Right to Bail
and
Speedy Trial
The Right to Bail and the Right to a Speedy Trial are fundamental guarantees provided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. These rights aim to protect individuals accused of crimes from undue restrictions on their liberty and unnecessary delays in the criminal justice process.
Meanwhile, the Right to a Speedy Trial is anchored in Article III, Section 14(2), which provides that:
“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.”
Right to Bail
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody, conditioned upon their appearance before the court. The Constitution provides that “all persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable.” Bail ensures that the accused can enjoy their liberty while their trial is ongoing.
​​​​
Leading Case: Basco v. Rapatalo (G.R. No. 125365, December 23, 1999)
Factual Background: Basco was charged with a capital offense and sought bail. He argued that he was entitled to bail as a constitutional right.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that bail is a matter of right in non-capital offenses, but in capital offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, it is a matter of discretion. The court must hold a bail hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. The court clarified that when evidence of guilt is not strong, bail becomes a matter of right.
Recent Case: Enrile v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015)
Factual Background: Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, charged with plunder (a non-bailable offense), sought bail on humanitarian grounds, citing his advanced age and medical conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court, in an unprecedented ruling, granted Enrile’s petition for bail on humanitarian grounds. The Court ruled that while the evidence of guilt was strong, Enrile’s frail health and age were exceptional circumstances that justified his release on bail. This case set a significant precedent for allowing humanitarian considerations to be factored into bail applications.
Bail as a Matter of Right or Discretion
Bail can either be a matter of right or discretion, depending on the nature of the offense charged. For offenses not punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, bail is a matter of right. For capital offenses, bail is discretionary, subject to a hearing to determine the strength of the evidence against the accused.
Leading Case: People v. Zosa (G.R. No. 164449, July 20, 2006)
Factual Background: Zosa was charged with murder, a capital offense, and sought bail. The trial court denied the motion without holding a hearing to assess the strength of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that in cases where bail is discretionary, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. Denial of bail without a hearing violates the accused’s constitutional rights. In this case, the trial court was ordered to hold a proper hearing for Zosa’s application for bail.
​
Right to a Speedy Trial
The Right to a Speedy Trial ensures that criminal cases are prosecuted and adjudicated without unnecessary delay. It protects the accused from prolonged anxiety, and prevents undue restraint on liberty or impairment of the ability to defend themselves. Under Republic Act No. 8493, known as the Speedy Trial Act of 1998, time frames are set for the prompt disposition of criminal cases.
Leading Case: Corpuz v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 162214, November 11, 2004)
Factual Background: Corpuz was accused of malversation of public funds. However, the case took years to be resolved due to multiple postponements and delays by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court dismissed the case against Corpuz on the ground of violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Court stressed that delays caused by the prosecution, which result in prejudice to the accused, are violations of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The delay was unreasonable and inexcusable, resulting in the denial of justice.
Recent Case: Cagang v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 206438-39, July 31, 2018)
Factual Background: Cagang was charged with graft and corruption. His trial was delayed for over ten years due to postponements and procedural issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court acquitted Cagang on the ground that his right to a speedy trial was violated. The Court articulated a new four-part test in determining a speedy trial violation: (1) the length of the delay, (2) reasons for the delay, (3) assertion of the right by the accused, and (4) prejudice caused to the accused by the delay. Applying these factors, the Court found that the lengthy and unjustified delay merited the dismissal of the charges against Cagang.
Remedy for Violations of the Right to a Speedy Trial
When the right to a speedy trial is violated, the accused can seek remedies such as the dismissal of charges. The courts are required to balance the interests of both the state and the accused, ensuring that delays do not prejudice the right to a fair trial.
Leading Case: Duterte v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 188351, April 17, 2017)
Factual Background: Duterte was charged with a crime related to his previous tenure as a government official. He alleged that the trial had been delayed due to administrative and procedural reasons by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Duterte, stating that the delay in his trial had caused significant prejudice to his rights. The Court reaffirmed that any unjustified delay in prosecution can lead to dismissal based on the violation of the right to a speedy trial.
Time Frame and Speedy Disposition of Cases
The Speedy Disposition of Cases Act mandates specific time frames for the disposition of criminal cases. Delays caused by the prosecution or the judiciary, if unreasonable, could lead to the dismissal of the case or release of the accused.
Leading Case: Tatad v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 72335, March 21, 1988)
Factual Background: Tatad was accused of graft. His trial was delayed for over seven years, during which several procedural hurdles and prosecutorial delays occurred.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court ruled that the excessive delay violated Tatad’s right to the speedy disposition of his case. The case was dismissed, with the Court emphasizing that the right to speedy disposition includes the period before the trial, such as investigations and preliminary inquiries.
Remulla v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 226994, September 4, 2018)
Factual Background: Remulla was charged with graft, but his trial had been delayed for over six years due to the inactivity of the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court granted Remulla’s motion to dismiss, citing the violation of his right to a speedy trial. The Court reinforced that the responsibility of ensuring a prompt trial rests on the prosecution and the judiciary, and delays caused by administrative inefficiencies cannot be justified.
​​
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPPUS​
​
The Writ of Habeas Corpus in Philippine law and under the 1987 Constitution is a fundamental legal remedy designed to protect individual liberty against unlawful detention. The phrase “habeas corpus” means “you shall have the body,” and the writ serves as a legal tool to compel the government or any detaining authority to justify the detention of an individual before a court. It is considered a safeguard against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, ensuring that personal freedom is upheld.
Constitutional Provision
The writ of habeas corpus is explicitly mentioned in Article III, Section 15 of the 1987 Philippine 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.”
This provision enshrines the protection of individual liberty and limits the circumstances under which the writ may be suspended.
Purpose and Function
The writ is a legal mechanism that protects individuals from:
• Arbitrary detention: It ensures that no one is held without lawful cause.
• Unlawful restraint: It provides an avenue for those who believe they are unlawfully detained to seek relief through the courts.
If a person is detained without legal grounds, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus can be filed by the detained person or someone acting on their behalf. The court then orders the custodian (government authority or individual) to present the detained person and justify the legality of the detention. If the detention is found to be unlawful, the court will order the person’s release.
Grounds for Filing a Writ of Habeas Corpus
A petition for habeas corpus can be filed when:
• An individual is detained without legal authority or a valid warrant.
• The period of detention has exceeded what is legally permissible.
• The conditions of detention are illegal, such as when due process is not followed.
Suspension of the Writ
Under the 1987 Constitution, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended under very limited circumstances, namely:
1. Invasion or rebellion.
2. When public safety requires it.
However, even when suspended, the writ can still be invoked to address illegal detentions that are not related to these grounds. The suspension does not mean that the courts are powerless; it only applies to detentions involving rebellion or invasion.
Judicial and Legislative Oversight
When the writ is suspended, there is a system of checks and balances in place:
• The President of the Philippines has the authority to suspend the writ, but this can be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which may annul the suspension if it finds it unjustified.
• The Congress must be informed of any suspension and may revoke the President’s decision.
Jurisprudence on Habeas Corpus
Over the years, Philippine jurisprudence has established important precedents on the application of habeas corpus. Some notable cases include:
1. Lansang v. Garcia (G.R. No. L-33964, 1971):
• The Supreme Court held that while the President has the power to suspend the writ, the courts have the authority to review the factual basis of such a suspension to ensure that it complies with the Constitution.
2. Fortun v. President Arroyo (G.R. No. 190293, 2012):
• This case further solidified the judicial power to review the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, emphasizing that the courts serve as a vital check on executive power.
3. Alejano v. Cabuay (G.R. No. 160792, 2005):
• The Court ruled that the writ of habeas corpus is available to challenge the legality of detention, but not for those lawfully detained after conviction by a court.
Limits of the Writ
While the writ of habeas corpus is a powerful safeguard, it has its limits. It cannot be invoked:
• After a final conviction by a competent court.
• When detention is based on a valid court order, or for those already serving sentences under final judgments.
Conclusion
The writ of habeas corpus is a crucial part of the Philippines’ legal framework, reflecting the country’s commitment to safeguarding individual freedoms. It provides protection against unlawful detention, ensuring that any deprivation of liberty is justified by law. At the same time, its suspension is tightly controlled, with mechanisms for judicial and legislative review, thus preventing abuse of this extraordinary power.