoning Power

1. Impeachment Cases The President cannot grant pardon in cases of impeachment. This is explicitly provided in the Constitution to prevent the President from using the power of pardon to protect impeached officials, including the President himself or herself, from removal from office.

   Impeachment is a political process that applies to high-ranking officials such as the President, Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman. The prohibition aims to maintain the integrity of the impeachment process.

2. Cases of Legislative Contempt The President cannot pardon individuals found in contempt by the legislative body (Congress). The power of contempt is a necessary function of legislative investigations in aid of legislation, and allowing pardon in these cases would undermine legislative authority.

3. Effect on Private Rights A pardon does not affect the civil liability of the individual. Criminal convictions often come with both criminal and civil liability (e.g., damages to the victim). While the President can pardon the criminal aspect of the case, the pardon does not extinguish civil liabilities arising from the criminal offense, such as payment for damages to the victim or restitution.

4. Non-Retroactivity Pardon operates prospectively and does not change the facts of the case. It cannot change the status of a conviction that occurred before the pardon was granted. The pardon simply erases the continuing legal effects of the conviction.

5. Cases Involving Election Laws Under the Omnibus Election Code, the President cannot pardon an offense related to elections unless there is a favorable recommendation from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). This safeguard ensures that the independence and integrity of the electoral process are upheld.

6. Limited to Criminal Offenses As previously mentioned, the President's pardoning power applies only to criminal offenses. It cannot be used to affect administrative sanctions, civil cases, or other non-criminal liabilities.

7. No Pardon for Future Crimes The President cannot grant pardon for crimes not yet committed. The power is exercised only after a conviction for a criminal act that has already occurred and been adjudicated.

III. Judicial Review of the Pardoning Power

The general rule is that the pardoning power is discretionary and cannot be questioned by the courts. However, the Supreme Court has occasionally reviewed the exercise of the pardoning power under specific circumstances where there is an allegation of grave abuse of discretion.

For example, if the exercise of the pardoning power is manifestly contrary to law or used in a manner that violates constitutional limits (e.g., pardoning someone for an impeachable offense), the courts may intervene through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, this is an exceptional remedy and requires showing that the executive acted in a way that was capricious, arbitrary, or oppressive.

IV. Notable Case Law

1. Monsanto v. Factoran (G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that an absolute pardon restores civil and political rights but does not automatically reinstate property rights that were forfeited as part of the conviction. The forfeiture must be the subject of separate judicial proceedings to restore the property rights.

2. Llamas v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 99031, October 15, 1991): The Supreme Court emphasized that a conditional pardon requires strict compliance with the conditions set forth. If the conditions are violated, the pardon may be revoked, and the original penalty may be re-imposed.

3. Garcia v. The Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009): This case clarified that the pardoning power applies only after final conviction and that the President cannot intervene in the judicial process prior to a final judgment.

V. Policy Considerations

The rationale behind the pardoning power is that it serves as a check on the judiciary and provides a humanitarian safety valve in the criminal justice system. It allows the President to address situations where justice may not have been fully served due to rigid application of the law, errors in judgment, or evolving societal norms.

However, the pardoning power is also a sensitive tool that must be exercised with caution, as it could be perceived as undermining the rule of law if used excessively or for political reasons.

Conclusion

The pardoning power of the President is a significant executive function that provides a degree of flexibility within the criminal justice system. While broad, it is subject to key constitutional limitations to prevent abuses and to preserve the separation of powers among the branches of government. The scope of this power is expansive, but the President must wield it with judicious consideration of its consequences on both public order and private rights.

Scope and Limitations | Legislative power | LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

IX. LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

A. Legislative Power

1. Scope and Limitations

---

I. Scope of Legislative Power

Legislative power is the authority vested in the legislature, which in the Philippines is the Congress, to enact laws, amend them, and repeal them. This power is essential to the functioning of a democratic government, as it provides the framework by which societal conduct is regulated. The power to legislate in the Philippines is vested in a bicameral Congress, composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives, as outlined in Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

A. General Scope

The scope of legislative power is generally plenary, meaning it covers all subjects unless expressly or impliedly limited by the Constitution or other laws. Congress may legislate on matters affecting the public, whether they pertain to civil, political, economic, or social concerns.

1. General Powers of Congress:
   Congress has the authority to:

   • Enact laws to protect and promote public welfare.
   • Levy taxes and raise revenue.
   • Appropriate public funds for government expenditures.
   • Declare war and provide for national defense.
   • Regulate commerce and trade.
   • Maintain law and order, including the police power to ensure peace and safety.
   • Regulate the operation of public institutions and the conduct of public officials.
   • Define crimes and prescribe punishments.

2. Powers Enumerated in the Constitution:
   Article VI of the Constitution explicitly outlines some specific powers of Congress, including:

   • Imposing and collecting taxes.
   • Appropriating funds.
   • Declaring the existence of a state of war.
   • Confirming treaties.
   • Granting amnesty.
   • Exercising the power of impeachment.
   • Enacting electoral laws, such as those governing the conduct of elections.
   • Approving the national budget and bills related to tariffs, trade, or public debt.

3. Implied Powers:
   Congress also possesses implied powers, which are those not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution but are necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers effectively. This is based on the necessary and proper clause (Sec. 24, Article VI), which allows Congress to enact laws necessary to exercise the powers vested in it by the Constitution.

B. Delegation of Legislative Power

1. Non-Delegability of Legislative Power (Potestas delegata non potest delegari):
   As a general rule, legislative power is non-delegable. Congress cannot delegate its law-making function to another body, person, or entity. This principle is rooted in the separation of powers doctrine. Exceptions to this rule are provided for by the Constitution or when Congress delegates its authority to administrative agencies for the purpose of rule-making within specific, defined limits.

2. Exceptions to Non-Delegability:
   Congress may delegate legislative functions when:

   • The delegation is expressly or impliedly authorized by the Constitution.
   • The delegation pertains to administrative details necessary to implement the law (known as administrative rule-making or quasi-legislation).
   • The delegation relates to emergency powers, as when Congress grants the President temporary legislative powers in times of national emergency under Section 23(2), Article VI of the Constitution, provided certain conditions are met (e.g., such powers are for a limited period and subject to restrictions as Congress may prescribe).

---

II. Limitations on Legislative Power

Although legislative power is plenary, it is not absolute. It is subject to several constitutional, statutory, and judicial limitations.

A. Constitutional Limitations

1. Substantive Limitations:
   These are restrictions imposed on the content of the laws that Congress may enact. Examples include:

   • Bill of Rights (Article III of the Constitution):
     Laws must not violate fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as:
     • Due process and equal protection of laws.
     • Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition.
     • Freedom of religion.
     • Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
     • Right to privacy.
     • Right against self-incrimination.
     • Right to property.
   • Prohibition against Ex Post Facto Laws and Bills of Attainder:
     Congress cannot pass laws that retroactively make an act a crime (ex post facto law) or impose punishment without a trial (bill of attainder).
   • Prohibition against Double Taxation:
     Congress cannot impose double taxation, which would subject a person to pay two taxes on the same item or transaction without reasonable justification.
   • Non-Impairment Clause (Sec. 10, Article III):
     Congress cannot pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
   • No Religious Test:
     Congress cannot pass laws imposing a religious test for the exercise of civil or political rights.
   • Prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishment:
     Congress may not enact laws imposing penalties that are cruel or inhumane.

2. Procedural Limitations:
   These refer to the requirements governing the process of enacting laws:

   • Three Readings on Separate Days Rule (Sec. 26, Art. VI):
     No bill shall become a law unless it passes three readings on separate days in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This ensures that legislation undergoes sufficient scrutiny before approval.
   • Journal Requirement (Sec. 16, Art. VI):
     The proceedings of Congress must be duly recorded in its journal, and the approval of bills must be noted therein.
   • Rule of Uniformity and Equitability in Taxation (Sec. 28, Art. VI):
     All taxes must be uniform and equitable, meaning they should apply equally to persons or things under similar circumstances.

B. Judicial Limitations

1. Judicial Review:
   The judiciary has the power to review acts of Congress to ensure their constitutionality. Under the principle of judicial review, the Supreme Court can declare laws or portions thereof unconstitutional if they conflict with the provisions of the Constitution (Sec. 1, Art. VIII). This ensures that the legislature does not overstep its bounds or infringe on fundamental rights.

2. Doctrine of Overbreadth and Vagueness:
   Laws that are too broad or too vague can be struck down by the courts. A law is considered overbroad if it restricts more speech or conduct than necessary. A law is deemed vague if a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what conduct is prohibited, thereby violating due process.

C. Political Limitations

1. Public Opinion and Accountability:
   Although not a formal legal limitation, the power of Congress is indirectly limited by public opinion and political accountability. Lawmakers are elected officials, and their legislative actions are often subject to the scrutiny of their constituents. They must balance their exercise of legislative power with their duty to represent the will of the people.

2. Veto Power of the President (Sec. 27, Art. VI):
   The President may veto any bill passed by Congress, effectively limiting the legislative power. However, Congress may override the veto by a two-thirds vote of all its members.

D. International Law Limitations

1. Treaty Obligations (Sec. 21, Art. VII):
   Congress cannot pass laws that violate international treaties or conventions to which the Philippines is a party. Under the doctrine of incorporation, generally accepted principles of international law form part of the law of the land, and the legislature is bound by such norms in its lawmaking function.

2. Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda:
   This principle obliges the State to honor its international agreements and ensure that its domestic laws conform to such agreements. This serves as a limitation on Congress, as it may not pass laws contravening obligations arising from international treaties or customary international law.

---

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, while Congress holds broad legislative power in the Philippines, it operates within a complex web of substantive, procedural, judicial, and political limitations. These safeguards ensure that legislative acts conform to the Constitution, respect fundamental rights, and adhere to international law obligations. Furthermore, the separation of powers doctrine ensures a balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, preventing the overreach of any single branch of government.