BUTRON LEMUELITO T BS-CRIM TTH-4:00-6:00 CDI 1N

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.

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. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall

any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against

unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any 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, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or

things to be seized.

The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful

order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.Any

evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose

in any proceeding.No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of

the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress

of grievances. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the

exercise of civil or political rights.

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.The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access

to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or

decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be

afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form

unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.Private

property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.No law impairing the

obligation of contracts shall be passed.Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and

adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.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. These rights cannot

be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern is invoked

in this special civil action for Mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi against the

Civil Service Commission. The respondent had earlier denied Legaspi's request for information on

the civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the Health Department

of Cebu City. These government employees, Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas, had allegedly

represented themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the civil service examinations

forsanitarians.Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and

Mariano .

Agas is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate

remedy to acquire the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of the extraordinary writ of

Mandamus to compel the respondent Commission to disclose said information.This is not the first

time that the writ of Mandamus is sought to enforce the fundamental right to information. The

same remedy was resorted to in the case of Tanada et. al. vs. Tuvera et. Prior to the recognition of

the right in said Constitution, the statutory right to information provided for in the Land

Registration Act (Section 56, Act 496, as amended) was claimed by a newspaper editor in another

Mandamus proceeding, this time to demand access to the records of the Register of Deeds for the

purpose of gathering data on real estate transactions involving aliens .The constitutional right to

information on matters of public concern first gained recognition in the

Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official

acts, transactions, or decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject to such limitations as
may be provided by law. The foregoing provision has been retained and the right therein provided

amplified in Article III, Sec. 7 of the 1987 Constitution with the addition of the phrase, "as well as

to government research data used as basis for policy development." The new provision reads: The

right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to

official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, ordecisions,

as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall beafforded the

citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

These constitutional provisions are self-executing. They supply the rules by means of

which the right to information may be enjoyed A Treatise on the Constitutional

Limitations by guaranteeing the right and mandating the duty to afford access to

sources of information.
 No Person shall be compelled to be a witnessed against himself

The 1987 Constitution, in Article III, Section 17, provides that “no person shall be compelled

to be a witness against himself.” The phrase “self-incrimination” does not appear. Nor does it

appear in Section 12 of the same Article III on the rights of a person in custodial investigation

which provides, among others, for the “right to remain silent.” Also, under the Rules of Criminal

Procedure, particularly Rule 115, Section 1(e), an accused at trial is exempt from being compelled

to be a witness against himself. The phrase self-incrimination does not appear. Likewise, self-

incrimination is not used in Article VI, Section 21 of the Constitution in reference to inquiries in

aid of Legislation. Section 21 provides that, “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any

of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly

published rules of procedures. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries

shall be respected.”

The landmark case of People v. Ayson (175 SCRA 1989, 225-230 [1989]) distinguishes

between “the right against self-incrimination” and “the rights in custodial investigation.” The first

right, against self-incrimination [Article III, Section 17], is accorded to every person who gives

evidence, whether voluntarily or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or

administrative proceedings. The right is not to “be compelled to be a witness against himself.” It

prescribes an “option of refusal to answer incriminating questions” and not a prohibition of inquiry.

It simply secures to a witness, whether he or she be a party, the right to refuse to answer any

particular incriminating question, i.e., one to which has a tendency to incriminate him or her for

some crime. However, the right can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory in

character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a

witness the right to disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at the time appointed
or to refuse to testify altogether. The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or

automatically operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed, by or in behalf of the witness, the

protection does not come into play. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly or impliedly,

as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time”

Understandably, People v. Ayson, decided by the SC in 1989 before Senate/House

inquiries became a fad, does not expound on the right against self-incrimination in investigative

inquiries in Congress. However, the Senate has provided in its Rules of Procedure Governing

Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, in Section 19 thereof, that “the right against self-incrimination shall

be allowed only when a question, which tends to elicit an answer that will incriminate, is

propounded.” The senators can determine whether the right was properly invoked, by a majority

vote of the committee members if there is a quorum present. The right against self-incrimination

covers testimonial compulsion only and the compulsion to produce real or physical evidence using

the body of the witness or accused. It applies to commutative testimony and not mechanical

testimony. Commutative testimony involves the use of intelligence on the part of the accused or

witness. Thus, handwriting, signatures and similar incidents, which involve the use of intelligence,

are not permissible. Corollary, mechanical testimony, such as substance from the body, morphine

from mouth, put on pants, physical exam, wallet, picture taking, is permissible.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a

presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in

the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject

for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any

criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on

police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from

the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of

breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: 1) right to indictment by the

grand jury before any criminal charges for felonious crimes, 2) a prohibition on double jeopardy,

3) a right against forced self-incrimination, 4) a guarantee that all criminal defendants have a fair

trial, and 5) a guarantee that government cannot seize private property without making a due

compensation at the market value of the property. While the Fifth Amendment originally only

applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has partially incorporated the 5th amendment to

the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to indictment

by the Grand Jury has not been incorporated, while the right against double jeopardy, the right

against self-incrimination, and the protection against arbitrary taking of a private property without

due compensation have all been incorporated to the states.

Grand juries are a holdover from the early British common law dating back hundreds of years.

Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury was originally intended to protect
the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy. In the early phases of the

development of the U.S. Constituion, the Founding Fathers have decided to retain the Grand Jury

system as a protection against over-zealous prosecution by the central government. Although the

Supreme Court in Hurtado v. California in 1884 has refused to incorporate the Grand Jury system

to all of the states, most states have independently decided to retain a similar form of Grand Jury,

and currently, all but two states (Connecticut and Pennsylvania) have the grand jury.

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a federal grand jury shall be impaneled.

Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could

serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12

and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the

common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set

the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23,

statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set

the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge

members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory

challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a

peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case

of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the

same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess

broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing

expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or

documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment, informing the court of their decision
to indict or not indict the suspect. If they indict the suspect, it means they have decided that there

is a probable cause to believe that the charged crime has indeed been committed and by the suspect.

Differentiate political rights from civil rights

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from

infringement by governments, social organizations, and private individuals. They ensure one's
entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of the society and state without

discrimination or repression. Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental

integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual

orientation, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;[ and

individual rights such as privacy and the freedom of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly,

and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the

accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal

remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association,

the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Civil and political rights form the original and main part of international human rightsThey

comprise the first portion of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (with economic,

social, and cultural rights comprising the second portion). The theory of three generations of

human rights considers this group of rights to be "first-generation rights", and the theory of

negative and positive rights considers them to be generally negative rights. The phrase "Rights

for Civil" is a translation of Latin ius civis (rights of a citizen). Roman citizens could be either

free (libertas) or servile (servitus), but they all had rights in lawAfter the Edict of Milan in 313,

these rights included the freedom of religion; however in 380, the Edict of Thessalonica required

all subjects of the Roman Empire to profess Catholic ChristianityRoman legal doctrine was lost

during the Middle Ages, but claims of universal rights could still be made based on Christian

doctrine. According to the leaders of Kett's Rebellion (1549), "all bond men may be made free,

for God made all free with his precious blood-shedding."

based on citizenship by arguing that Englishmen had historically enjoyed such rights. The

Parliament of England adopted the English Bill of Rights in 1689. It was one of the influences

drawn on by George Mason and James Madison when drafting the Virginia Declaration of

Rights in 1776. The Virginia declaration is the direct ancestor and model for the U.S. Bill of

Rights

The removal by legislation of a civil right constitutes a "civil disability". In early 19th

century Britain, the phrase "civil rights" most commonly referred to the issue of such legal

discrimination against Catholics. In the House of Commons support for civil rights was divided,

with many politicians agreeing with the existing civil disabilities of Catholics. The Roman

Catholic Relief Act 1829 restored their civil rights.In the 1860s, Americans adapted this usage to

newly freed blacks. Congress enacted civil rights acts in 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, 1964,

1968, and 1991.

Human rights are the god given ri Natural and legal rights are two types of rights.

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular

culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human

laws, though one can forfeit their enforcement through one's actions, such as by violating someone

else's rights.) Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be

modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws.

in ancient Greek philosophy,[1] and was referred to by Roman philosopher Cicero. It was

subsequently alluded to in the Bible,[2] and then developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic

philosophers such as Albert the Great and his pupil Thomas Aquinas. During the Age of

Enlightenment, the concept of natural laws was used to challenge the divine right of kings, and

became an alternative justification for the establishment of a social contract, positive law, and

government – and thus legal rights – in the form of classical republicanism. Conversely, the

concept of natural rights is used by others to challenge the legitimacy of all such establishments.

The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights: some acknowledge

no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the

terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural

rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or

international body to dismiss. The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft

law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative rights,[4] whereas human

rights also comprise positive rights. Even on a natural rights conception of human rights, the two

terms may not be synonymous. The proposition that animals have natural rights is one that gained

the interest of philosophers and legal scholars in the 20th century and into the 21stghts inherent to

the very existence of man.

Preamble of the universal declarationof human rights

PREAMBLE
 Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all

members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world Whereas

disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the

conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of

speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration

of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to

rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in

fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of

men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in

larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with

the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and

fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the

greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of

achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of

society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to

promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and
international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the

peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Everyone has duties to the community in which the alone the free and full development of

his personalityis possible .

Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his

personality is possible.In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to
such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and

respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality,

public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.These rights and freedoms may in no

case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 29 reminds us that the individual has not only rights but also duties (Paragraph 1),

and that limitations on rights not only may (Paragraph 2) but also must (Paragraph 3) be drawn.

None of these matters, however, is articulated in any detail. The proclamation of rights in previous

articles of the UDHR is thus accompanied by three caveats. Two of these ideas seem to be obvious

and necessary: that the corollary of rights is duties, and that rights are not unlimited. Otherwise,

no social balance and harmony would be possible. However, since the UDHR does not list the

duties of the individual, there is no such thing as fundamental or "human" duties in the same way

there are rights. Any catalogue of duties to the community--as one finds in some constitutions--

would therefore be to some extent arbitrary, or rather a matter of domestic law and politics.

It is worth noting that experience has shown the crucial importance of so-called limitations,

sometimes described as restrictions, or even as forthright exceptions from rights. Although the

terminology differs, the issue of permissible limitations sometimes overshadows the basic

principle that a right is supposed to exist, both on the "domestic" or "national" and on the

international level. The third idea is less obvious. In fact, in the last paragraph it could seem that

the parent organization somewhat self-righteously takes the opportunity to claim priority for its

own purposes and principles. That the exercise of rights should yield to such considerations might

appear doubtful if one thinks of similar statements in a national declaration in favor of the purposes

and principles of the nation or its constitution. But it is obviously necessary to balance the exercise
of rights with the interest of the world community which the United Nations claim to represent.

Perhaps the UDHR on this point says either too much or very little.

Article 29 was previously part of a set of three (and then two) articles dealing with the

communitarian dimension of rights possession. It has deep connections with the references to

"human family" in the first recital and to "the spirit of brotherhood" in Article 1. Article 29 came

to be located at the end of the Declaration instead of the beginning, which is where it was until

very late in the drafting process.