Report on Philippine Supreme Court Cases and Constitutional Rights

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of key legal concepts and their implications within the context of the Philippine Supreme Court. The first section delves into the concept of Martial Law, its impact on constitutional rights, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and the application of Miranda Rights. The report examines the potential for abuse of power and the limitations placed on citizens' liberties during periods of martial law. The second section shifts focus to the 'Narco List' and its effects on the constitutional rights of individuals, specifically addressing the rights to due process, a fair trial, and equal protection under the law. The report also considers the 'Ouster Duterte matrix' and its impact on freedom of speech and expression, particularly concerning the media's role in a democratic society. The analysis includes relevant case law and constitutional provisions, offering insights into the protection of fundamental rights within the Philippine legal system.

Supreme Court of Philippines 1
Title
Assignment Name
Student Name
Course Name and Number
Professor Name
Date:

Supreme Court of Philippines
Contents
Question 1..............................................................................................................................
.3-5
Question 2..............................................................................................................................5-7
References................................................................................................................................8

Supreme Court of Philippines
Question 1
The term “Martial Law” refers to a situation in the country in which the military action is
required to overcome the situations of emergency and situations which are likely to result into
wars (Rajput, 2016). Hence, the purpose of “Martial Law” is to restore the law and order in the
nation. Such a law implies suspension of ordinary law and imposition of restrictions over the
rights of civilians. Such a law is not a codified law (Rajput, 2016) and thus it provides with wide
discretionary powers to the military & that in the absence of codification of “Military Law”
there is always an apprehension of arbitrary use of such discretion at the hands of military
men.
Impact of “Military Law” would be such that military men may arrest a person without
warrant merely over suspicion and detain him for an infinite period, they may even injure a
person or take away his life or destroy someone’s property. Anything done by the military
men would not be subject to the jurisdictions of the court, thus making them completely
immune from any sort of criminal or civil liability. The constitutional rights and privileges
may not vest in the citizens absolutely and the restrictions imposed may seem to be
unreasonable. Therefore the wide exercise of discretion at the hands of military men may
apprehend disregard to the constitutional rights and privileges to the citizens and that may
cause a fear in the minds of citizens with regards to their personal life and liberty. Every
public authority has its predetermined duties which have evolved over political developments
and thus those duties cannot be avoided or its gravity cannot be increased at the pretext of
martial law. A soldier is a citizen who is armed and is supposed to establish law and order in
a particular manner. He cannot be excused for unnecessarily causing death or injury to person
or property (Ballantine, H. 1915).

Supreme Court of Philippines
The writ of Habeas Corpus has been regarded as the great writ of liberty which ensure the
citizens of their liberty of which they would have been derived of under such circumstances
which are intolerable (Bigornia, 1994).
A group of rights as enshrined under Section 12 and Section 14, Article 3 of Constitution of
Philippines are referred to as the Miranda Rights. The rights were given the name of Miranda
rights as they were decided in the case of Miranda v. Arizona decided by the U.S Supreme
Court. These rights are -: right to be silent; anything said may be used against you at trial;
right to consult a lawyer and to have a lawyer present during this interrogation and if you
cannot one will be appointed to you. The interrogator would tend to dominate the entire
interrogation process. Thus the need to have a counsel at the stage of interrogation is that
when a suspect is being interrogated he must be able to communicate in the sense in which he
wishes and for that purpose their must be a presence of someone on whom the suspect can
rely and confide with and such person by his training and experience must not be afraid to
resist the undesirable use of power (Lederer, 1977).
Chief Justice Taney in the matter of John Merryman opined that the President wishes to
suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus and delegate discretionary power at the hands of military
personnel and to leave upon himself whether he will adhere to the process of law or not.
Justice Taney further went on to observe that great fundamental laws of which the suspension
cannot be done even by the congress were disregarded such as writ of habeas corpus.
Therefore the impact of suspension of writ of habeas corpus could be that the person so
arrested may not be even allowed to bring his case before the courts and also that the person
in custody of the person may even refuse to produce the person before the courts (PARKER,
1861).

Supreme Court of Philippines
Thus the impact of the suspension of Habeas Corpus is well precedence where the military
officer’s actions may affect the Miranda rights of the accused. The writ of Habeas Corpus is
primarily concerned with the liberty of the person. Every constitution in the world levies
much importance to the liberty of the subjects and regards the right to liberty as an innate
right. Whenever a person is deprived of his liberty wrongfully and when during his arrest he
has not been afforded his rights to which he is entitled to, in such cases the writ of Habeas
Corpus allows such person to be released.
Question 2
Narco list refers to that list which comprises of names of those people who are public
officials and are involved into the drug trade. Various public officials whose names
occurred in the list and were suspected to be involved in the drug trade were killed. The
narco list has great implications over the constitutional rights of individuals whose name
has occurred in the list. These rights are enshrined under the Bill of Rights in Section 1,
14 and 16 of the Philippines Constitution. Section 14 provides for the right of being heard
through counsel of own choice, presumption of being innocent until the contrary is
proven, right to impartial trial and production of evidence ("THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE III | GOVPH", 2019). The presumption of innocence
implies the need of a fair trial (Fox Jr., 1979). In every legal system fair trial is considered to
be an essential element. The reason behind this is that the possibility of false accusations
or the act of the accused being excused under the law. Therefore, no presumption as to the
guilt of the accused shall be drawn before giving him an opportunity of being heard.
Article 14 makes it clear that every person is entitled to impartial trial and to make
representation during the trial through a counsel and that to produce witnesses in its
support. The Section further clarifies that the no person shall be required to answer any

Supreme Court of Philippines
question pertaining to criminal charge without due process of law. For the purposes of
maintaining rule of law and to deliver justice fair trial becomes an intrinsic part of the
legal system and that even international recognizes the need of providing counsel to the
person (Geng, 2018) . Section 16 provides with the right to every person to approach any
court, tribunal or quasi tribunal for adjudication of their disputes. The facts surrounding
the narco list depict that many public officials who were suspects were being killed
merely over the grounds of suspicion and were denied the due process of law. In
consideration of the facts surrounding the narco list, the constitutional rights of the
individuals whose names appear in the list bear huge implication and that they are also
denied of their right under Section 1 of Article 3 which ensure equal protection of laws to
every person.
Ouster Duterte matrix refers to that list in which the names of those journalists are
mentioned who want to unseat the present President of Philippines because of his adverse
administration. This has led to the pressure from the government over the journalists and
that concerns the freedom of speech or expression of press. Media is the forth pillar of
democracy and functioning as pillar of democracy it shall be the duty of the media to
ensure that as long as the social, political and economic framework works in the
government, it shall depict the truth to the public. The freedom of the expression and
speech is enshrined under the Article 3, Section 4 of Philippines Constitution. Freedom of
speech and expression are considered to go hand in hand with the unrestricted media and
is an essential part of the democracy. At the same time, with these rights, tremendous
responsibilities accompany pertaining to respecting the truth and to adhere to the law and
liberty of individuals (Svensson, Kenyon & Edström, 2016). This right is important for the
people involved in the press or journalism industry as they must be free to convey their
thoughts about the government or governmental institutions whether that may be criticism

Supreme Court of Philippines
or favouring the government. This is an essential in a democratic setup. However, people
in media industry shall restrain themselves from encroaching in the right of the other for
maintaining its private life ("Article 10: Freedom of expression | Equality and Human Rights
Commission", 2019). Therefore, any amendment brought in Section 4, Article 3 is liable to
be declared as unconstitutional. The amendment sought would vitiate the purpose of
democracy. Moreover, the sought amendment would not lay down the as to what shall
comprise as reasonable exercise of the right to expression. So, if the legislature succeeds
in the amendment of the Constitution there is a possibility that the government may
decide the reasonable restrictions as per their convenience.

Supreme Court of Philippines
References
Rajput, P. (2016). Undeclared Martial Law In India: An Analytical Analysis Of Article 34 Vis-A Vis Armed
Forces(Special Power Act),1958. Retrieved From
Https://Www.Academia.Edu/33135157/Undeclared_Martial_Law_In_India_An_Analytical_Analysis_Of_
Article_34_Vis-%C3%80-Vis_Armed_Forces_Special_Power_Act_1958
Ballantine, H. (1915). Qualified Martial Law, a Legislative Proposal. I. Michigan Law Review, 14(2), 102-118.
doi:10.2307/1275244
Bigornia, A. (1994). Habeas Corpus--Fifth Amendment--The Supreme Court's Cost-Benefit Analysis of Federal
Habeas Review of Alleged Miranda Violations [Ebook] (p. 916). Retrieved from
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6797&context=jclc
Lederer, F. (1977). Miranda v. Arizona: The Law Today [Ebook] (p. 107). Faculty Publications. Retrieved from
scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/
&httpsredir=1&article=2404&context=facpubs
PARKER, J. (1861). HABEAS CORPUS, AND MARTIAL LAW [Ebook] (p. 5). Retrieved from
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/Lieber_Collection/pdf/Habeas-Corpus.pdf
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES – ARTICLE III | GOVPH. (2019).
Retrieved from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/constitutions/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-
philippines/the-1987-constitution-of-the-republic-of-the-philippines-article-iii/
Fox Jr., W. (1979). The "Presumption of Innocence" as Constitutional Doctrine[Ebook] (p. 253). Catholic
University Law Review. Retrieved from
http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a622/16f2982f73a3756d59a3c436056c2b886956.pdf
Geng, G. (2018). The right to a Fair Trial: A Critical Study of South Sudan Criminal Justice System. Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329075912_The_Right_to_a_Fair_Trial_A_Critical_Study_of_
South_Sudan_Criminal_Justice_System

Supreme Court of Philippines
Svensson, E., Kenyon, A., & Edström, M. (2016). BLURRING THE LINES [Ebook] (p. 9). Nordicom University of
Gothenburg. Retrieved from http://www.nordicom.gu.se/sites/default/files/publikationer-hela-pdf/
blurring_the_lines.pdf
Article 10: Freedom of expression | Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression