UNIVERSITY OF ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

School of Law and Governance

Institute of Law
Pasig City, Metro Manila

ONLINE COURTS
A Comprehensive Study on Videoconferencing Hearings in Realizing Criminal Due Process,
Free Access to Justice and the Speedy Disposition of Cases

Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements of

Special Issues in International Law

Submitted to
Prof. Gembeth

Ma. Thelma Francesca T. Manotok

May 23, 2020
 I. INTRODUCTION
The 1987 Constitution states the judicial power to “promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the
practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.” 1 It provides for the limited
rule-making power of the judiciary. The judiciary may make the rules on pleading, practice and procedure
in courts. Such rules involve court procedure. Inherent in the power to make rules is the power to set aside.
The Supreme Court may set aside procedural rules provided in the Rules of Court in favor of substantial
matters. In the same provision, the judiciary is mandated to promulgate a “simplified and inexpensive
procedure for the speedy disposition of cases.” Unlike previous constitutions, the 1987 Constitution
omitted the power of the legislative to interfere with the rules created by the Supreme Court. The omission
preserves the separation of powers and judicial independence. Congress may not interfere in rules passed
down by the judiciary for pleading, practice, procedure and the admission to the practice of law. In Re
Cunanan, legislation passed by Congress was declared void because it interfered with the exclusive right of
the judiciary to make rules governing the admission to the bar. 2

On March 8, 2020, President Rodrigo Duterte declared a State of Public Health Emergency
throughout the Philippines due to coronavirus disease (pandemic). 3 The country, for the very first time,
was placed under an enhanced community quarantine (ECQ) – people stayed home; schools, offices and
malls closed and roads blocked. The population continues to adjust to the various changes occurring as a
result of the pandemic. The Supreme Court is no different. On April 27, 2020, the Supreme Court
authorized the pilot-testing of videoconferencing hearings on “urgent matters in criminal cases involving
Persons Deprived of Liberty during the period of public health emergency” in identified courts. 4 On May
14, 2020, the Court extended the coverage of videoconferencing hearings to include “all matters pending
before them, in both criminal and civil cases, whether newly-filed or pending, and regardless of the stage of
trial.”5 On May 18, 2020, the Court authorized more courts across the country to conduct hearings through
videoconferencing, during the public health emergency to prevent the delay of court action on pending
cases.6

The Philippine Judiciary is not the only one to make the move to hearings through
videoconferencing tools. Many countries have taken measures to create online courts for their citizens. The
pandemic especially has hastened the shift to a more online administration of justice by utilizing audio or
video conference tools and technology. In the United Kingdom, the civil courts allow remote hearings using
Skype for Business, Justice Video Service and BT Meet Me as provided under its Protocol Regarding Remote
Hearings7 and provide live links for public participation. 8 In the United States of America, the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act authorized the use of videoconferencing in listed judicial matters.
The US Supreme Court shall be conducting virtual hearing of a number of previously postponed cases in its

1
1987 Const, Article VIII, Sec 5, par 5
2
IN RE CUNANAN, 94 PHIL. 534
3
Proclamation No. 922, S. March 8, 2020, Declaring A State of Public Health Emergency Throughout the Philippines
(President of the Philippines)
4
Administrative Circular No. 37-2020.
5
Administrative Circular No. 39-2020
6
OCA Circular No. 96-2020. May 18, 2020.
7
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/bbfeb594/covid-19-and-the-global-approach-to-
further-court-proceedings-hearings accessed May 20, 2020
8
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=f9951779-4da4-4d06-86b9-857ebb119432 accessed May 1, 2020.
May session.9 In Singapore, national courts have already been practicing remote hearings upon application
of the lawyer. The response of Singapore courts to the pandemic is “an extension of the pre-existing use of
attendance by video link prior to COVID-19.”

Given the current situation of the Philippines and the pandemic, it is appropriate to look at the
method of hearings through videoconferencing in the lens of the 1987 Constitution with respect to the
rights of the people to criminal due process, free access to courts and speedy disposition of cases.

II. SC ISSUANCES ON REMOTE HEARINGS

Pursuant to the State policy to protect and promote the right to health of the people under Section
15, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, President Rodrigo Duterte placed the entire Luzon under
Enhanced Community Quarantine until April 12, 2020. 10 On April 30, 2020, the Office of the Executive
Secretary issued E.O. No. 112, imposing an enhanced community quarantine in the entire areas of NCR,
Central Luzon, CALABARZON, Benguet Province, Pangasinan Province, Iloilo Province, Cebu Province,
Bacolod City and Davao City and a general community quarantine in all other areas of Luzon, Visayan and
Mindanao which shall take effect on May 1, 2020 and cease on May 15, 2020. 11

On April 27, 2020, Administrative Circular No. 37-2020 was addressed to all litigants, judges and
court personnel of the first and second level courts, and members of the Bar regarding pilot testing of
hearings of criminal cases involving persons deprived of liberty through videoconferencing. Taking into
consideration the following circumstances on “the extension of the Enhanced Community Quarantine and
the imposition of the General Community Quarantine in different provinces and cities in the country, and
the reported infection of some Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDL) to Covid-19 in different detention
facilities,”12 the Supreme Court took cognizance of the fact that there is a “serious need to further restrain
the movement and travel of court users, PDLs, judges, and court personnel to further reduce the spread of
the dreaded infectious disease.”13 The Supreme Court adopted a number of directives:

1. The hearings on urgent matters in criminal cases involving PDLs through

videoconferencing shall be pilot tested during this period of public health
emergency in the following authorized court stations identified by the Office of
the Court Administrator:
xxx
2. The hearings through videoconferencing shall cover all PDLs and many apply to
all stages of trial of newly-filed and pending criminal cases, including but not
limited to arraignment, pre-trial, bail hearings, trial proper and promulgation of
judgment.
9
https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/bbfeb594/covid-19-and-the-global-approach-to-
further-court-proceedings-hearings accessed on May 20, 2020.
10
Proclamation No. 929. By the President of the Philippines. Declaring a State of Calamity Throughout the Philippines
Due to Corona Virus Disease 2019. Issued March 16, 2020. Uploaded in Official Gazette on March 17, 2020.
11
Executive Order No. 112. Imposing an Enhanced Community Quarantine in High-Risk Geographic Areas of the
Philippines and a General Community Quarantine in the Rest of the Country from 01 to 15 May 2020, Adopting the
Omnibus Guidelines on the Implementation thereof, and for Other Purposes. By the President of the Philippines.
Approved during 30th Inter-Agency Task Force Meeting held this 29th of April 2020 via video conference. Uploaded
April 29, 2020 in the Official Gazette
12
Administrative Circular No. 37-2020, April 27, 2020, Pilot Testing of Hearings of Criminal Cases involving Persons
Deprived of Liberty through Videoconferencing, Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila
13
Administrative Circular No. 37-2020
 3. The courts shall ensure at all times that all constitutional rights of the accused
are protected and observed, including “the rights of the accused to be present
and defend in person at every stage of the proceedings, to testify as a witness in
his or her own behalf, and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against
him or her at trial,” which the Court en banc, in its Resolution in A.M. No. 19-05-
05-SC, dated 25 June 2019, said “are deemed satisfied when such appearance
and testimony are made remotely through videoconferencing…”
4. Considering that the remote locations of the participants are extensions of the
court, the in-person appearances, testimonies and experiences of the litigants
and parties in courts shall always be closely resembled in the remote
appearances and testimonies of the litigants and parties in the videoconference
proceedings. In the same manner, the dignity and solemnity of in-court
proceedings shall at all times be mirrored in videoconference proceedings.
5. For this purpose, the abovementioned authorized courts shall each be provided
with Microsoft Office 365 E1 licenses which have, among others, the Outlook
application for their official email accounts and the Teams application to host
the videoconference proceedings. No other platforms shall be used for the
videoconference proceedings, and neither shall the courts use a different email
address aside from the authorized account officially provided.
6. It is clearly understood that these hearings in criminal cases through
videoconferencing are only for pilot testing, and shall apply only during this
public health emergency period.
7. The Office of the Court Administrator shall immediately issue the necessary
directives and take the requisite steps to implement this pilot testing of hearings
in criminal cases through videoconferencing, and thereafter submit a report to
the Court within six months from the implementation of this Administrative
Circular or immediately after the end of this public health emergency period,
whichever is earlier. [emphasis supplied]. 14

The hearings through videoconferencing shall be pilot tested in all court stations in National Capital
Region and other selected parts of Luzon. They shall apply to all stages of trial. During these proceedings,
the constitutional rights of the accused must continue to be protected and observed. Even though the
means in which the hearings are conducted is different, the dignity and solemnity of in-court proceedings
are obeyed. The videoconference proceedings are conducted using the specific platform provided to the
courts and no other. The hearings in criminal cases through videoconferencing apply only for pilot testing
and duration of which is the period of public health emergency period. The Office of the Court
Administrator shall issue the necessary directive for the implementation of the pilot testing of hearings in
criminal cases through videoconferencing.

During its meeting held on May 11, 2020, the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of
Emerging Infectious Diseases placed NCR, Laguna Province and Cebu City under Modified Enhanced
Community Quarantine (MECQ) until May 31, 2020. 15 Under Administrative Circular No. 39-2020 16 issued
on May 14, 2020 by Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta was addressed to all litigants, judges and court

14
Administrative Circular No. 37-2020
15
Resolution No. 35, Series of 2020, dated May 11, 2020.
personnel of the judiciary and members of the Bar. It discussed the matters involving the modified
enhanced community quarantine in certain areas until May 31, 2020.

Under Administrative Circular No. 39-2020, petitions and pleadings are filed electronically and in
accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 and process same following the internal rules of the courts:

1. All the courts in the areas under MECQ shall remain physically closed to all court
users until May 31, 2020 and may be initially reached only through their respective
hotline numbers, email addresses and/or Facebook accounts as posted on the
website of the Supreme Court. All inquiries on cases or transactions, including
requests for documents and services, shall be coursed and acted upon only through
the said numbers, addresses and accounts of the concerned court, or through the
Judiciary Public Assistance Section of the Supreme Court in accordance with A.C. 28-
2020. No walk-in requests shall be entertained in any of the offices of the courts in
the said areas.

2. While all the courts in areas under MECQ shall remain physically closed to all court
users, these courts shall continue to operate from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday to
Friday until 29 May 2020. All electronic communications, however, must be
transmitted to and received by these courts from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for these
transmissions to be acted upon on the same day. 17 [emphasis supplied]

The circular provided that all the courts under the MECQ shall remain physically closed. The raffle
of the cases shall proceed electronically or through videoconferencing. Although physically closed to court
users, the court shall operate from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, until May 29, 2020. The
electronic communications must be transmitted to and received by the courts from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
if these transmissions are to be acted upon on the same day. The filing of pleadings and other submissions
due up to May 31, 2020 have been extended for 30 calendar days. The reglementary period on or before
May 31, 2020 is also extended for 30 calendar days from June 1, 2020. Pleadings and other court
submissions may still be filed through electronic means. The Supreme Court continues to receive petitions
and pleadings electronically. The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals may also
receive petitions and pleadings electronically. The Regional Trial Courts, Family Courts and First Level
Courts may receive initiatory pleadings, in both civil and criminal cases, with all required documents
through the respective official email addresses. The pleadings and other court submissions may be
electronically filed directly with the branch where the case is pending or filed electronically with the Office
of Clerk of Court, who shall forward the transmissions to branches where the case is pending.
The Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals as well as Regional Trail Courts,
Family Courts and First Level Courts shall adopt procedures provided in paragraphs 17 and 18, in so far as
applicable:

17. All courts initially authorized to hear through videoconferencing only urgent
matters in criminal cases involving Persons Deprive of Liberty are now herein
authorized to hear through videoconferencing all matters pending before them, in
both criminal and civil cases, whether newly-filed or pleading, and regardless of the

16
Administrative Circular No. 39-2020. May 14, 2020. the modified enhanced community quarantine in certain areas
until May 31, 2020
17
Administrative Circular No. 39-2020
 stage of trial. The videoconferencing hearings in both criminal and civil cases shall be
upon joint motion of the parties, or upon orders of the court, which shall schedule the
said videoconferencing hearings.

Under exceptional circumstances, in-court hearings may likewise be conducted by

courts authorized to conduct hearings through videoconferencing. For courts which
are not authorized to conduct hearings through videoconferencing, in-court hearings
conducted by the presiding judge, assisted by the skeleton-staff, shall be limited to
urgent matters and other concerns to expedite the proceedings, both in criminal and
civil cases. The judges shall see to it that the counsels and parties are duly notified of
the in-court hearings to ensure their attendance.

In all in-court hearings, health hygiene protocols and other public medical standards,
e.g., wearing of face masks and face shields, subjecting everyone to no-contact
thermal scanning, observance of social distancing shall be strictly observed.

18. The taking of the testimony of a witness in a place other than where the court is,
through videoconferencing, is akin to the taking of a deposition upon oral
examination, pursuant to Sec. 1, Rule 23, as amended, and shall be allowed. If the
witness will be testifying on (i) duly subscribed written statements given to law
enforcement or peace officers, or (ii) affidavits or counter-affidavits submitted before
the investigating prosecutor, or (iii) judicial affidavits, subject to additional direct and
cross-examination questions, the said documents and affidavits must be received by
the court and the parties through electronic transmission in accordance with the
Rules on Electronic Evidence, at least three (3) days prior to the scheduled
videoconferencing hearing.18 [emphasis supplied]

Under Administrative Circular No. 39-2020, the courts are authorized to hear through videoconferencing all
matters pending before them in both criminal and civil cases. They are no longer limited to hearing
through videoconferencing all matters pending before them. These videoconferencing hearings shall be
upon joint motion of the parties, or upon orders of the court. The court shall schedule the
videoconferencing hearings. The in-court hearings may be conducted by courts, authorized to conduct
hearings through videoconferencing, only under exceptional circumstances. The members of the Bench
shall continue to draft decisions and orders which may be promulgated or issued once the courts are fully
operational except decisions and orders or urgent matters which shall be promulgated during the MECQ
period.

The Office of the Chief Justice directed all judges and court personnel of the first and second level courts,
and officials to attend a webinar, called “The New Normal: Cybersecurity in a Covid-free, Malware-free
Judiciary,” in collaboration with TrendMicro, conducted on May 12, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. TrendMicro is an
enterprise cybersecurity solutions that works with Interpol and other law enforcement authorities across
the world. The distribution of Philippine Judiciary 365 platform serves to enable Philippine courts to receive
pleadings electronically and allow videoconferencing hearings. The attendance of judges, branch clerks of
court and stenographers was mandatory, while other court officials and personnel were encouraged to
attend.

18
Administrative Circular No. 39-2020
GUIDELINES ON USE OF VIDEOCONFERENCING TECHNOLOGY
The Supreme Court approved the videoconferencing technology guidelines for inmates, effective
September 1, 2019 following its publication. A.M. No. 19-05-05 or the proposed “Guidelines on the Use of
Videoconferencing Technology for the Remote Appearance or Testimony of Certain Persons Deprived of
Liberty in Jails and National Penitentiaries” was drafted by a Special Committee headed by Associate Justice
now Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta. The purpose of the Guidelines is “to guarantee and preserve the
constitutional rights of the accused in court proceedings who are persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) being
detained in a district, city or provincial jail or a national inmate committed in a national penitentiary.” A
person deprived of Liberty include detainees, inmates or prisoners. 19 In using videoconferencing
technology, the Court aims to prevent any risk brought about by PDL with highly contagious diseases. The
Guidelines shall be pilot tested for a period of two years in (1) Davao City Hall of Justice and Davao City Jail,
(2) Davao City Hall of Justice and the Special Intensive Care Area, Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan and (3)
Davao City Hall of Justice and the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City. 20

The A.M. No. 19-05-05-SC applies to the remote appearance and testimony in court proceedings of the
following:

1. A person deprived of liberty (PDL) detained in a district, city or provincial jail who
–
a. Is considered under these guidelines to be a high-risk or seriously-ill;
b. Voluntarily consents to appear remotely in court proceedings via
videoconferencing, regardless of the crime he or she is charged with.
2. A national inmate committed in a national penitentiary by virtue of a previous
conviction whose appearance or attendance is required on other judicial
proceedings, whether as an accused or a witness, provided that in the case of an
accused national inmate, he or she did not waive his or her right to be present at
any stage of the trial.21

A high-risk PDL are persons charged for violating (1) R.A. 9372, or the Human Security Act, or any other law
penalizing terrorism or (2) Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and
other Crimes Against Humanity or R.A. 9851; or upon ex parte motion of jail warden and determined by the
court to be a high value target which includes suspected members of terrorist groups and drug and other
organized crime syndicates.22 A seriously-ill PDL are persons diagnosed with serious or grave medical
condition; thus, preventing them from being transported to court. 23 Persons diagnosed with a highly
contagious disease, as certified by a court-approved physician, are included. A national inmate refers to
those PDL sentenced to imprisonment for a term that exceeds three years and committed in a national
penitentiary.

Under A.M. No. 19-05-SC, videoconferencing is defined as:

19
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, III. Definition of Terms, no. 4
20
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, VI. Pilot Testing
21
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, Guidelines on the Use of Videoconferencing Technology for the Remote Appearance and
Testimony of Certain Persons Deprived of Liberty in Jails and National Penitentiaries. June 25, 2019. II, Coverage and
Applicability
22
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, III. Definition of Terms, no. 2
23
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, III. Definition of Terms, no. 5
 Videoconferencing – refers to the use of video, audio, and data transmission devices to
allow parties in different physical locations to simultaneously communicate by seeing
and hearing each other.24

A PDL considered high-risk or seriously ill or a national inmate, shall, upon order of the court, remotely
appear or testify in court via videoconferencing. 25 Any other PDL, regardless of crime charged, upon his
voluntary consent and motion to the court, may also remotely appear or testify in court via
videoconference.26

In the case of high-risk PDLs, seriously-ill PDLs and national inmates, the court shall ask the PDL whether
they are waiving their right to be present at any stage of the trial, during the arraignment and pre-trial via
videoconferencing.27 The PDL, who refuses to waive the right, is required to appear or testify remotely via
videoconferencing on the dates and time set by the court. For pending cases upon effectivity of the
Guidelines, the court shall ask during the next scheduled trial date. 28 If the videoconferencing facility is
unavailable during the hearing dates already set, the court shall set new dates and time of trial. 29
Objections to, or motions for reconsideration of the Order of the court requiring a high-risk PDL to appear
or testify remotely via videoconferencing, shall be resolved by the court no more than five calendar dates
five calendar dates from the date of the objection or receipt of motion for reconsideration, after giving the
adverse party an opportunity to comment on the objection or motion. 30 The testimony of such persons as a
witness on behalf of another may be had upon ex parte motion from the concerned party for the remote
testimony of the PDL in court via videoconferencing. 31

In the case of PDLs who wish to appear or testify remotely via videoconference, they shall file a motion in
court requesting permission to do so. The court shall resolve the motion within five calendar days from
receipt. If granted, the court shall set the new dates and time of trial via videoconferencing. 32

A videoconference test shall be conducted before the proceedings. Any technical problem shall be resolved
immediately and proper and clear audio-video connection between the court and jail is ensured. 33 The jail
warden shall ensure that the PDL is ready and available at the videoconference room of the jail at least
thirty minutes before the scheduled time. No other recording device shall be permitted inside the room and
entry is regulated.34 The following are the significant matters under videoconference proceedings:

Indication in the case record. – All remote court appearances or testimony done via
videoconferencing shall be indicated in the court record.

Location of the defense counsel; facilities for private communication. – At the option of
the PDL, which shall be made on record at the start of the proceeding, the defense
24
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, III. Definition of Terms, no. 6
25
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 1 Remote appearance or testimony
26
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 1 Remote appearance or testimony
27
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 2, a. paragraph 2; No. 3, paragraph 2; No. 5, paragraph 1
28
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 2, a. paragraph 3; No. 3, paragraph 3; No. 5, paragraph 1
29
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 2, a. paragraph 4; No. 3, paragraph 3
30
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 2, c.; No. 3 paragraph 4
31
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 2, d; No. 3, paragraph 5; No. 5, paragraph 2
32
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 4.
33
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 6. Paragraph 1
34
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 6. Paragraph 2
 counsel may be physically present with him or her at the jail or physically present in court.
In either instance, the PDL and his or her counsel shall be provided with facilities or means
to privately communicate with each other through out the entire videoconference
proceeding.

Party speaking always within view and range. -The court shall ensure that any person
testifying or speaking to the court from a remote location is within camera view and
microphone range at all times so that he or she can be seen and heard by those physically
present in the courtroom. Likewise, the same shall be ensured for those speaking or
testifying physically in the courtroom so that he or she can be seen and heard by those
appearing remotely from another location.

xxx

Facilities for documents and object evidence. -There shall be means by which documents
can be electronically transmitted between the courtroom and the jail. Documents
provided to a PDL who physically appears in court shall similarly be made available to one
who remotely appears in court. A copy of the Information should be provided the PDL in
advance of the videoconference proceeding.

Object evidence must be clearly observable by all parties.

Discontinuation of videoconference proceeding. -The court, in its discretion, may

suspend the videoconference proceeding when there are technical issues which would
affect its fairness or if matters should arise warranting the PDL's physical appearance in
the courtroom.

Transcript of videoconference proceeding. -The videoconference proceeding shall be

transcribed by the stenographer, or other recorder authorized for the purpose, who shall
certify as to the correctness of the transcript. The transcript should. indicate that the
proceeding was done via videoconferencing.

Recording and storage of videoconference proceeding. -The proceeding shall be

recorded by the court and form part of the record of the case. An encrypted master copy
shall be retained by the court as pa11 of the case records, while a backup copy shall be
stored in a safe location. Parties may be allowed to view the master copy of the recording
upon application with and approval of the court. 35 [emphasis supplied]

The remote court appearances or testimonies done via videoconference shall be recorded and the
videoconference proceedings shall be transcribed by the stenographer. The recording and storage of the
videoconference proceeding shall form part of the records of the case. The PDLs have the option to have
their defense counsel physically present at the jail or in court. The PDLs and their counsel shall be provided
with the means to privately communicate with each other throughout the videoconferencing proceeding.
The relevant documents and object evidence are made available to the parties through electronic
transmission between the courtroom and the jail or physical copies. The court may suspend the
videoconference proceeding when (1) technical issues occur which affect the fairness of the trial, and (2)
circumstances arise which require the PDL’s physical appearance in the courtroom. There shall be support
35
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, IV. Proceedings. No. 7-14.
and maintenance personnel in the court and in the jail to troubleshoot and repair the videoconferencing
equipment and manage the network. 36

DUE PROCESS
The 1987 Constitution guarantees that the right of every person to life, liberty and property. No one, not
even the Government may deprive the people of their life, liberty or property without due process of law. 37
For there to be due process, there must be both substantive and procedural due process in all civil, criminal
and administrative proceeding. Substantial due process guarantees protection from abuses of the
Government’s law and rule-making powers while procedural due process safeguards against the actions of
judicial and quasi-judicial agencies.38 As Justice Isagani Cruz defines,

Criminal due process requires that the accused be tried by an impartial and competent
court in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and with proper observance of
all the rights accorded him under the Constitution and the applicable statutes. 39

The rights of persons facing criminal investigation or prosecution are found in Sections 12, 13, 14, 17, 19
and 21 of Article III of the Constitution. 40 Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides,

(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.41

Section 14 (1) covers procedural due process in criminal cases. Under Section 14, Article III, the accused has
the following rights in criminal proceedings: (1) right to be presumed innocent, (2) right to be heard by
himself and counsel, (3) right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, (4) right to speedy,
impartial and public trial, and (5) right to compulsory process.

The rights of the accused is protected in criminal procedure. Section 1 of Rule 115 of the Rules of Court
provides,

36
A.M. 19-05-05-SC, V. Technical and Operational Standards, no. 3
37
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1.
38
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. Outline/ Reviewer in Political Law p. 161 and p. 126-139
39
Constitutional Law by Isagani Cruz, 2015 edition, page 654
40
Constitutional Law by Isagani Cruz, 2015 edition, page 653
41
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14.
 Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be entitled to the following rights:
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the
proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of the judgment. The accused may,
however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set forth in his
bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by the court for purposes of
identification. The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which
he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present thereat. When an
accused under custody escapes, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained. Upon motion,
the accused may be allowed to defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to
the court that he can properly protect his right without the assistance of counsel.
(d) To testify as a witness in his own behalf but subject to cross-examination on
matters covered by direct examination. His silence shall not in any manner prejudice
him.
(e) To be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself.
(f) To confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Either party
may utilize as part of its evidence the testimony of a witness who is deceased, out of or
can not with due diligence be found in the Philippines, unavailable or otherwise unable
to testify, given in another case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the
same parties and subject matter, the adverse party having the opportunity to cross-
examine him.
(g) To have compulsory process issued to secure the attendance of witnesses and
production of other evidence in his behalf.
(h) To have speedy, impartial and public trial.
(i) To appeal in all cases allowed and in the manner prescribed by law.

The rights of the accused under Rule 115 is available only during trial of his criminal case.

Presumption of Innocence
The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved in all criminal prosecutions. 42

P700
-it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt;
otherwise he is entitled to acquittal
-person accused of an offense is confronted by the full panoply of State authority; in a manner of speaking,
he goes to bat with all the bases loaded. In the interest of justice, to even up the odds, as it were, by
guaranteeing him certain rights during his trial
P702
-where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not
have been established
42
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14. Par. 2
-the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right
P704
-the constitutional presumption of innocence may be overcome by contrary presumptions based on the
exercise of human conduct
P706
-in case of conflict between presumption of regularity of police officers and the presumption of innocence
of the accused, the latter must prevail as the law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof
of evidence to sustain conviction
P707
-no inference of guilt may be drawn against an accused for his failure to make a statement of any sort
P708
-the constitutional mandate of presumption of innocence prevails until promulgation of final conviction is
made

The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a necessary corollary of the constitutional right to be
presumed innocent. [People vs. Dramavo (1971)]

The accused cannot present evidence before the prosecution does so, even if the accused pleads guilty. It
violates the presumption of innocence. [Alejandro vs. Pepito (1980)]

The presumption of regularity (in official duties) cannot by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence
of the accused. But where it is not the sole basis for conviction, the presumption of regularity of
performance of official functions may prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence. [People vs.
Acuram (2000)]

Right to be heard by himself and counsel

The accused “shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel.” 43
P709
-indispensable in any criminal prosecution where the stakes are the liberty or even the life of the accused,
who must for this reason be given a chance to defend himself
-includes the right to present evidence in one’s defense
-includes the right to be present and defend oneself in person at every stage of the proceedings
-the right to counsel now begins from the time a person is taken into custody and placed under
investigation for the commission of a crime
P710
-this right becomes all the more important when he is already on trial and confronted by a skilled and
experienced prosecutor
-intricacies of courtroom procedure are not within the knowledge of the ordinary layman
-a counsel de oficio shall be appointed for him if he cannot afford the services of a retained lawyer
-the right of the accused to counsel in criminal proceedings has never been considered subject to waiver
P711
-it should also see to it that the counsel does his duty by the defendant
43
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14. Par. 2
P712
-the right to be silent and to the assistance of the counsel may be waived during custodial investigation
under Art III, Sec. 12 (1).
P713
- The right of counsel does not cease after trial, but continues even where the case is appealed.
-the waiver must be clear and must be coupled with an actual intention to relinquish the right
-the right to counsel is not absolute

-to be present and defend in person or by counsel

-presence of accused not only right but also duty
-at every stage of the trial including arraignment

It means the accused is amply accorded legal assistance extended by a counsel who commits himself to the
cause of the defense and acts accordingly. It is an efficient and truly decisive legal assistance, and not
simply a perfunctory representation. [People v. Bermas (1999)]

RA 7438. Rights of Persons under Custodial Investigation. SEC. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or
Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. – (a) Any person arrested detained or under
custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel;

Right to be informed of the nature and cause

The accused shall “be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.” 44
P714
-the defendant is entitled to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him so he can adequately
prepare for his defense
-the importance of the proper manner of alleging the nature and cause of accusation in the information
should never be taken for granted by the State
-an accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information
P714-715
-three fold purpose: first, to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as well
enable him to make his defense; and second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection
against a further prosecution for the same cause; and third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that
it may decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction.
P715
Rule 110, Section 8, Criminal Procedure
-The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be stated in ordinary and concise
language without repetition, not necessarily in the terms of the statute defining the offense, but in such
form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intedned to be
charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgement
P715
-the test of sufficiency of information is whether it enables a person of common understanding to know the
charge against him, and the court to render judgement properly
44
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14. Par. 2
P716
-the description and not the designation of the offense is controlling
P716-717
-the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information,
or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions
of law, but by actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.
P730

Procedural due process requires that the accused must be informed why he is being prosecuted and what
charge he must meet. [Vera vs. People, supra]

Other book:
-US vs. Campo, accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged or included in the information

Right to speedy, impartial and public trial

The accused is entitled “to have a speedy, impartial and public trial.” 45
P733
-the original constitution required the trial of the accused to be only public and speedy. The new bill of
rights provides that it also be impartial as an added guaranty of due process of law
-this requirement will call for no less than “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.” Gutierrez vs. Santos
P734
-publicity of trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice of the
defendant
-they can see whether or not the constitutional safeguards for the benefit of the accused are being
observed
-the accused is also entitled to the company of his relatives and friends to give him the moral support he
needs during his ordeal
P735
-the rule is not absolute
-Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino’s Libel Case, En Banc
Resolution---- to protect the parties’ right to due process, to prevent the distraction of the participants in
the proceedings and in the last analysis, to avoid miscarriage of justice.
P741
-a speedy trial is one free from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays
-the right to speedy trial is available only to an accused and is peculiarly criminal law concept while the
broader right to a speedy disposition of cases may be tapped in any proceedings conducted by state
agencies

Right to compulsory process

The accused is entitled “to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf.”46
P758

45
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14. Par. 2
46
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14. Par. 2
-The accused is entitled under the Constitution to the issuance of subpoena and subpoena duces tecum for
the purpose of compelling the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence that he may need
for his defense.

-Failure to obey the process is punishable as contempt of court; if necessary, the witness may even be
arrested so he can give the needed evidence

-in exceptional circumstances, the defendant may even ask for the conditional examination, provided the
expected testimony is material, of any witness who is sick (rule 119, section 4, rules of court)
(1) Right to Secure Attendance of Witness (2) Right to Production of Other Evidence
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or trial of
an action or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or for the taking of his
deposition. [Caamic v. Galapon (1994)]
Before a subpoena ducestecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites are
present: (1) The books, documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue
subject of the controversy (test of relevancy), and (2) Such books must be reasonably described by the
parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness). [Roco v. Contreras (2005)]

Right of confrontation
-to secure opportunity of cross examination and secondary purpose is to enable the judge to observe the
demeanor of witnesses (US vs. Javier)
-Judicial affidavit rule allowed people to discuss without needing to personally cross examine
The presence of the accused is required only:
(a) At the arraignment (sec. 1(b), Rule 116) and is indispensable at said stage
(b) At the promulgation of judgment, except when the conviction is for a light offense, in which case
the judgment may be pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative (see Sec. 6, Rule 120)
but is not indispensable therein as promulgation may be made in absentia
(c) When ordered by the court for purposes of identification
(Remedial Law Compendium)
ANALYSIS

FREE ACCESS TO COURTS

The 1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 11 provides, “free access to the courts and quasi-judicial
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.” 47

47
1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 11
 The constitutional provision guaranteeing free access to courts embodies the precepts of social
justice and the equal protection clause. Article II, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution states that, “the State
shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.” 48 The term social justice has evolved
into justice to the common tao, the “little man” so-called. It means justice to him, his wife, and children in
relation to their employers in the factories, in the farms, in the mines and in pother employment’s. It
means justice to him in the education of his children in the schools, in his dealings with the different offices
of government, including the courts of justice” 49 The law serves as the great equalizer of the poor and the
rich. It has been uttered time and time again the statement that those who have less in life should have
more in law.50

The 1935 constitutional commission originally sought to remove the provision since the right to
free access to courts was already covered by the equal protection clause. However, they decided against
its exclusion and included the specific provision. 51 Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides,
“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.” 52 The equal protection clause provides for legal equality or
equality before the law. It prohibits arbitrary classifications made by the law.

The rules of court defines an indigent party as someone “who has no money or property sufficient
and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself and his family.” 53 Indigent parties are
exempted from “payment of docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which
the court may order to be furnished him.” 54 In turn, the indigent party will pay the legal fees which he was
exempted of through a lien on the judgement rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless court
provides otherwise.55 An indigent test was created to be used in deciding who would be eligible for free
access to courts. The mean test or merit test is used. In the mean test, the following criteria is followed:

(i) the applicant and that of his immediate family must have a gross monthly
income that does not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage
of an employee in the place where the applicant resides and (ii) he does not
own real property with a fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos. 56

The mean test cannot be used for applicants who fall under the “developmental legal aid program
such as overseas workers, fisherfolk, farmers, laborers, indigenous cultural communities, women, children
and other disadvantaged groups.” 57 Another test is the merit test. Under the merit test, the Court looks
assesses the application for free legal service by taking into consideration whether the law and evidence

48
Article II, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution
49
Page 77, Bernas commentary citing 1 J. Aruego, The Framing of the Philippine Constitution 146 (1936)
50
Bernas commentary
51
Bernas Commentary
52
Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution
53
Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec21
54
Id.
55
Id.
56
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 137-09, ARTICLE IV, Section 2.
57
Id.
presented illustrates that legal service will be in aid of justice. 58 A case fails the merit test when the purpose
for filing suit was to harass or injure the opposing party. 59

Section 11 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is not different from its predecessors. The provision
guaranteeing free access to the courts originated from the 1935 constitution. The 1935 constitution
required free access to the courts only. The 1943 constitution expanded the requirement for free access to
both the courts and administrative tribunals. The 1973 constitution limited free access to the courts. The
1983 Constitution broadened free access to courts, quasi-judicial bodies and legal assistance. In its Records
No. 32, Constitutional Commission has expanded the 1973 provision by including quasi-judicial bodies.
Quasi-judicial bodies included labor courts.

The part of the provision providing for “adequate legal assistance” is not self-executory. It requires
implementing legislation. In 2010, the Free Legal Assistance Act was passed. The law elaborated on the
requirements for the availing of the free legal services and incentives for lawyers who offer their services
under the act. To encourage more lawyers to offer their services for those in need, the Court allows a
lawyer “an allowable deduction from the gross income, the amount that could have been collected for the
actual free legal services rendered or up to ten percent (10%) of the gross income derived from the actual
performance of the legal profession, whichever is lower.” 60 There are benefits to these lawyers. The law
also provides that such lending of service should be different from 60-hour mandatory legal aid service for
practicing lawyers under Bar Matter No. 2012. 61

The scope of this constitutional provision is not limited to exempting indigent persons from paying legal
fees.62 It also includes creating adequate number of courts and judges in proportion to the population and
amount of cases within their jurisdiction. Currently, the Judicial Reorganization Act of 1980 organizes the
judicial courts and their jurisdiction. More importantly, free access to courts include access to persons
living in far-flung areas. Given that the Philippines is an archipelago comprising of 7107 islands, an obstacle
to free access to courts is geographical location. Although a number of courts are sufficient, the location of
the courts matter to ensure the access to justice or if there is a means of transportation to go to the
nearest courts.

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

The 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 16 provides that “all persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.” The coverage of the
right to speedy trial covers every case. In accordance with section 16, the second paragraph section 14
states:
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of

58
Id.
59
Id.
60
Free Legal Assistance Act
61
Id.
62
Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 21
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. 63
Although both refer to the right to speedy disposition of cases, section 16 applies to all kinds of
proceedings while section 14 is limited to criminal proceedings. In line with the constitutional provision on
the speedy disposition of cases, the 1987 Constitution has set a limited period:
(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided
or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme
Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
filing of the last pending, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by
the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect
signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy
thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties.
The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or
issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without
prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof,
shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination,
without further delay.64
Speedy disposition of cases is necessary for efficiency and for the protection of the rights of all
parties. A quick turnover of cases allows the judicial branch to cover more cases and administer justice.
Furthermore, the passage of time leads to the loss of evidence, extended periods of agony and a drain on
resources. Pieces of evidence could be lost over time while witnesses may forget the incident. In Corpuz vs.
Sandiganbayan, the Court elaborated on the right of the accused to speedy trial. It stated that the right
was created “to prevent the oppression of the citizen by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him
for an indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of justice by mandating the courts to
proceed with reasonable dispatch in the trial of criminal cases.” 65 Docket fees and attorney fees can be
expensive.
Jurisprudence provides that the 1987 Constitution does not prohibit all kinds of delay but only
unreasonable delays.66 What constitutes a speedy trial is flexible. It largely depends on the circumstances.
There are two kinds of delay involved: arbitrary or vexatious delay and reasonable delay. The former
violates the constitution while the latter does not. In Gonzales vs Sandiganbayan,67 petitioner sought the
dismissal of information by reason of the alleged violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases before
the Sandiganbayan. The was delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation. In its decision, the
Court looked at the following factors: “length of the delay, reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion

63
Article III, Section 14, 1987 Constitution
64
Article III, Section 15, 1987 Constitution
65
Corpuz vs Sandiganbayan
66
One of the cases
67
Gonzales vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 94750, July 16, 1991
or non-assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay.” 68 The Court denied
the motion to dismiss, stating that the right to a speedy disposition of a case is considered violated when
brought about by “vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of the
trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause or justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his case tried.” It was proven in court that the reason for the delay in
the termination of the preliminary investigation is largely attributed to petitioner and his counsel. The case
Tao Lim vs CA69 elaborates on reasonable delays--
The Court finds that there is no basis for petitioner’s allegation that his constitutional right to
speedy trial has been violated. One must take into account that a trial is always subject to reasonable
delays and postponements, and in the absence of any showing that the same were capricious, the State
should not be deprived of a reasonable opportunity of prosecuting petitioner.
Although the initial case had been reset 11 times, the delay was deemed reasonable. The reason for
the case postponements was the absence of any proof that the prosecution witness was duly served with a
subpoena and the absence of petitioner’s newly engaged counsel.
The need for the speedy disposition of cases caused Congress to create the Speedy Trial Act of
1998. The Speedy Trial Act provides for the time limits for the stages in criminal prosecution, circumstances
considered reasonable delay and the corresponding sanctions for unreasonable delays. Generally, the
arraignment of the accused must be held within thirty days from the filing of the information. When the
accused is not brought to trial within the time limit, his remedy is to motion to dismissal of the information
filed against him. In computing for the time, section 10 provides for the excluded periods of delay. 70 The
Speedy Trial Act has properly given circumstances that are considered reasonable delays:
SECTION 10. Exclusions. — The following periods of delay shall be excluded in
computing the time within which trial must commence:
(a) Any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the accused,
including but not limited to the following: (1) delay resulting from an examination
of the accused, and hearing on his/her mental competency, or physical incapacity;
(2) delay resulting from trials with respect to charges against the accused; (3)
delay resulting from interlocutory appeals; (4) delay resulting from hearings on
pre-trial motions: Provided, That the delay does not exceed thirty (30) days; (5)
delay resulting from orders of inhibition, or proceedings relating to change of
venue of cases or transfer from other courts; (6) delay resulting from a finding of
the existence of a valid prejudicial question; and (7) delay reasonably attributable
to any period, not to exceed thirty (30) days, during which any proceeding
concerning the accused is actually under advisement.
(b) Any period of delay resulting from the absence or unavailability of the accused
or an essential witness. xxx
(c) Any period of delay resulting from the fact that the accused is mentally
incompetent or physically unable to stand trial.

68
Gonzales vs Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 94750, July 16, 1991
69
Tao Lim vs CA, G.R. No. 131483, October 26, 1999
70
Speedy Trial Act
 (d) If the information is dismissed upon motion of the prosecution and thereafter
a charge is filed against the accused for the same offense, or any offense required
to be joined with that offense, any period of delay from the date the charge was
dismissed to the date the time limitation would commence to run as to the
subsequent charge had there been no previous charge.
(e) A reasonable period of delay when the accused is joined for trial with a co-
accused over whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction, or as to whom the
time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted.
(f) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any justice or
judge motu propio or on motion of the accused or his/her counsel or at the
request of the public prosecutor, if the justice or judge granted such continuance
on the basis of his/her findings that the ends of justice served by taking such
action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy
trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in
accordance with this subparagraph shall be excludable under this section unless
the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its
reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such
continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the accused in a speedy
trial.
When the right to speedy trial has been violated, the remedy of the accused is a mandamus to
compel a dismissal of the information or a habeas corpus to obtain his freedom. In Conde vs Rivera, the
Court resolved to dismiss the charges against petitioner and ordered the provincial fiscal to abstain from
prosecuting petitioner from the same set of facts. The Court stated that the right to speedy trial of
petitioner was violated by the prosecuting officer after the latter, without proper cause, secured
postponements of the trial against the will of petitioner for more than a year.
While the accused has a right to have the case dismissed, the State should not be deprived of an
opportunity to prosecute to ensure the administration of justice. The right to speedy trial should not be
used as a mechanism to escape prosecution. It ensures both the State and the accused due process. In
deciding, whether the right has been violated, the Court balances the interest of the parties involved and
the State. In Corpuz vs Sandiganbayan, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the case. Although the
Court acknowledged the presence of delay, it found that dismissal of the cases was too drastic. To do so
would ultimately prevent Sandiganbayan and the Ombudsman from their right to investigate and
prosecute in response to a violation of the tax law.