Right to speedy disposition

The constitutional right to a "speedy disposition of cases" is not limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all
proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a
case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
However, the right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated
only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and secured, or even without cause or justifiable
motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried. Equally
applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a defendant has been denied his right to a
speedy trial, or a speedy disposition of a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the
prosecution and the defendant is weighed, and such factors as the length of the delay, the reasons for
such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the
delay. The concept of speedy disposition is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.

Even if the Court was to consider the period provided under Section 15(1), Article III of the 1987
Constitution, which is 12 months from the submission of the case for decision, the would still have
miserably failed to perform its mandated duty to render a decision on the case within the period
prescribed by law. Clearly then, the decision in this case is long overdue, and the period to decide the
case under the law has long expired. Even more important than the above periods within which the
decision should have been rendered is the right against an unreasonable delay in the disposition of one's
case before any judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body. This constitutionally guaranteed right
finds greater significance in a criminal case before a court of justice, where any delay in disposition may
result in a denial of justice for the accused altogether. Indeed, the aphorism "justice delayed is justice
denied" is by no means a trivial or meaningless concept that can be taken for granted by those who are
tasked with the dispensation of justice.

In order to justify the dismissal of a criminal case, it must be established that the proceedings have
unquestionably been marred by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays

The inordinate and unreasonable delay is completely attributable to the Sandiganbayan. No fault
whatsoever can be ascribed to Abelardo or his lawyer. It is now time to enforce his constitutional right
to speedy disposition and to grant him speedy justice.

DEBT

Lonzano v Martinez
The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order.
It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes, nor is it intended or designed to
coerce a debtor to pay his debt. Although the effect of the law may be to coerce payment of an
obligation, it is intended to banish a practice (i.e. the issuance of worthless checks) considered harmful
to public welfare.

Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to civil debt or one not arising from a criminal offense. It means
any liability to pay arising out of a contract, express or implied.
Clearly, the payment of rentals is covered by the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment.
TRAVEL AND ABODE

Freedom to travel is the one most cherished.

A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a
necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond.

Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of
a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance
may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.

was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines, because, otherwise, said
orders and processes will be nugatory, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they
issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said
jurisdiction."

Placed beyond the reach of the courts

The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or filed of record, and the prisoner
released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in
their charge to keepers of his own selection.

Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment.

MARCOS v MANGLAPUS
The individual right involved is not the right to travel from the Philippines to other countries or within
the Philippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the right
involved is the right to return to one's country, a totally distinct right under international law,
independent from although related to the right to travel

The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights,
which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but the right to return may be
considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of
the law of the land.

On the other hand, the Constitution declares among the guiding principles that "the prime duty of the
Government is to serve and protect the people" and that "the maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the
enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy." Admittedly, service and protection of the
people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the
promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. Thus, in the
exercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing
action for these plans, or from another point of view, in making any decision as President of the
Republic, the President has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them.

Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise of
the police power which extends to the preservation of the public health. It was placed on the statute
books in recognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of
leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is
commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and
excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread
of the disease is supported by high scientific authority

Although the right to return to one’s country is not among the rights expressly mentioned in the Bill
of Rights, it is nonetheless recognized and protected in the Philippines. It is a generally accepted
principle of international law, and as such it is part of the law of the land, pursuant to the doctrine of
incorporation. It is different from the right to travel and is guaranteed under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

FREEDOM OF INFO

Baldoza v Dimaano

However, restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law. Thus, access restrictions
imposed to control civil insurrection have been permitted upon a showing of immediate and impending
danger that renders ordinary means of control inadequate to maintain order.

that although court records are among public documents open to inspection not only by the parties
directly involved but also by other persons who have legitimate interest to such inspection, yet the same
is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be inspected. He
further asserted that a court has unquestionably the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of
its records and the furnishing of copies therefrom may be refused where the person requesting is not
motivated by a serious and legitimate interest but acts out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to
gratify private spite or to promote public scandal.

this certainly applies to, among others, and indeed especially, the legislative enactments of the
government. The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for
strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to them
directly

The subject of such law is a matter of public interest which any member of the body politic may
question in the political forums or, if he is a proper party, even in the courts of justice.

In fact, a law without any bearing on the public would be invalid as an intrusion of privacy or as class
legislation or as an ultra vires act of the legislature. To be valid, the law must invariably affect the public
interest even if it might be directly applicable only to one individual, or some of the people only, and not
to the public as a whole.

The publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the
contents of the laws.
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." An informed citizenry with
access to the diverse currents in political, moral and artistic thought and data relative to them, and the
free exchange of ideas and discussion of issues thereon, is vital to
the democratic government envisioned under our Constitution.
In this system, governmental agencies and institutions operate within the limits of the authority
conferred by the people. Denied access to information on the inner workings of government, the
citizenry can become prey to the whims and caprices of those to whom the power had been delegated

The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public disclosure and
honesty in the public service. It is meant to enhance the widening role of the citizenry in governmental
decision-making as well in checking abuse in government. Yet, like all the constitutional guarantees, the
right to information is not absolute. As stated in Legaspi, The people's right to information is limited to
"matters of public concern", and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law."
Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions involving public interest", and is
"subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law." Hence, before mandamus may issue, it must be
clear that the information sought is of "public interest" or "public concern", and is not exempted by law
from the operation of the constitutional guarantee.

In sum, the public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public office held by the alleged
borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter of public interest and concern. However, a
second requisite must be met before the right to information may be enforced through mandamus
proceedings, viz., that the information sought must not be among those excluded by law. On this
matter, Belmonte has failed to cite any law granting the GSIS the privilege of confidentiality as regards
the documents subject of the petition. His position is apparently based merely on considerations of
policy. The judiciary does not settle policy issues. The Court can only declare what the law is, and not
what the law should be. Under our system of government, policy issues are within the domain of the
political branches of the government, and of the people themselves as the repository of all State power.
Although it may be true that when the information requested from the government intrudes into the
privacy of a citizen, a potential conflict between the rights to information and to privacy may arise. Such
competing interests of these rights need not be resolved in the present case. The right to privacy
belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to public and governmental agencies like the
GSIS. Moreover, the right cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS. Thus, neither can the GSIS
through its General Manager, Belmonte, invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The right is purely
personal in nature, and hence may be invoked only by the person whose privacy is claimed to be
violated. It may be observed, however, the concerned borrowers themselves may not succeed if they
choose to invoke their right to privacy, considering the public offices they were holding at the time the
loans were alleged to have been granted. It cannot be denied that because of the interest they generate
and their newsworthiness, public figures, most especially those holding responsible positions in
government, enjoy a more limited right to privacy as compared to ordinary individuals, their actions
being subject to closer public scrutiny. In fine, Valmonte, et. al. are entitled to access to the documents
evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable regulations that the latter may promulgate
relating to the manner and hours of examination, to the end that damage to or loss of the records may
be avoided, that undue interference with the duties of the custodian of the records may be prevented
and that the right of other persons entitled to inspect the records may be insured.

CIVIL SERVICE RECORDS

The right to information does not open every door to any and all information. Under the Constitution,
access to official records, papers, etc., are "subject to limitations as may be provided by law." The law
may therefore exempt certain types of information from public scrutiny, such as those affecting national
security. It follows that, in every case, the availability of access to a particular public record must be
circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e., (a) being of public concern or one that
involves public interest, and, (b) not being exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional
guarantee. The threshold question is, therefore, whether or not the information sought is of public
interest or public concern.

"Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable

Public office being a public trust, it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government
positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by persons who are eligibles.

On the other hand, on whether the information sought is among the species exempted by law from the
operation of the constitutional guarantee, the Civil Service Commission has failed to cite any provision in
the Civil Service Law which would limit Legaspi's right to know who are, and who are not, civil service
eligibles.

The Court take judicial notice of the fact that the names of those who pass the civil service
examinations, as in bar examinations and licensure examinations for various professions, are released to
the public. Hence, there is nothing secret about one's civil service eligibility, if actually possessed.

The civil service eligibility of a sanitarian being of public concern, and in the absence of express
limitations under the law upon access to the register of civil service eligibles for said position, the duty of
the Commission to confirm or deny the civil service eligibility of any person occupying the position
becomes imperative.

HABEAS CORPUS
Determination of grounds
Sedition inclusion, deemed a mistake or surplusage that does not taint the decree as a whole.

ILAGAN CASE
As contended by respondents, the petition herein has been rendered moot and academic by virtue
of the filing of an Information against them for Rebellion, a capital offense, before the Regional Trial
Court of Davao City and the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against them. 3 The function of the
special proceeding of habeas corpus is to inquire into the legality of one's detention. Now that the
detained attorneys' incarceration is by virtue of a judicial order in relation to criminal cases
subsequently filed against them before the Regional Trial Couravao City, the remedy of habeas
corpus no longer lies. The Writ had served its purpose.
Barcelon vs. Baker (5 Phil., 87, pp. 98 and 100) the authority to decide whenever the exigency has
arisen requiring the suspension belongs to the President and "his decision is final and conclusive"
upon the courts and upon all other persons.

whereas the Executive branch of the Government is enabled thru its civil and military branches to
obtain information about peace and order from every quarter and corner of the nation, the judicial
department, with its very limited machinery can not be in better position to ascertain or evaluate the
conditions prevailing in the Archipelago.

After this motion for a reconsideration of the amendment was approved, Delegate Orense spoke
against the amendment alleging that it would be dangerous to make imminent danger a ground for
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. In part, he said:

"Gentlemen, this phrase is too ambigous, and in the hands of a President who believes himself more
or less a dictator, it is extremely dangerous, it would be a sword with which he would behead us.".

Article VII of the Constitution vests in the Executive the power to suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus under specified conditions. Pursuant to the principle of separation of powers
underlying our system of government, the Executive is supreme within his own sphere. However, the
separation of powers, under the Constitution, is not absolute. What is more, it goes hand in hand
with the system of checks and balances, under which the Executive is supreme, as regards the
suspension of the privilege, but only if and when he acts within the sphere allotted to him by the
Basic Law, and the authority to determine whether or not he has so acted is vested in the Judicial
Department, which, in this respect, is, in turn, constitutionally supreme.

In the exercise of such authority, the function of the Court is merely to check — not to supplant 22 —
the Executive, or to ascertain merely whether he had gone beyond the constitutional limits of his
jurisdiction, not to exercise the power vested in him or to determine the wisdom of his act. To be
sure, the power of the Court to determine the validity of the contested proclamation is far from being
identical to, or even comparable with, its power over ordinary civil or criminal cases elevated thereto
by ordinary appeal from inferior courts, in which cases the appellate court has all of the powers of
the court of origin.

However, given the immense power that martial law can give the President,
the Constitution ensures the implementation of appropriate checks and
balances. Power is normally spread across various institutions so that
functions can be discharged efficiently and authority is not concentrated in a
single entity.

SUFFICIENCY TEST
The court’s constitutional duty is only to review the sufficiency of the facts used as basis of
proclaiming martial law. But, what constitutes sufficient factual basis? The decision states,
“…the parameters for determining the sufficiency of factual basis are as follows: l) actual
rebellion or invasion; 2) public safety requires it; the first two requirements must concur;
and 3) there is probable cause for the President to believe that there is actual
rebellion or invasion” (See page 51, emphasis supplied).

…the purpose of judicial review is not the determination of accuracy or veracity of facts
upon which the President anchored his declaration… rather, only the sufficiency of the
factual basis as to convince the President that there is probable cause that rebellion
exists…”

Found in: proclamation itself and written report submitted to Congress

Courts should look into the full complement or totality of the factual basis and not
piecemeal or individually. Neither should the court expect absolute correctness of the facts
stated in the proclamation and in the report for the president could ot be expected to verify
the accuracy and veracity of all facts reported to him due to the exigency of the situation.

“defeats the purpose of the grant of emergency powers to him by the time he is already
satisfied wotht he correctness of the facts in his possession, it would be too late for the
rebellion or invasion could already have escalated to alevel which is impossible to curtail

GALMAN V SANDIGANBAYAN

Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law.

The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as mere tools of
injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth. More so, in the case at
bar where the people and the world are entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our
judicial system is at stake.

There was no double jeopardy. Courts' Resolution of acquittal was a void judgment for
having been issued without jurisdiction. No double jeopardy attaches, therefore. A void
judgment is, in legal effect, no judgment at all. By it no rights are divested. It neither binds
nor bars anyone. All acts and all claims flowing out of it are void.

The People are entitled to due process which requires an impartial tribunal and an unbiased
prosecutor. If the State is deprived of a fair opportunity to prosecute and convict because certain
material evidence is suppressed by the prosecution and the tribunal is not impartial, then the entire
proceedings would be null and void.

-It is settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be invoked against this Court's setting aside of the
trial courts' judgment of dismissal or acquittal where the prosecution which represents the sovereign
people in criminal cases is denied due process

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation

of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted of their jurisdiction.
Where the denial of the fundamental right of due process is apparent, a decision rendered in
disregard of that right is void for lack of jurisdiction

Manifestly, the prosecution and the sovereign people were denied due process of law with a partial court
and biased Tanodbayan under the constant and pervasive monitoring and pressure exerted by the
authoritarian President to assure the carrying out of his instructions.

"Private respondent invoke 'justice for the innocent'. For justice to prevail the scales must balance. It
is not to be dispensed for the accused alone. The interests of the society, which they have wronged
must also be equally considered. A judgment of conviction is not necessarily a denial of justice. A
verdict of acquittal neither necessarily spells a triumph of justice. To the party wronged, to the
society offended, it could also mean injustice. This is where the Courts play a vital role. They render
justice where justice is due.

Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan committed serious irregularities constituting mistrial and resulting
in miscarriage of justice and gross violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioners and the
sovereign people of the Philippines to due process of law. They asserted that the Tanodbayan did
not represent the interest of the people when he failed to exert genuine and earnest efforts

Social justice v dangerous drugs – drug testing for criminals – right against self-incrimination

In sum, what can reasonably be deduced from the above two cases and applied to this
jurisdiction are: (1) schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to
their students; (2) minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are
subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schools; (3) schools,
acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of their students
and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and
(4) schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair,
just, and non-discriminatory.
Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, the Court is of the view and so holds that the
provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug testing of
students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to
require, as a condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and
regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair,
reasonable, and equitable requirements.

Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of privacy on the
part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search(measure
to stamp out illegal drug in the country and thus protect the well-being of the citizens,
especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs), and the well-defined
limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing,
we hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context of the case,
reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.
 1. Yes, proposal which is one of the steps involved in the amendment or revision of our
Constituion, is usually made either directly by the Congress, acting as a constituent
assembly, or by a constitutional convention pursuant to Sec 1 Art XVII wherein it
provides that any amendment to………

This section of said article is in line with the republican nature of our government.

Where what is inteneded is a mere amendment or change of aprticular porivsions only,

the proposal is better made by direct legislative action. This method will avoid the
unnecessary expenditure of public funds and time that a constitutional convention will
entail.

But if what is enviosioned is the overhaul of the entire conti, it is advisable to entrust
the task to a consti convention, which will have more time, opportunity and presumably
expertise to discharge it.

Nevertheless, the choice of the method of proposal lies in the discretion of the
legislature.

2. Sec 2 Art III.. The right of the people,

The two-witness rule or the witness-to-search rule governing the execution of search warrant
was not complied with, which rule is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the
search warrant such as the protection of suspects and also against…

Certain abuses in the execution thereof such as expanding the search to things or searching
places not within the permissible area as specified in the warrant itself.

The two-witness rule under Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. ─

No search of a house, room or any other premise shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality.

As the two-witness rule was not complied with, the objects seized during the search are
inadmissible in evidence in relation to the fruit of the posinous tree doctrines.
Sec. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A search warrant shall not issue except upon
probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which
may be anywhere in the Philippines.

3. Sec 4 ART III NO law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, expression, or of
the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress or grievances.

The right of peaceful assemblage is not subject to prior restraint. In an assembly in

private parties, only the consent of the owner thereof is required while before one can
use a public place, one must first obtain a prior permut from proper authorities.

This right, however, must be exercised in such a way as will not prejudice the public
welfare because at any rate, the right of peaceful assemblage is not an absolute one.

. . . when the intention and effect of the act is seditious, the constitutional guaranties of
freedom of speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield to punitive
measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority, the supremacy of
the constitution and the laws, and the existence of the State.

Tests:

Purpose test – looks intothe purpose of the assembly regardless of its backers
Auspices test – looks into the backers/supporters under which it was organized i.e found
to be an illegal association as held in Evangelista v Earshaw..

4. Yes under 1935 and no under 1987.

Under Sec 11 (2) of the 1935, the Pres being the commander in chief may suspend the
privilege of the writ and declare the philippines or any part therof under martial law “to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or imminent
danger therof, when the public safety requires it.

However, there is a clear change limiting the reasons the President can declare martial
law when the framers of the 1987 Constitution eliminated insurrection, and the phrase
 "imminent danger' as grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or declaration of martial law.119 They perceived the phrase "imminent danger" to
be "fraught with possibilities of abuse;"120 besides, the calling out power of the
President "is sufficient for handling imminent danger.

So the present Consitution now reads Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is
clear that the extraordinary powers of suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus and/or declaring martial law must be founded on two factual bases: (1) the
existence of actual rebellion or invasion; and (2) public safety requires the declaration of
martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ to suppress rebellion or invasion.

Moreover, the Constitution imposed the following limits in the exercise of these
powers: "(1) a time limit of sixty days; (2) review and possible revocation by Congress;
[and] (3) review and possible nullification by the Supreme Court."118

Thereofre, Martial law is a measure employable only when there is actual rebellion or
invasion, and only when public safety requires the imposition of martial law. Otherwise, the
President cannot broaden its use to solve other social ills. It is important to explain that
martial law is not, under our Constitution, justifiable by the presence of violence alone.

To construe otherwise is to validate martial law in any place where there is mere presence,
actual or potential, of rebel forces or their supporters. It is to allow a limitless exercise of the
President's power under Section 18, Article VII since there have always been rebellion in parts
of the country from the 1920's.

Sec. 11. (1) Art VII 1935

(2) The President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Philippines, and,
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the
public safety requires it, he may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.

Not only does the 1987 Constitution limit the reasons the President can declare martial law, it
takes away any arbitrariness to how those conditions can be interpreted or determined. In
other words, only when it has been unequivocally established that the country is being invaded
or that a rebellion taking place can martial law be legally proclaimed.

Expresssio unius est exclusion alterius what is not included is deemed excluded
 5. Since he is born of an alien and Filipino parent, he is therefore a Filipino citizen under
the jus sanguinis and also an chuchu citizen under the jus soli and as such, is ipso facto
and without a voluntary act on his part, posseses dual citizenship.

However, the Supreme Court stressed thaht the consituttional policy embodied in Sec 5
Art IV” Dual allegiance is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
“ is not against dual citizenship but dual loyalty or allegiance.

It is not dual citizenship per se that is prohibited but dual allegiance which refers to the
situation where a peson simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or
more states.

Dual allegiance is larger and more threatening than that of mere double citizenship
which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, never insidious. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of one’s own volition.
That is often a function of the accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil

Moreover, Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9225, the framers were not concerned with dual
citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain their
allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification.

6. Power of the state to forcibly acquire private property, upon just compensation, for
some intended public use.

Although anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to
exproporiation, including real, personal, tangible and intangible properties, money and
choses in action are an exception. Expropriation of money would be futile act because
the requirement of just compensation usually is also in money.

Services on the other hand, are embraced in the concept of property subject to taking
under the power of eminent domain, as held in the novel case of Republic of the Phil v
PLDT.

7.

Right to be present, inasmuch as it is a right, may be waived by the accused. An example of a

valid waiver of the right to be present is the so-called trial in absentia. Even in the absence of
the accused, trial may still proceed (trial in absentia) if after his arraignment and notification of
the date of the hearing, he still unjustifiably failed to appear. The effect of the waiver is that the
accused will no longer have the right to present evidence and confront the witnesses.

When Right not Waivable. It must be noted that the presence of the accused becomes a duty
and is mandatory, and therefore not waivable, in the following:

In all these instances, the accused must appear because his non-appearance may either
prejudice his rights or that of the State.

8.

Sec 20 Art III provides that no person shall be imprisoned for non payment of debt or poll
tax.

Debt, as used in this provision, refers to any civil obligation arising from contract, whether
express or implied. As long as the obligation to pay arises ex contractu, it is considered a
private matter between that of the creditor and debtor and the punitive arm of the State
cannot be employed in a criminal action to enforce the former’s right.

However, since tax is not a debt but arises from the obligation of a person to contribute his
share in the maintenance of the government, failure to pay the same can be validly
punished with imprisonment.

-The only exception to this is the failure to pay a poll tax defined as the specific fixed sum
levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or
occupation. This exception is adopted pursuant to social justice policy, which reflects the
tender regard of the law for the millions of our impoverished masses who cannot afford
even to pay the nominal cost of a poll tax.