Rights of the Accused (Sec. 11 – 22, Art.

III)
1. The right to free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance.

2. The right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have counsel when under investigation for the commission of an offense.

3. The right against the use of torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the free will.

4. The right against being held in secret, incommunicado, or similar forms of solitary detention;

5. The right to bail and against excessive bail.

6. The right to due process of law.

7. The right to presumption of innocence.

8. The right to be heard by himself and counsel.

9. The right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

10. The right to have speedy, impartial, and public trial.

11. The right to meet the witnesses face to face.

12. The right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.

13. The right against self-incrimination.

14. The right against detention by reason of political beliefs and aspirations.

15. The right against excessive fines.

16. The right against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment.

17. The right against infliction of the death penalty except for heinous crimes.

18. The right against double jeopardy.

19. The right against ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

Article 3, Section 16, Case Doctrines

Tatad v. Sandiganbayan

– due process; speedy disposition of cases – Long delay in termination of the preliminary investigation
by the Tanodbayan in the instant case found to e violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due process; Undue delay in the conduct of
preliminary investigation can not be corrected

Gonzales v. Sandiganbayan

– when is a delay justified; balancing test - The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when
the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays; unjustified postponements; balancing test: conduct of prosecution and
defense.

It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied and oftentimes, this maxim has proven to be true in the Philippine justice system. However,
lawyers are not the only ones who are guilty of delaying tactics, court dockets are often clogged and different legal issues often crop up that need
extra time to be decided upon. Our laws do have safeguards to ensure the prompt and speedy action on all types of legal actions and cases.

Section 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution declares that:

“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

True, indeed, the 1987 Constitution provides the right not only to a speedy trial but also to a speedy judgment after trial. Hence, the Constitution
mandates dispatch not only in the trial stage but also in the disposition thereof, warranting dismissals in case of violations thereof without the fault of
the party concerned, not just the accused. The case of Caballero vs. Alfonso, Jr., laid down the guidelines in determining the applicability of the
“speedy disposition” formula:
. . . (S)peedy disposition of cases’ is a relative term. Just like the constitutional guarantee of “speedy trial” accorded an accused in all criminal
proceedings, “speedy disposition of cases” is a flexible concept. It is consistent with delays and depends upon the circumstances. What the
Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive delays which render rights nugatory.

As held in Gonzales vs. Sandiganbayan:

. . . (T)he right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive
a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a
defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution
and the defendant are weighed, and such factors as length of the delay, reason for the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion or non-
assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay, are considered.

In addition, Section 1 (h), Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Procedure states that one of the rights of an accused is to have a speedy, impartial and
public trial.

A speedy trial is one conducted according to the law of criminal procedure and the rules and regulations, free from vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays. The primordial purpose of this constitutional right is to prevent the oppression of an accused by delaying criminal prosecution for
an indefinite period of time.

The right of an accused to speedy trial is not violated by the mere postponement of scheduled hearings of the case. Unjustified postponements
which prolong the trial for an unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial. The right to speedy trial allows
reasonable continuance so as not to deprive the prosecution its day in court.

In the determination of whether or not the right to a “speedy trial” has been violated, certain factors may be considered and balanced against each
other. These are length of delay, reason for the delay, assertion of the right or failure to assert it, and prejudice caused by the delay. The same
factors may also be considered in answering judicial inquiry whether or not a person officially charged with the administration of justice has violated
the “speedy disposition of cases” guarantee.

SEC. 13: All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before
conviction, be bail able by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

MEANING OF BAIL - is the security required by a court and given for the provisional or temporary release of a person who is in the custody of the
law conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under the conditions specified.

Purpose and form of Bail

1. The purpose of requiring bail is to relieve the accused from imprisonment until his conviction and yet secure his appearance at the trials.

2. It may be in the form of cash deposit, property bond, bond secured from a surety company, or recognizance.

MEANING OF CAPITAL OFFENSE - for purposes of the above provision, is an offense which, under the law existing at the time of its commissions,
and at the time f the application to be admitted to bail, may be punished with reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death

SEC. 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

MEANING OF RIGHTS AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY - means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by
acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the express consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or
identical offense.

SEC. 17: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Right against self-incrimination No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
This is a protection against self-incrimination which may expose a person to a criminal liability.
It is founded on grounds of: (1) Public Policy, because if the party is thus required to testify he would be placed under the strongest temptation to
commit the crime of perjury; and (2) Humanity, because it prevents the extortion of confession by duress.

The constitutional guarantee protects as well the right of the accused to silence, and his silence, meaning, his failure or refusal to testify may not be
used as presumption of guilt or taken as evidence against him. Scope of Guarantee The right against self-incrimination applies in criminal cases as
well as in civil, administrative, and legislative proceeding where the fact asked for is a criminal one. It protects one whether he is a party or a witness

SEC. 18:
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

RIGHT AGAINST DETENTION SOLELY BY REASON OF POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS

1. Incarceration without charges of “political prisoners”.
2. Suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus even after lifting of martial law.
3. Prohibition a guarantee against having “prisoners of conscience.”

MEANING OF INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE – A condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another.

It includes:

 Slavery

 Peonage

EXCEPTIONS OF PROHIBITIONS

1. When the involuntary servitude is imposed as a punishment for a crime.

2. When personal military or civil service is required of citizens.

3. To injunctions requiring striking laborers to return to work.

4. To exceptional service.

5. To exercise by parents of their authority.

6. When there is a proper exercise of the police power of the State.

ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP

Who are citizens of the Philippines?

1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution

2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.

3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Modes of acquiring citizenship:

1) Jus Soli – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of place of birth

2) Jus Sanguinis – acquisition of citizenship on the basis of blood relationship

3) Naturalization – the legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a native-born citizen.

Note: The Philippines follows (2) and (3)

Election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution:

Prior to the 1973 Constitution, if a Filipina married an alien, she lost her Filipino citizenship. Hence, her child would have to elect Filipino citizenship
upon reaching the age of majority. Under the 1973 Constitution, however, children born of Filipino mothers were already considered Filipinos.
Therefore, the provision on election of citizenship under the 1987 Constitution only applies to those persons who were born under the 1935
Constitution. In order for the children to elect Filipino citizenship, the mothers must have been Filipinos at the time of their marriage. So, if your
mother was a Filipina who married an alien under the 1935 constitution and you were born before January 17, 1973, you can elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

When must the election be made:

The election must be made within a reasonable period after reaching the age of majority.

Effects of naturalization:

1) The legitimate minor children of the naturalized father become Filipinos as well.

2) The wife also becomes a Filipino citizen, provided that she does not have any disqualification which would bar her from being naturalized.
Natural-born citizens:

1) Citizens of the Philippines from birth who do not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship under Art. IV, Sec. 1(3) of 1987 Constitution.

Marriage of Filipino with an alien:

1) General Rule: The Filipino RETAINS Philippine citizenship
2) Exception: If, by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Examples of renunciation of Philippine citizenship:

1) Voluntarily obtaining foreign passport

2) Pledging allegiance to another country (ex. by becoming a naturalized citizen of another country)

Re-acquisition of citizenship

Natural-born Filipinos who are deemed to have lost their citizenship may re-acquire the same via repatriation proceedings. This involves taking an
oath of allegiance and filing the same with the civil registry.

How may one lose citizenship:

1. By naturalization in a foreign country
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
3. By subscribing oath or allegiance to a foreign Constitution
4. By serving in the armed forces of an enemy country
5. By being a deserter of the armed forces of one’s country
How may one reacquire citizenship:
1. By direct act of Congress
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation