Bill of Rights of the Phillipines

1. Human Rights
And its Application in the Philippine Jurisdiction

3. Why Do We Need to Study Human Rights?
• For your own protection and for the protection of
those who matter to you.
• You cannot assert what you do not know.
• Because it affects you, directly or indirectly.

4. •Different gender has their human rights affected
differently.
•Females are oftentimes victims of Human Trafficking, sex
slavery, involuntary servitude, different employment
frauds and scams.
•Females have generally less opportunities than their male
counterparts and many does not have a career other
than homekeeping.

5. •Human Rights? Walang human rights ang mga adik!
•Commission on Human Rights ang nagpo-protekta sa
mga Kriminal!
•Hindi bali nang mamatay ang mga adik kaysa ang
mga adik ang pumatay.
•American concept yang Human Rights na yan.

6. LIFE
LOVE
SUSTENANCE

8. LIFE
LIBERTY

9. • The Citizens
• The State
• The National Police – the watchmen of the society
• Who watches the watchmen?
• The State
• CHR
• Judicial Body
• The Legislative
• Media

12. Bakit ang gobyerno lang ang saklaw ng Commission on Human Rights?
•Para maiwasan ang Redundancy of Function
•Para malinaw ang jurisdiction
•Para mas efficient ang paggamit ng resources
(Simon, Jr. v. CHR, G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994)

13. • French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was issued after the French
Revolution (1789)
• The Constitutional Amendments of the United States was ratified on the French
Document. (Different dates).
• 1930 Philippine Constitution was ratified, with Bill of Rights based from the Constitutional
Amendments of the US
• The UN was established after the World War II and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights was declared. (1948)
• The Philippine Bill of Rights was included in the 1987 Constitution.
• Even if the Bill of Rights is not included in the 1987 Constitution, adherence to Human
Rights is submitted to be part of the law of our land by virtue of the Doctrine of
Incorporation. (Republic of The Philippines vs Sandiganbayan 5th Division, G.R. No.
104768, July 21, 2003)

14. •Article III of the Constitution (Bill
of Rights)
•Article 32 of the Civil Code

16. If no one shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property, then why
do we impose penalties to people that may deprive them of
their life, liberty or property?
Deprivation of life, liberty or property is not illegal, the
law only prescribed that the deprivation may only take
place if due process is followed.

20. Driver: Tama lang na patayin sila
kasi adik naman.
Me: Di ba bawal sa batas yun?
Driver: Kesa naman buhayin pa
sila at pakainin sa kulungan.
Me: Paano kung kamag-anak nyo
ang napatay?
Driver: Wala akong kamag-anak
na adik.
Me: Hindi naman lahat ng pinatay
ay talagang adik.

24. Article III, Section 2
Article III, Section 3

31. Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.

32. •If there is a court order
•If public safety is in danger but a law should provide it
(Example: Article 723 of Civil Code, as explained in the
case of Judge Yu vs. OCA)
•If both parties of the communication has consented

33. •RA 4200 – Anti-Wiretapping Act
•Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173)
•Republic Act 9995 – Anti-photo and Video Voyeurism
Act of 2009 (Katrina Halili Act)
•Jurisprudence – Google Spain vs. Agencia Espanola de
Protection de Datos
•Jurisprudence – Vivares vs. St. Therese College
GR. No. 202666

34. A sex video showing Lara having an intimate time with Randyis making
rounds online. You received a copy of the said video.Your friend would
like to have a copy therewith and you happily gave him one. Are you
liable for violatingLara’s privacy?
Yes, you are liable under RA 9995 or The Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.
By knowingly having the video itself is already a transgression of the law because you
do not have Lara’s consent to possess it and in effect, you do not have Lara’s
consent to distribute it.Because the video was transmitted online, the penalty will be a
notch higher than normal as the Cyber-crime Act (RA10175) shall also apply.

35. Vivares and her friends, all minors, was kicked out of the school because they posted a set
of pictures on Facebook wherein they were shown to be drunk and doing lascivious acts
with boys of their age.. The pictures were accessed by their classmates who in turn told
the teachers about it. On their defense, Vivares and friends argued that their Right to
Privacy should have been respected and because the pictures are private, such articles
cannot be used as an evidence against them.
Vivares and friends cannot invoke their right to privacy in this case
because they themselves posted the pictures in question. They did not
even used the privacy settings to indicate that they have the
intention to make the photos private. They cannot expect a reasonable
expectation of privacy in this case.(Vivares vs St. Therese College)

36. Brenda is a teacher. Unbeknownst to her, she was in a relationship with a married man,
Rey. Because of this, she broke up with Rey but the man was harassing her every time
to the point where Rey is sending lewd and malicious videos of Brenda to her co-
teachers. Because of this, Brenda went to a popular radio program, Idol Puffy, which is
also shown on Youtube. She was exposed to everyone, was judged and bashed by
netizens which led to her depression. Years later, she discovered that her visit to the
popular program was still uploaded in youtube. Can she compel the owners of that
youtube channel to take down the video where she was featured?
Yes, as a private person, she can invoke her right to be forgotten if
the data about her is not anymore updated or if such is not relevant
anymore. (Google Spain vs. AEPD)

37. Article III, Section 4. No law shall be passed
abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

40. •Imputation against Honor
•The Offended Party is Identifiable
•The Imputation is made Public
•Malice

41. •If the Speech posed Clear
and Present Danger
•If the Speech is libelous
•If the Speech or expression
is Obscene

42. •The State cannot compel a person to change religion
•The State cannot use public funds for the benefit of
any religion
•The Church cannot impose its belief to the State
•This does not mean that the clergy and the religious
should not take part in any secular activity

43. For Iglesia ni Cristo’s 100th founding anniversary, the PhilPost
issued postage stamps with the face of Felix Manalo. Some
groups questioned the legality of the move by the PhilPost
arguing that as a government agency, the institution should not
do an act that may aid or benefit a particular religion. Can we
say that the action of the PhilPost is legal?
Yes, the action of the PhilPost is not unconstitutional. The move to print postage stamps with Felix Manalo’s
face is the same as printing postage stamps with known and recognizable historical figure. The main objective
of the issuance of the stamps is to recognize Manalo’s contribution to Philippine History and Culture.
(Peralta vs. Philpost GR. No. 223395).

44. Former members of a religious group was excommunicated and claimed that some of their
friends in the group was held against their will inside the HQ. They also claimed that several
Missing members of the group was killed by the religious leaders. The DOJ, acting on the claims
by the former members attempted to investigate. The religious group however invoked the sepa-
ration of Church and State. Are they correct?
No, they are wrong.
Separation of church and state extends only to matters of faith,
creed and membership. Investigation of a probable crime cannot be
shielded by the religious group’s assertion of
Separation of church and state.