I. Nature and Definition of Human RightsWhile the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. 8 Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity." 9 Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs - political, economic or otherwise.In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions; 10 and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions." 11 The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object or purpose that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs property rights. 12 On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent. So it has been stressed in the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando in Gonzales vs. Comelec and reiterated by the writer of the opinion in Imbong vs. Ferrer. 13 It should be added that Mr. Justice Barredo in Gonzales vs. Comelec, supra, like Justices Douglas, Black and Goldberg in N.Y. Times Co. vs. Sullivan, 14 believes that the freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed," 15 even as Mr. Justice Castro relies on the balancing-of-interests test. 16 Chief Justice Vinson is partial to the improbable danger rule formulated by Chief Judge Learned Hand, viz. whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free expression as is necessary to avoid the danger. 17(Phil. Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Phil. Blooming Mills Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-31195, June 05, 1973)

II. Status of Human Rights in the PhilippinesIII. Theories of Sources of Human Rights1. Religious/Theological Approach A basis of human rights theory stemming from a law higher than the state and whose source is the Supreme Being. Human rights are not concessions granted by human institutions or states, or any international organization as they are God-given rights. Central to the doctrines of all religions is the concept of dignity of man as a consequence of human rights. The divine source gives human beings a high value of worth. The belief of a universal common creation means a common humanity and consequently universal, basic and fundamental rights. And since rights come from a divine source, they are inalienable and cannot be denied by mortal beings. Criticism: Some religions impose so many restrictions on individual freedom; some religions even tolerate slavery, discrimination against women, and imposition of the death penalty2. Natural Law Theory Originated from the Stoics and elaborated by Greek philosophers and later by ancient Roman law jurists. Perceives that the conduct of men must always conform to the law of nature. Natural law embodies those elementary principles of justice which were right reason, i.e., in accordance with nature, unalterable, eternal. Philosophers: Thomas Aquinas considered natural law as the law of right reason in accordance with the law of God, commonly known as the scholastic natural law Hugo Grotius the natural characteristics of human beings are the social impulse to live peacefully and in harmony with others whatever conformed to the nature of men as natural human beings was right and just; whatever is disturbing to social harmony is wrong and unjust John Locke envisioned human beings in a state of nature, where they enjoyed life, liberty and property which are deemed natural rights Became the basis of the natural rights of man against oppressive rulers Nuremberg Trials rationale for finding the Nazis guilty: the crimes committed were offenses against humanity and there is no need of a law penalizing the acts3. Positivist Theory/Legal Positivism All rights and authority come from the state and what officials have promulgated. The only law is what is commanded by the sovereign. The source of human rights is to be found only in the enactment of a law with sanctions attached. A right is enjoyed only if it is recognized and protected by legislation promulgated by the state.4. Historical Theory Advocates that human rights are not deliberate creation or the effort of man but they have already existed through the common consciousness of the people of what is right and just. Human rights exist through gradual, spontaneous and evolutionary process without any arbitrary will of any authority.5. Theory of Marxism Emphasizes the interest of society over an individual mans interest. Individual freedom is recognized only after the interest of society is served. Concerned with economic and social rights over civil or political rights of community. Referred to as parental with the political body providing the guidance in value choice. But the true choice is the government set by the state6. Functional/Sociological Approach Human rights exist as a means of social control, to serve the social interests of society. Lays emphasis of obtaining a just equilibrium of multifarious interests among prevailing moral sentiments and the social and economic conditions of the time and place.7. Utilitarian Theory Seeks to define the notion of rights in terms of tendencies to promote specified ends such as common good. Every human decision was motivated by some calculation of pleasure and pain. The goal is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Everyone is counted equally, but not treated equally. Requires the government to maximize the total net sum of citizens. An individual cannot be more important than the entire group. A man cannot simply live alone in disregard of his impulse to society. The composite society of which the individual is a unit has on its own wants, claims and demands. An act is good only when it takes into consideration the interests of the society and tends to augment the happiness of the entire community.8. Theory Based on Dignity of Man/Policy Science Approach Human rights means sharing values of all identified policies upon which human rights depend on. The most important values are respect, power, knowledge, health, and security. The ultimate goal of this theory is a world community where there is democratic sharing and distribution of values. All available resources are utilized to the maximum and the protection of human dignity is recognized.9. Theories of Justice Each person possesses inviolability founded on justice. The rights secured for justice are not subject to political bargaining or to social interests. Each person has equal rights to the whole system of liberties. There is no justice in a community where there are social and economic inequalities. The general conception of justice is one of fairness and those social primary goods such as opportunity, income and wealth and self-respect are to be distributed equally.10. Theory Based on Equality and Respect of Human Dignity The recognition of individual rights in the enjoyment of the basic freedoms such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, fair trial and access to courts.Governments must treat all their citizens equally. For this purpose, the government must intervene in order to advance general welfareIV. Characteristics of Human Rights1. Universal Applies irrespective of ones origin, status, or condition or place where one lives Rights can be enforced without national border2. Indivisible Not capable of being divided Cannot be denied even when other rights have already been enjoyed3. Interdependent The fulfillment or exercise of one cannot be had without the realization of the otherV. Obligations of Statea. Obligation to Respectb. Obligation to Protectc. Obligation to Fulfill

Article 1 (3), UN Charter:To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion Article 55, 56 UN CharterArticle 55. With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the UN shall promotea. Higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and developmentb. Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation andc. Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religionArticle 56. All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in co-operation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55 Article 2 (1)(2)(3), International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsArticle 21. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:a. To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacityb. To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right there to determine by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedyc. To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when grantted Article II. Sec 11, 1987 ConstitutionThe State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights

Stonehill vs. Dioknothat the right to privacy [embodied in the Fourth Amendment] is enforceable against the States, and that the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore constitutional in origin, we can no longer permit that right to remain an empty promise. Because it is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured by the Due Process Clause, we can no longer permit it to be revocable at the whim of any police officer who, in the name of law enforceable itself, chooses to suspend its enjoinment. Our decision, founded on reason and truth, gives to the individual no more than that which the Constitution guarantees him, to the police officer no less than that to which honest law enforcement is entitled, and, to the courts, that judicial integrity so necessary in the true administration of justice." (Emphasis ours.)||| (Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967) Oposa vs. FactoranWhile the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners the advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environmen||| (Oposa v. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993)

V. Legal Basis of Human Rightsa. Generally accepted principles of International Law- Mejoff vs. Director of PrisonsA foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal charges have been formally made ore judicial order issued, may not indefinitely be kept in detention. He also has the right to life and liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to human beings, as proclaimed in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which the Philippines is a member. The theory on which the court is given power to act is that the warrant for his deportation, which was not executed, is functus officio and the alien is being held without any authority of law (U.S. vs. Nichols, 47 Fed. Sup., 201). The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention, the remedy in that case being to impose conditions in the order of release and exact bail in a reasonable amount with sufficient sureties.||| (Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, G.R. No. L-4254, September 26, 1951)-Kuroda vs. JalandoniIssue: The petitioner contends that the Philippines is not a signatory nor an adherent to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare and, therefore, petitioner is charged of 'crimes' not based on law, national and international|||

Supreme Court Answer: The rules and regulations of the Hague and Geneva Conventions form part of and are wholly based on the generally accepted principles of international law. In fact, these rules and principles were accepted by the two belligerent nations, the United States and Japan, who were signatories to the two Conventions. Such rules and principles, therefore, form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions embodying them, for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rules and principles of international law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a signatory||| (Shigenori Kuroda v. Jalandoni, G.R. No. L-2662, March 26, 1949)-Govt. of Hong Kong vs. OlailaIssue: Petitioner alleged that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in admitting private respondent to bail; that there is nothing in the Constitution or statutory law providing that a potential extraditee has a right to bail, the right being limited solely to criminal proceedings.In his comment on the petition, private respondent maintained that the right to bail guaranteed under the Bill of Rights extends to a prospective extraditee; and that extradition is a harsh process resulting in a prolonged deprivation of one's liberty.Supreme Court Answer: this Court cannot ignore the following trends in international law: (1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international law who, in the 20th century, has gradually attained global recognition; (2) the higher value now being given to human rights in the international sphere; (3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling their treaty obligations; and (4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law, on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other. The modern trend in public international law is the primacy placed on the worth of the individual person and the sanctity of human rights. Slowly, the recognition that the individual person may properly be a subject of international law is now taking root. The vulnerable doctrine that the subjects of international law are limited only to states was dramatically eroded towards the second half of the past century..on December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of every person were proclaimed. While not a treaty, the principles contained in the said Declaration are now recognized as customarily binding upon the members of the international community. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, 2 this Court, in granting bail to a prospective deportee, held that under the Constitution, 3 the principles set forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the land. In 1966, the UN General Assembly also adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which the Philippines signed and ratified. Fundamental among the rights enshrined therein are the rights of every person to life, liberty, and due process.The Philippines, along with the other members of the family of nations, committed to uphold the fundamental human rights as well as value the worth and dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined in Section II, Article II of our Constitution which provides: "The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." The Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of protecting and promoting the right of every person to liberty and due process, ensuring that those detained or arrested can participate in the proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified. In other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to every person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right to liberty. These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail. First, we note that the exercise of the State's power to deprive an individual of his liberty is not necessarily limited to criminal proceedings. Respondents in administrative proceedings, such as deportation and quarantine, 4 have likewise been detained. Second, to limit bail to criminal proceedings would be to close our eyes to our jurisprudential history. Philippine jurisprudence has not limited the exercise of the right to bail to criminal proceedings only. This Court has admitted to bail persons who are not involved in criminal proceedings. In fact, bail has been allowed in this jurisdiction to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the Philippines under international conventions to uphold human rights. HDAaIcIn Mejoff v. Director of Prisons 6 and Chirskoff v. Commission of Immigration, 7 this Court ruled that foreign nationals against whom no formal criminal charges have been filed may be released on bail pending the finality of an order of deportation. As previously stated, the Court in Mejoff relied upon the Universal declaration of Human Rights in sustaining the detainee's right to bail.If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.Clearly, the right of a prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be viewed in the light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for the promotion and protection of human rights. Under these treaties, the presumption lies in favor of human liberty. Thus, the Philippines should see to it that the right to liberty of every individual is not impaired. Section 2(a) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) defines "extradition" as "the removal of an accused from the Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government." aSATHEExtradition has thus been characterized as the right of a foreign power, created by treaty, to demand the surrender of one accused or convicted of a crime within its territorial jurisdiction, and the correlative duty of the other state to surrender him to the demanding state. 8 It is not a criminal proceeding. 9 Even if the potential extraditee is a criminal, an extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may follow extradition. 10 It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly to treaty obligations between different nations. 11 It is not a trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee. 12 Nor is it a full-blown civil action, but one that is merely administrative in character. 13 Its object is to prevent the escape of a person accused or convicted of a crime and to secure his return to the state from which he fled, for the purpose of trial or punishment. 14 But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it is characterized by the following: (a) it entails a deprivation of liberty on the part of the potential extraditee and (b) the means employed to attain the purpose of extradition is also "the machinery of criminal law." This is shown by Section 6 of P.D. No. 1069 (The Philippine Extradition Law) which mandates the "immediate arrest and temporary detention of the accused" if such "will best serve the interest of justice." We further note that Section 20 allows the requesting state "in case of urgency" to ask for the "provisional arrest of the accused, pending receipt of the request for extradition;" and that release from provisional arrest "shall not prejudice re-arrest and extradition of the accused if a request for extradition is received subsequently." Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks of a criminal process. A potential extraditee may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable.Records show that private respondent was arrested on September 23, 1999, and remained incarcerated until December 20, 2001, when the trial court ordered his admission to bail. In other words, he had been detained for over two (2) years without having been convicted of any crime. By any standard, such an extended period of detention is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. In fact, it was this prolonged deprivation of liberty which prompted the extradition court to grant him bail.While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the Constitution. The applicable standard of due process, however, should not be the same as that in criminal proceedings. In the latter, the standard of due process is premised on the presumption of innocence of the accused. As Purganan correctly points out, it is from this major premise that the ancillary presumption in favor of admitting to bail arises. Bearing in mind the purpose of extradition proceedings, the premise behind the issuance of the arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility of flight of the potential extraditee. This is based on the assumption that such extraditee is a fugitive from justice. 15 Given the foregoing, the prospective extraditee thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a flight risk and should be granted bail. The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Failure to comply with these obligations is a setback in our foreign relations and defeats the purpose of extradition. However, it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditee's rights to life, liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed, not only by our Constitution, but also by international conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We should not, therefore, deprive an extraditee of his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily met.An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. cITCAaIn this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence.(Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)b. International Bill of Rightsc. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on d. Economic, Social, and Cultural Rightse. Treaties and other Conventionf. 1987 Philippine Constitution Preamble Article II and Article IIIVII. Classification of Human Rightsa. First generation of rights (civil and political rights)International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 1, 6-27)Simon vs CHRSupreme Court Ruling: The Commission on Human Rights was not meant by the fundamental law to be another court or quasi-judicial agency in this country, or duplicate much less take over the functions of the latter. The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations involving civil and political rights||| (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994)The Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights" (Sec. 1). The term "civil rights," has been defined as referring - "(to) those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action." Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt.||| (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994)

The order for the demolition of the stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia of the private respondents can fall within the compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights" intended by the Constitution||| (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994)

Civil RightsThe term "civil rights," 31 has been defined as referring "(t)o those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action."Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude, religious persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt. 32

Political RightsPolitical rights, 33 on the other hand, are said to refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government. (Simon, Jr. v. Commission on Human Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 05, 1994)

I. RIGHT TO LIFE

Legal BasisArticle 6 ICCPR1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.3. (ARTICLE 4) Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon, or commutation of the sentence of death may be granted in all casesArticle III 1987 Philippine Constitution Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of the law, nor anyone shall be deprived of equal protection of the laws Section 19 (1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. Neither shall death penalty imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetuaArticle II, Sec 12, 1987 Philippine Constitution FAMILY. The state recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth and civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

People vs Echegaraythere are quite a number of people who honestly believe that the supreme penalty is either morally wrong or unwise or ineffective. However, as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition on certain cases, it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of their private opinions.||| (People v. Echegaray y Pilo, G.R. No. 117472 (Resolution), February 07, 1997)

II. Freedom against torture and inhuman prison conditionsLegal BasisArticle 7 and 10, ICCPR Article 7. No one shall be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation Article 10. (1) All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. (2) (a) Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons

Article III Sec 19 (2) 1987 Philippine Constitution The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under sub human conditions shall be dealt by the lawArticle I Convention against Torture and Other Cruel of Degrading Treatment or Punishment For the purpose of this Convention the term torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent of acquiesce of a public official or other reason acting in a official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions

The article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application

People vs GalitFacts: Mr. Galit, accussed of committing murder, was held under custody by police authorities in Montalban on 8 September 1977.On 9 September 1977 he allegedly voluntarily executed a salaysay admitting participation in the commission in the said crime. It was found that actually Mr. Galit had been interrogated almost continuously for 5 days. The officers were found to have mauled him and tortured him physically: covering his face with a rag and pushed his face in a toilet bowl full of human waste. [It was also found that while Mr. galit was read of his rights it was delivered in a long question to which Mr. Galit gave monosyllabic answer of opo]The court found that aside from the confession of galit was the only evidence recovered. Issue: Should the evidence be accepted?Held: No because Mr. Galits confession were obtained by means contrary to law. Alleged confession is inadmissible as evidence when they are obtained contrary to law. An alleged confession must be voluntary. Unless properly waived, the accused must be accompanied by a counsel at every step of the custodial investigation. Trial courts are cautioned to look carefully into the circumstances surrounding the taking of any confession, especially where the prisoner claims have maltreated into giving one. Where there is any doubt as to its voluntariness, the same must be rejected in toto.OTHERS: It is a constitutional requirement for an accused to be informed of his rights to custodial investigation. At the moment of his arrest he shall be informed of his rights under the constitution and laws, the questions should be several short and clear and every right should be explained in simple words in a dialect known to the person under investigation. At the time of arrest, an accused should be allowed to communicate with his lawyer, a relative, or a friend. confession which had been repudiated on the ground of torture and only corroborated by evidence from a polluted source, cannot be a basis for conviction.||| (People v. Agcaoili, G.R. Nos. L-2084 & L-2085, June 06, 1950)

III. Equality before the LawLegal BasisArticle 26, ICCPR All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other statusArticle III 1987 Philippine Constitution Section 1. No person shall be deprived of right of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor anyone shall be denied equal protection of the law

IV. Right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary arrestLegal BasisArticle 8 ICCPR1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their froms shall be prohibited2. No one shall be held in servitude3. (A) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;(B) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment for a competent court(C ) For the purpose of this paragraph the term forced or compulsory labour shall not includei. Any work or service nor referred in subparagraph by, normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detentionii. Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectorsiii. Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life of well-being of the communityiv. Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligationsArticle 9 - ICCPR1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. 2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him. 3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement. 4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful. 5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.Article 11 - ICCPRNo one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

Article 12 1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence. 2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. 3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.Article III 1987 Philippine Constitution Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature for whatever purpose shall be inviolable, and no 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, particularly describing the place to be search and persons and things to be seized Section 12. 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. There rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.No torture, force, violence, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited

Any confession or admission obtained of this or section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him

The law shall provide civil and penal sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims or torture or similar practices, and their families

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it

Section 18. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro

Slavery and involuntary servitude, together with their corollary, peonage, all denote "a condition of enforced, compulsory service of one to another." ||| (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. 14078, March 07, 1919)

The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute which is applicable to all of a class.||| (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. 14078, March 07, 1919)

Villavicencio vs. Lukban

Warrantless Arrest

Rule 113 Section 5 Rules of Court

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit an offenseb. 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; andc. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

In cases palling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person to be arrested shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of rule 112

V. Freedom against slavery

Legal Basis

Article 8 Right to liberty, freedom from arbitrary arrest1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited2. No one shall be held in servitude3. (A) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;(B) Paragraph 3 (a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment for a competent court(C ) For the purpose of this paragraph the term forced or compulsory labour shall not includei. Any work or service nor referred in subparagraph by, normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detentionii. Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectorsiii. Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life of well-being of the communityiv. Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligationsArticle III. Sec 18 (2) 1987 Philippine Constitution Section 18 (2). No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convictedVI. Freedom of MovementLegal BasisArticle 12 ICCPR1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a state shall, within that territory, have the right to liverty of movement and freedom to choose his residence2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own3. The above-mention rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of right to enter his own countryArticle II Sec. 6 1987 Philippine ConstitutionSec. 6 The liberty of abode and changing of the same 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 lawMarcos vs. ManglapusFacts: After a series of coup d etat in the 1990s, President Marcos, dying, wants to return home. President Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family.Issue: Whether Ferdinand Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode, in light of the circumstances raised by President Aquino.Held: The right in question is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries within the Philippines. The court held that this right is different from the right guaranteed in the bill of rights. The right to return to ones own country is totally distincy right under international law according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration speaks of the right of freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state separately from the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. On the other hand, the covenant guarantees the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any country, including his own which rights may be restriced by such laws as are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the separate rights and freedoms of others as distinguished from the right to enter his own country of which one cannot be arbitrarily deprived. President Aquino therefore is justified

VII. Right to security

Legal basis

Article 17, ICCPR

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution Sec 2. The right of the person to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures in for whatever purpose or nature shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause personally determined by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce particularly describing the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized Sec 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondences shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2)Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding

Alvero vs. Dizon

Facts: On 12 Feb 1945 Aurelio Alvero, alleged guerrilla, was placed under arrest for an accusation of collaborating with the enemy. Papers and other documents were taken from his house by the US Armed Forces. He questions the seizureIssue: Whether the documents seized by the US Army can be admitted as evidence.Held: Yes because they are allowed to do so under international law and under the constitution. The Laws and Customs of War on Land of The Hague Convetion of 1907 authorize seizure of military papers of POW. The Constitutional protection against illegal seizure and effects is directed to the Government of the Philippines or its agents; the said constitutional guarantee does not prohibit the government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law. Herein, as soldiers of the US Army that took and seized certain papers and documents from the residence of Alvero, were not acting as agents or on behalf of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines.

The purpose of the constitutional provisions against unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of private security in person and property, and unlawful invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such usurpations when attempted. But it does not prohibit the Federal Government from taking advantage of unlawful searches made by a private person or under authority of state law.||| (Alvero v. Dizon, G.R. No. L-342, May 04, 1946)

To whom directed

People vs Andre Marti

The constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between individuals.||| (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)

Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution||| (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)

That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed||| (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)

Zulueta vs. CA

Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.||| (Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996)

VIII. Procedural guarantees in civil and criminal trialsa. Proof beyond reasonable doubt

People vs. Dramayo

Presumption of Innocence: Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt. It is incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that culpability lies. Appellants were not even called upon then to offer evidence on their behalf. Their freedom is forfeit only if the requisite quantum of proof necessary for conviction be in existence. Their guilt must be shown beyond reasonable doubt. To such a standard, this Court has always been committed. There is need, therefore, for the most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the state, both oral and documentary, independently of whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if the judge below and the appellate tribunal could arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been committed precisely by the person on trial under such an exacting test should the sentence be one of conviction. It is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not only did he perpetrate the act that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is moral certainty||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29, 1971)

Reasonable Doubt: By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise, but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any criminal charge but moral certainty is required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. We feel that it is better to acquit a man upon the ground of reasonable doubt, even though he may in reality be guilty, than to confine in the penitentiary for the rest of his natural life a person who may be innocent||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29, 1971)

Acquittal of other alleged conspirators not a bar to conviction: there had been cases where this Court, notwithstanding a majority of the defendants being acquitted, the element of conspiracy likewise being allegedly present, did hold the party or parties responsible for the offense guilty of the crime charged, a moral certainly having arisen as to their culpability.||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29, 1971)

this Court has invariably respected the findings of facts of a trial judge who was in a position to weigh and appraise the testimony before him except when, as was not shown in this case, circumstances of weight or influence were ignored or disregarded by him||| (People v. Dramayo, G.R. No. L-21325, October 29, 1971)