MARC JOSEPH L.

ABENOJA
Constitutional Law II Quiz

1. SECTION 15 ARTICLE III

2. What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?

The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or

detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which
the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto. Thus, the most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ is
that the individual seeking such relief be illegally deprived of his
freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal restraint.

Concomitantly, if a person’s liberty is restrained by some legal

process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing. The writ cannot be
used to directly assail a judgment rendered by a competent court or
tribunal which, having duly acquired jurisdiction, was not ousted of
this jurisdiction through some irregularity in the course of the
proceedings.

However, jurisprudence has recognized that the writ of habeas corpus

may also be availed of as a post-conviction remedy when, as a
consequence of a judicial proceeding, any of the following exceptional
circumstances is attendant: 1) there has been a deprivation of a
constitutional right resulting in the restraint of a person; 2) the court
had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence; or 3) the imposed penalty
has been excessive, thus voiding the sentence as to such excess. Here,
petitioner is invoking the first circumstance.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. PABLO C.
VILLABER)

3. How about the Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data and Kalikasan?

The writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to

life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
(A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)

The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose

right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by
an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
 (A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC)

The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity

authorized by law, people’s organization, non-governmental
organization, or any public interest group accredited by or registered
with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life,
health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
(A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC)

4. May the Writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended? If so, what are the
instances when it may be suspended?

No, the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended.

Rather, the Constitution provides that is is the Privilege of the Writ of

Habeas Corpus that may be suspended.

By express mandate of the Constitution (Article III, Section 1,

Paragraph 14), the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, in any of which events the same
may be suspended whenever during such period the necessity for
such suspension shall exist. The power to suspend the privileges of
the writ of habeas corpus in case of invasion, insurrection, or
rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires
it, has been lodged by the Constitution (Article VII, Section 10,
Paragraph 2) in the President.

5. Robin and Mariel are legally married but separated-in-fact and the
custody of their only child who is five (5) years old is with the latter.
Availing himself of his visitorial right, Robin visited his child and
Mariel allowed him to sleep with the child at the guest room. At about
4:00 o’clock in the morning, without the knowledge and consent of
Mariel, he left with the child. May Mariel file a Petition for Habeas
Corpus in court for Robin to produce their child? Why or why not?

In the Philippines, mothers typically hold legal custody of young

children unless a court order indicates otherwise, prioritizing the
child's best interests.

Philippine legal precedent supports the use of Habeas Corpus

petitions to safeguard custody rights and ensure the welfare of
children, as evidenced in cases such as Cabantug-Baguio v. Baguio.
 Robin’s act of taking the child without Mariel’s knowledge or consent
could infringe upon her custodial rights, particularly if there are no
legal documents granting him custody or visitation rights beyond
what the law or court has specified. Mariel has a legitimate basis to
file a Habeas Corpus petition to compel Robin to return their child
and reinstate custody to her, citing these legal principles and past
cases.

2. SECTION 16, ARTICLE III

1. In what cases may by the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases be

invoked?

The Right to Speedy Disposition of cases, as outlined in Section 16,

Article III of the Philippine Constitution, may be invoked in:

Criminal Cases where the accused individuals have the right to

a speedy trial, from the time of arraignment to the promulgation
of judgment. Delays in the legal process can prejudice their
defense and violate their right to due process.

Civil Cases wherein it ensures that parties involved in legal

disputes receive timely resolutions, avoiding prolonged litigation
and undue delays.

Administrative Cases which extends to administrative

proceedings, ensuring prompt resolutions in matters such as
government administrative actions, disciplinary cases, and
regulatory matters.

Quasi-Judicial Proceedings Cases, such as labor tribunals or

regulatory agencies, are also covered by the Right to Speedy
Disposition, ensuring efficient and fair adjudication of disputes.

2. Is it correct to say that the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases covers

from arraignment to promulgation of judgment in criminal cases? Why
or why not?

Yes. In the Philippines, the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases in

criminal proceedings covers the period from arraignment to
promulgation of judgment. This right is guaranteed by the
Constitution, supported by legal precedents, and further reinforced by
the Speedy Trial Act (Republic Act No. 8493), emphasizing the
importance of timely resolution in the legal process.
 Philippine jurisprudence, through various Supreme Court decisions,
has consistently upheld and interpreted the Right to Speedy
Disposition in criminal cases as encompassing the period from
arraignment to promulgation of judgment. This includes cases such
as People v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 118075, August 22, 1997) and
People v. Constantino (G.R. No. 120125, February 7, 2001), among
others.

3. Is the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases the same as the Right to

Speedy Trial? Explain.

The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to

speedy trial, though both rights have the same rationale. The right to
speedy trial can only be used in criminal prosecutions against courts
of law, while the right to speedy disposition of cases can be used
before any tribunal, whether judicial or quasi-judicial. The right to
speedy disposition of cases can be invoked when the accused may
already be prejudiced by the proceeding.

3. SECTION 17, ARTICLE III

1. May a suspect in a homicide case be compelled to put on a pair of

shoes which was found at the scene of the crime? Why or why not?

No. The right against self-incrimination, as stated in Section 17,

Article III of the Philippine Constitution, protects suspects in criminal
cases from being compelled to provide evidence that could incriminate
them. This means that a suspect in a homicide case cannot be forced
to wear a pair of shoes found at the crime scene, as it would violate
their constitutional rights. Instead, evidence must be gathered
through lawful means, and any connection between the suspect and
the shoes should be established through proper forensic analysis and
investigation, respecting the suspect’s rights throughout the legal
process.

2. May an accused in a rape case refuse to testify at the trial of his case?
Explain.

Yes. Section 17, Article III of the Philippine Constitution grants an

accused individual in a rape case the right to decline testifying during
their trial. This provision safeguards them from being compelled to
provide evidence that could potentially incriminate themselves,
aligning with the principle of self-incrimination.

It's important to note that while the accused has the right to refuse to
testify, this should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt. The
burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish the accused’s
 guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused’s silence or refusal
to testify should not be construed as evidence of guilt.

Ultimately, the accused’s decision not to testify is a fundamental right

protected by the Constitution, ensuring that their rights are upheld
throughout the legal process.

3. A witness for the defense in a criminal case refuses to testify invoking

his right against self-incrimination? Is he correct? Explain.

Yes, a witness for the defense in a criminal case is generally correct to

invoke his right against self-incrimination if his testimony could
potentially incriminate himself. Section 17, Article III of the Philippine
Constitution guarantees this right, stating that no person shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself.

The right against self-incrimination is a fundamental principle of due

process and fair trial. It protects individuals from being forced to
provide evidence or testimony that could lead to their own criminal
prosecution or conviction. This right applies not only to the accused
but also to witnesses, including those called to testify for the defense.

If a witness believes that their testimony may incriminate them or

expose them to legal jeopardy, they have the legal right to refuse to
testify or to provide certain information. This is to ensure that the
legal process respects the rights of all individuals involved and does
not compel anyone to act against their own interests or legal
protections.

4. SECTION 18, ARTICLE III

1. Ana requested Juana to buy for her a pair of shoes promising the
latter she will serve as her household help for a period of one (1)
month of which the latter acceded. However, upon receipt of the pair
of shoes, Ana reneged on her promise. Thus, Juana was compelled to
file a case of estafa against her for which she invoked her right against
involuntary servitude. Is she correct? Explain.

In the given scenario, Juana’s invocation of her right against

involuntary servitude is not appropriate. Involuntary servitude,
protected under Section 18, Article III of the Philippine Constitution,
involves labor or service imposed against a person’s will through
coercion, deception, or abuse of power. However, Juana voluntarily
agreed to serve as Ana’s household help in exchange for buying a pair
of shoes. Therefore, her subsequent fulfillment of this agreement does
not qualify as involuntary servitude, but rather a voluntary
arrangement between the two parties.
2. The members of the New People’s Army (NPA) are communists. Pedro
is not an NPA member but believes in communism. Is he liable for
subversion? Why or why not? Explain.

Under Section 18, Article III of the Philippine Constitution, the crime
of subversion involves a person engaging in or supporting activities
aimed at overthrowing the government through violence or unlawful
means. The mere belief in communism, without engaging in
subversive activities, does not make someone liable for subversion.

In the scenario provided, Pedro’s belief in communism alone does not

establish his liability for subversion. Subversion requires active
participation or support for activities that seek to overthrow the
government unlawfully. Unless Pedro is directly involved in or
supports subversive acts, he cannot be held liable for subversion
based solely on his ideological beliefs.

It's essential to differentiate between holding certain beliefs and

engaging in illegal actions. Freedom of belief and expression is
protected under the Constitution, and individuals cannot be punished
for their beliefs unless those beliefs translate into unlawful conduct
such as subversion.

3. May involuntary servitude be imposed as punishment for a crime?

Why or why not?

Yes, it may be imposed as punishment for a crime.

Under the Section 18, Paragraph 2 of Article III, provides that “No
involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment
for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”