Melver N.

Corpuz, JD 1

Constitutional Law II

Sec. 15 Art. III

1. The Writ of Habeas Corpus is is a speedy and effectual remedy to relive persons from unlawful
restraint. It secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his detention examined and determined
by a court of justice and to have it ascertained whether he is held under lawful authority.

2. The Writ of Amparo is this is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security
is violated of threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings an enforced disappearances or
threats thereof. Meanwhile, Writ of Habeas Data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. And
Writ of Kalilasan is is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law,
people’s organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a balanced
and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude
as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.

3. The writ of habeas corpus itself cannot be suspended itself however the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus can be suspended as provided by Section 15, Article III of the Constitution, and it can only be
suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, or when the public safety requires it.

4. No, Mariel cannot file a petition for habeas of corpus in court for Robin to produce their child. The
writ of habeas corpus can be invoked in all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled thereto. In the present case, Mariel and Robin are separated-in-fact only and there is no
judicial declaration yet that nullifies their marriage, hence they still have joint custody of their child. As a
general rule, if a marriage is declared by a court null and void or the couple are legally separated, the
custody of the child who is under seven years of age will go to the mother but it cannot be applied in the
case as for their marriage is still valid and subsisting. Therefore, Mariel cannot file a petition for habeas
corpus in order to produce their child taken by Robin.

Sec.16 Art. III

2. Yes. The Right of Speedy Disposition of Cases covers from arraignment to promulgation of judgment
in criminal cases. According to the Constitution the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases extends to all
cases including criminal cases thus it applies to all the proceedings of criminal cases from arraignment to
promulgation of judgment.

3. No. The right to speedy disposition of cases is different from the right to speedy trial to the extent
that the former applies to all cases, whether judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative cases, whereas, the
latter applies to criminal cases only.

Sec.17 Art. III

1. No. A suspect in a homicide case cannot be compelled to put on a pair of shoes which was found at
the scene of the crime. This is prohibited under to Sec. 17 Art. III of the Constitution which provides that
no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. In the case at hand, the act of the suspect
being compelled to put a pair of shoes which was found at the criminal case is violation of his
constitutional right. Thus, the suspect cannot be compelled to put on a pair of shoes found in the crime
scene.

2. Yes. The accused in a rape case may refuse to testify in a trial of his case. The Constitution provides
that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself, hence the accused cannot be
compelled to provide a statement that may be acquired as evidence against him. Thus, the accused may
refuse to testify.

3. No. A witness for the defense in a criminal case cannot invoke his right to self-incrmination to refuse
to testify. The constitutional prohibition to self-incrmination can only be afforded by the accused hence
the witness cannot refuse to take the witness stand however, he can refuse to answer specific questions
that may incriminate him to the commission of the crime.

Sec. 18 Art. III

1. No. Ana cannot invoke her right against involuntary servitude in the case of estafa filed against her.
There is involuntary servitude when one is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against
his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not. In the present case, Ana is not compelled by
force, coercion or imprisonment to work for Juana. It is Ana who reneged on her promise upon receiving
the pair of shoes. Therefore, Ana cannot invoke her right against involuntary servitude.

2. No. Pedro is not liable for subversion. The Constitution guarantees protection of a person from
detention solely by reason of his beliefs and aspirations. In the case at hand, Pedro is not a member of
the NPA but only believes in communism hence he cannot be held liable for subversion by reason of his
beliefs.

3. Yes. Involuntary servitude may be imposed as a punishment for a crime. Sec. 18, Art. III of the
Constitution provides that no involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Therefore involuntary servitude may be
imposed as a punishment in a crime wherein the accused is convicted of its commission.