NATHANIEL F.

EDNALAGA
JD-I

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
DMMMSU COLLEGE OF LAW
AY 2023-24 2nd SEMESTER
QUIZ, MAY 4, 2024 1PM-4PM
X-------------------X

1. SECTION 15 ARTICLE III

According to Section 15, Article III of the Constitution, the privilege

of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of
invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
The Constitution, protects the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, which can only be suspended in cases of invasion or
rebellion when public safety requires it. This provision reflects the
delicate balance between individual liberties and the exigencies of
national security.

2. What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is is a legal order that requires a

person who is detaining another individual to bring the detainee before
a court or judge. It's primarily used to ensure that a person's
imprisonment or detention is lawful and to safeguard individuals
against unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.

In essence, it allows a detained person to challenge the legality of

their detention and protects their right to liberty. This right is
considered fundamental applicable to all persons.

3. How about the Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data and Kalikasan?

The Writ of Amparo is a legal remedy aimed at providing

protection to individuals whose right to life, liberty, and security is
violated or threatened.
Writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity. (Sanchez vs Darroca GR No. 242257).
It allows victims or their relatives to petition the courts to order
government agencies or individuals to take action to prevent or remedy
violations. It is particularly important in cases of extrajudicial killings,
enforced disappearances, and threats to life and liberty.
The Writ of Habeas Data is another legal remedy in the
Philippines that enables individuals to access information about
 themselves held by government agencies or private entities. It allows
individuals to challenge the accuracy, completeness, or relevance of
personal data collected, stored, or processed about them. The writ
serves as a tool for protecting privacy rights and preventing abuses
related to the handling of personal information.

The Writ of Kalikasan, also known as the Environmental Writ, is

a legal remedy in the Philippines designed to protect the right to a
balanced and healthful ecology. It allows individuals, groups, or
organizations to petition the courts to take action to prevent or address
environmental harm or threats. The writ is used to enforce
environmental laws, halt destructive activities, and promote
sustainable development. It underscores the importance of
environmental protection and the right to a healthy environment.

4. May the Writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended? If so, what are the
instances when it may be suspended?

The Writ of Habeas Corpus may be suspended under certain

circumstances, such as during the declaration of martial law, instances
of insurrection or rebellion, or during public emergencies posing
significant threats to public safety or national security.
During such suspensions, authorities may detain individuals
without immediate judicial review. However, the suspension is subject
to constitutional scrutiny and judicial oversight to ensure that
individuals' rights are protected. It's considered a temporary measure,
typically with safeguards in place, and the restoration of habeas corpus
rights is expected once the emergency situation has been resolved.

5. Robin and Mariel are legally married but separated-in-fact and the
custody of their only child who is five (5) years old is with the
latter. Availing himself of his visitorial right, Robin visited his
child and Mariel allowed him to sleep with the child at the guest
room. At about 4:00 o’clock in the morning, without the knowledge
and consent of Mariel, he left with the child. May Mariel file a
Petition for Habeas Corpus in court for Robin to produce their
child? Why or why not?

Yes, Mariel may file a Petition for Habeas Corpus in court for
Robin to produce their child.
Habeas Corpus is a legal remedy used to protect an individual's
right to liberty and prevent unlawful detention.
In this case, Robin's actions in taking the child without Mariel's
knowledge or consent could be considered as depriving Mariel of
custody and potentially violating her parental rights. By filing a Petition
for Habeas Corpus, Mariel is seeking the court's intervention to ensure
 that Robin produces their child and restores custody to her, thus
safeguarding her parental rights and the welfare of the child.
Thus, Mariel, as the custodial parent, has the right to file a
Petition for Habeas Corpus in court to compel Robin to produce their
child.

2. SECTION 16, ARTICLE III

1. In what cases may by the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases be

invoked?

The Right to Speedy Disposition of cases may be invoked in

various legal proceedings, including criminal cases, civil cases,
administrative proceedings, and other legal actions. This right ensures
that individuals are not subjected to undue delay or prolonged
uncertainty in the resolution of their cases.
It applies to all stages of the legal process, from the filing of
charges or complaints to the final disposition of the case by the court
or administrative tribunal. Delays in the adjudication of cases can have
significant consequences, including prolonged incarceration, financial
hardship, or uncertainty about legal rights.
Therefore, individuals may invoke the Right to Speedy Disposition
to expedite the resolution of their cases and ensure that justice is served
promptly and efficiently.

2. Is it correct to say that the Right to Speedy Disposition of cases

covers from arraignment to promulgation of judgment in criminal
cases? Why or why not?

No. The Right to Speedy Disposition of cases is not only limited to

the arraignment until the promulgation of judgment in criminal cases.

The right to speedy disposition encompasses the entire legal process,

from the initiation of criminal proceedings to the final resolution of the
case. This includes not only the period between arraignment and
promulgation of judgment but also the time taken for pre-trial
procedures, trial proceedings, and any appeals or post-conviction
remedies.

3. Is the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases the same as the Right

to Speedy Trial? Explain.

The Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases and the Right to Speedy

Trial are related concepts but not exactly the same.
The Right to Speedy Trial specifically pertains to the right of a
defendant in a criminal case to have their trial conducted without
undue delay. It focuses primarily on the trial phase of criminal
 proceedings, ensuring that the defendant is not subjected to prolonged
pre-trial detention or unnecessary delays during the trial itself.
On the other hand, the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases is a
broader principle that applies not only to criminal cases but also to civil
cases, administrative proceedings, and other legal actions. It
encompasses the entire legal process, from the initiation of proceedings
to the final resolution of the case. This right seeks to prevent unjustified
delays at any stage of the legal process, ensuring that cases are resolved
promptly and efficiently. While the Right to Speedy Trial is a subset of
the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases, the latter covers a wider range
of legal proceedings beyond criminal trials.

3. SECTION 17, ARTICLE III

1. May a suspect in a homicide case be compelled to put on a pair of

shoes which was found at the scene of the crime? Why or why not?

Compelling a suspect in a homicide case to put on a pair of shoes

found at the scene of the crime may raise constitutional concerns.
The Philippine Constitution guarantees individuals the right
against self-incrimination under Article III, Section 17, which states
that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Additionally, Article III, Section 2 provides protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Compelling a suspect to wear the shoes found at the crime scene
could potentially violate these constitutional rights. It may be construed
as forcing the suspect to provide self-incriminating evidence, as the act
of wearing the shoes could imply involvement in the crime. Moreover, if
the shoes are considered personal property, compelling their use
without a warrant or probable cause may constitute an unreasonable
search and seizure.
Thus, compelling the accused put on a pair of shoes is not
appropriate since it may be detrimental to every individuals’ right
against self-incrimination.

2. May an accused in a rape case refuse to testify at the trial of his

case? Explain.

NO, an accused in a rape case has the right to refuse to testify at

the trial of his case without adverse consequences.
Under Article III, Section 17 of the Philippine Constitution. This
provision explicitly states that no person shall be compelled to be a
witness against themselves.
It's important to note that while the accused has the right to
remain silent, this right should not be construed as an implication of
guilt. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution to establish the
 guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused's
silence should not be considered as evidence of guilt by the court or the
jury.
Therefore, while the accused in a rape case has the option to
testify in their defense if they choose to do so, they cannot be compelled
by the court or prosecution to provide testimony that may incriminate
themselves.

3. A witness for the defense in a criminal case refuses to testify

invoking his right against self-incrimination? Is he correct?
Explain.

Yes, a witness for the defense in a criminal case can refuse to

testify if doing so may incriminate themselves.
This right is protected under Article III, Section 17 of the
Philippine Constitution, which states that no person shall be compelled
to be a witness against themselves.
If a witness for the defense believes that their testimony could
potentially implicate them in a crime or subject them to criminal
liability, they have the right to invoke their privilege against self-
incrimination. This privilege allows individuals to refrain from providing
testimony that may be used against them in criminal proceedings.
Hence, witness for the defense in a criminal case can refuse to
testify by invoking his right against self-incrimination.

4. SECTION 18, ARTICLE III

1. Ana requested Juana to buy for her a pair of shoes promising the
latter she will serve as her household help for a period of one (1)
month of which the latter acceded. However, upon receipt of the
pair of shoes, Ana reneged on her promise. Thus, Juana was
compelled to file a case of estafa against her for which she invoked
her right against involuntary servitude. Is she correct? Explain.

No, Ana's promise to serve as Juana's household help in exchange

for Juana buying her a pair of shoes creates a contractual obligation
between them. Ana's failure to fulfill her promise could potentially
constitute a breach of contract, but it does not automatically amount
to estafa unless there is evidence of deceit, fraud, or abuse of
confidence.

Regarding Ana's invocation of her right against involuntary

servitude, it may not be applicable in this situation. The right against
involuntary servitude, as protected under Philippine law, prohibits the
imposition of forced labor or servitude without consent or legal
 justification. In this case, Ana voluntarily made a promise to provide
household help in exchange for the shoes, albeit reneging on that
promise later.

However, if Ana were coerced or forced into making the promise

to provide household help against her will, her invocation of the right
against involuntary servitude might be relevant. Yet, based on the given
scenario, there is no indication of coercion or involuntary servitude;
rather, it appears to involve a contractual dispute over the fulfillment
of a promise.

Therefore, Ana's invocation of her right against involuntary

servitude may not be correct in this context. The dispute between Ana
and Juana would likely be resolved based on principles of contract law
and the specific terms of their agreement.

2. The members of the New People’s Army (NPA) are communists.

Pedro is not an NPA member but believes in communism. Is he
liable for subversion? Why or why not? Explain.

No, Pedro is not liable for subversion.

Under the Constitution, freedom of thought, belief, and
expression are protected rights, as stated in Article III, Section 4, which
guarantees the freedom of speech, of expression, and of the press,
among other rights.
Merely holding beliefs in communism, without engaging in any
unlawful acts, does not constitute subversion or any other criminal
offense. Engaging in activities such as joining or supporting an armed
group like the New People's Army (NPA) could potentially lead to
criminal liability for rebellion or similar offenses. However, mere beliefs
in communism or other ideologies, without involvement in unlawful
activities, do not constitute criminal behavior under Philippine laws.

Therefore, Pedro, who believes in communism but is not a

member of the NPA or involved in any illegal activities, would not be
liable for subversion or any related offenses. As long as he is not
engaged in unlawful acts, he is entitled to exercise his freedom of belief
and expression within the bounds of the law.

3. May involuntary servitude be imposed as punishment for a crime?

Why or why not?

No, involuntary servitude cannot be imposed as punishment for

a crime.
The Constitution of the Philippines explicitly prohibits slavery
and involuntary servitude in Article III, Section 18, which states that
"neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted."
Although in some instances, involuntary servitude may be
allowed final a final judgment as a punishment for a crime committed
to meet certain conditions. It must be imposed in accordance with legal
procedures and safeguards, and it cannot be imposed as a general form
of punishment or as a means of exploitation.
Therefore, under the Constitution involuntary servitude is not
generally allowed, however, may be permissible as a punishment for a
crime under certain circumstance after final judgment.

ATTY. REYNALDO M. MOSUELA