STUDENT NAME: DIOSA A.
UBERITA
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
1. What is the Writ of Habeas Corpus?
ANSWER: The Writ of Habeas Corpus, according to the law, is an
order from the court commanding a detaining officer to inform the court
(1) if he has the person in custody; and (2) state his basis in detaining
that person.
2. How about the Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data and Kalikasan?
ANSWER: The Writs of Amparo, Habeas Data and Kalikasan, as
provided by the Rules of Law, are defined as follows:
The 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. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
The 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. (Sec. 1, Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data)
The Writ of Kalikasan is a remedy available to any person 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.
(Rule 7, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)
3. May the Writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended? If so, what are the
instances when it may be suspended?
ANSWER: No. The Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended.
According to the Constitution, it is the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
that cannot be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when
public safety requires it.
4. 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?
ANSWER: No. Mariel may not file a Petition for Habeas Corpus against
Robin to produce their child because it is not the proper remedy.
Writ of habeas corpus in relation to custody of minors will only apply
to petitions for custody of minors.
Here, Petition for Habeas Corpus is not the proper remedy because
Mariel has the custody of the child granted by law. Robin’s act of leaving with
their child without the knowledge and consent of Mariel with the guise of his
visitation rights constitute a criminal act. Hence, Mariel may not file a petition
for habeas corpus but may file for a criminal investigation against Robin.
2. SECTION 16, ARTICLE III
1. What cases are covered by the Right to Speedy Disposition thereof?
ANSWER: The right to a speedy disposition, according to the 1987
Philippine Constitution, applies to all cases whether judicial, quasi-judicial,
or administrative cases.
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?
ANSWER: Yes. The Right to Speedy Disposition of cases covers from
arraignment to promulgation of judgment in criminal cases. The Constitution
provides that the Right to a Speedy Disposition extends to all cases. As such,
it applies to criminal cases and the proceedings therein, i.e., from
arraignment to promulgation of judgment.
3. Is the Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases the same as the Right to
Speedy Trial? Explain.
ANSWER: No. The Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases is not the same
as the Right to a Speedy Trial.
The Right to Speedy Disposition is available to all persons in all kinds
of proceedings, whether criminal, civil, or administrative, unlike the right to
speedy trial which is available only to an accused in a criminal case and,
therefore, only the accused may invoke such.
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,
quasi-judicial, or administrative cases. Whereas, the latter applies to criminal
cases only.
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?
ANSWER: 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.
The Constitution states that no person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
Here, the suspect in a homicide case is being compelled to put on a pair
of shoes that was found at the scene of the crime. Such act is imputing the
crime against the suspect in a way that compels the suspect to be a witness
against himself, which is against the constitutional right of the suspect.
2. May an accused in a rape case refuse to testify at the trial of his case?
Explain.
ANSWER: Yes. An accused in a rape case may refuse to testify at the
trial. The constitution affords the accused the right against self-
incrimination, that is, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Here, an accused in a rape case may refuse to testify at the trial and he
cannot be compelled by physical nor moral compulsion to communicate any
statement that may be acquired as evidence against him.
3. A witness for the defense in a criminal case refuses to testify invoking
his right against self-incrimination? Is he correct? Explain.
ANSWER: No. A witness for the defense in a criminal case cannot
invoke the right against self-incrimination to refuse to testify.
An ordinary witness cannot refuse to take the witness stand but he can
only refuse to answer specific questions which would incriminate him in the
commission of an offense.
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.
ANSWER: No. Ana cannot invoke her right against involuntary servitude.
Involuntary servitude is a condition where one is compelled by force, coercion,
or imprisonment, against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or
not.
Here, there is no force, coercion or imprisonment against Ana to labor for
Juana. It was Ana who reneged on her promise upon the receipt of the pair
of shoes. Hence, Ana cannot invoke her right against involuntary servitude
and she must be held to answer for the estafa filed against her.
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.
ANSWER: No. Pedro is not liable for subversion. The Constitution
protects a person from detention solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
Here, Pedro is not a member of the NPA. He only believes in
communism. He cannot be liable for subversion solely by reason of his belief
in communism. Hence, Pedro is not liable for subversion.
3. May involuntary servitude be imposed as punishment for a crime? Why
or why not?
ANSWER: Yes. According to the Constitution, involuntary servitude
may be imposed as a punishment for a crime but only where a party shall
have been duly convicted.
ATTY. REYNALDO M. MOSUELA
