ENRILE VS SANDIGANBAYAN

Enriles argument for issuance of bail

1. That he obtained 2 mitigating circumstances, as he is above 70 years of age and

surrendered to the authority, thus making the penalty as reclusion temporal
2. The evidence of guilt is not strong
3. That he is not a flight risk due to his old age and health complications

1. Bail may be granted on “humanitarian grounds”

Even if:

 The crime is non-bailable, and

 The evidence of guilt is strong

👉 The Court considered:

 Advanced age

 Fragile health

 Lack of flight risk

Bail protects the right of the accused to

due process and to be presumed innocent

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved.18 The presumption of innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due process, and is
safeguarded by the constitutional right to be released on bail,19 and further binds the court to wait
until after trial to impose any punishment on the accused.20

It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional
crimes.[[21] The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or
whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the
presence of the accused when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably
calculated to fulfill this purpose.22 Thus, bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate
both the accused’s interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the society’s
interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial.
On the other hand, the granting of bail is discretionary: (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment;29 or (2) if the RTC has
imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances
enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5, Rule 114 is present, as follows:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or violated the
conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of hi s case indicate the probability of flight if released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency of the
appeal.

In resolving bail applications of the accused who is charged with a capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the trial judge is expected to comply with
the guidelines outlined in Cortes v. Catral,34 to wit:

1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, notify the prosecutor of the
hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation (Section 18, Rule
114 of the Rules of Court, as amended);

2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of
whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused
is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its sound discretion; (Section 7 and 8,
supra)

3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the
prosecution;

4. If the guilt of the accused is no t strong, discharge the accused upon the approval of the
bailbond (Section 19, supra) Otherwise petition should be denied.
This is the case digest for G.R. No. 100150, Brigido R. Simon, Jr., et al. vs. Commission on
Human Rights, et al..

Syllabus

● Constitutional Law; Commission on Human Rights (CHR); Jurisdiction. The CHR's

investigative authority under Section 18(1), Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution is limited
to "all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.".
● Civil Rights vs. Political Rights. Civil rights are those belonging to every citizen, such
as property rights, marriage, and equal protection. Political rights refer to the right to
participate in government administration, such as the right of suffrage and holding public
office.
● Nature of CHR Powers. The CHR is an investigatory body, not a court or a quasi-judicial
agency. It lacks adjudicatory power—the authority to apply law to facts to definitively
resolve a controversy.
● Contempt Powers. While the CHR can cite persons for contempt, this power is limited to
violations of its operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to its investigatory
functions, such as when a person refuses to cooperate or withholds evidence.

Facts

On July 9, 1990, petitioner Carlos Quimpo, as Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated
Hawkers Management Council, issued a Demolition Notice to private respondents (members of
the North EDSA Vendors Association, Inc.). The notice gave the vendors three days to vacate
their stalls along North EDSA to make way for the construction of a "People's Park".

On July 12, 1990, the vendors filed a letter-complaint with the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR Case No. 90-1580), seeking to stop the demolition. On July 23, 1990, the CHR issued an
Order directing the petitioners to desist from the demolition pending the investigation. Despite
this, the petitioners proceeded with the demolition on July 28, 1990.

In response, the CHR issued a resolution on August 1, 1990, ordering the disbursement of up to
P200,000.00 in financial assistance to the vendors and reiterating the desist order with a
warning of contempt. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the CHR lacked
jurisdiction because the case involved business privileges on government land, not civil or
political rights. On September 25, 1990, the CHR denied the motion and cited the petitioners in
contempt, imposing a fine of P500.00 each.

The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court to stop the
CHR proceedings.

Issues

1. Does the CHR have the jurisdiction to investigate violations of "business rights" or
privileges to engage in commerce?
2. Does the CHR have the authority to issue "cease and desist" orders and cite parties for
contempt for failing to follow such orders?
3. Does the CHR have the power to disburse financial assistance to victims of such
demolitions?

Ruling

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and prohibited the CHR from further
proceeding with the case.

● On Jurisdiction: The Court ruled that the CHR's jurisdiction is strictly limited to violations
involving civil and political rights. The right to use a public sidewalk for a business stall
is a mere privilege, not a constitutional "civil or political right" that the CHR is authorized
to protect. The "right to earn a living," while important, does not fall under the specific
category of rights the CHR was designed to investigate, which focuses more on severe
abuses like political detention and torture.
● On Contempt and Desist Orders: The CHR is not a quasi-judicial body and has no
power to issue injunctions or "cease and desist" orders. Its contempt power is only for the
purpose of ensuring its investigatory functions (e.g., compelling witnesses) and cannot
be used to enforce an order it had no jurisdiction to issue in the first place.
● On Financial Assistance: The Court noted that the CHR's power to recommend
compensation or provide legal aid to the underprivileged does not extend to the unilateral
disbursement of funds for financial aid to vendors in a demolition case, especially when
the legal standing of the claimants is in question.

Dispositive Portion: The writ of prohibition is GRANTED. The CHR is prohibited from further
proceeding with CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the P500.00 contempt fine.
Case Digest: The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections
(COMELEC)
G.R. No. 205728 | January 21, 2015

I. SYLLABUS (Legal Concepts)

1. Freedom of Expression vs. Election Laws: The power of the COMELEC to regulate
election propaganda applies only to candidates and political parties, not to private
citizens exercising their fundamental right to free speech.
2. Hierarchy of Rights: Freedom of expression occupies a preferred position in the
hierarchy of civil liberties. Any regulation that operates as a prior restraint on speech
bears a heavy presumption against its constitutionality.
3. Content-Based vs. Content-Neutral Restrictions: A regulation is content-based if it is
directed at the message of the speech. It is subject to strict scrutiny, requiring the State
to show a compelling government interest and that the regulation is the least restrictive
means available.
4. Property Rights vs. Free Speech: The right to use private property as a medium for
expression (e.g., posting a tarpaulin on one's own land) cannot be curtailed by election
size regulations intended for candidates.
5. Political Speech of Non-Candidates: Expressions by the electorate that tend to rouse
public debate on contemporary issues are "sacred" forms of speech. It is not "election
propaganda" but a substantive exercise of the right to suffrage.

II. FACTS
● The Tarpaulin: On February 21, 2013, the petitioners (Diocese of Bacolod) posted two
tarpaulins (approx. 6x10 feet) on the front gate of the San Sebastian Cathedral in
Bacolod City. The compound is private property.
 ● The Message: The tarpaulins contained the heading "Team Buhay" (listing candidates
who opposed the RH Law) and "Team Patay" (listing candidates who supported the RH
Law).
● COMELEC Intervention: Respondents (Election Officer and COMELEC) issued a Notice
and later a letter ordering the Bishop to remove the tarpaulins. They argued the
tarpaulins violated Resolution No. 9615, which limits the size of campaign materials to
2x3 feet.
● Petitioner’s Stand: The petitioners refused, claiming that the order violated their
freedom of expression. They argued that they were not candidates and that the
tarpaulins were an expression of their social and religious advocacy regarding the
Reproductive Health (RH) Law.
● Procedural Path: Fearing a criminal prosecution for an election offense, the petitioners
filed a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the
COMELEC's orders.

III. ISSUES
1. Whether the COMELEC has the competence to limit expressions made by private
citizens who are not candidates during an election period.
2. Whether the size restriction (2x3 feet) on campaign materials is a valid content-neutral
regulation (Intermediate Scrutiny) or a content-based restriction (Strict Scrutiny).
3. Whether the petitioners' posting of the tarpaulin constitutes "election propaganda" under
the law.

IV. RULING
1. On COMELEC's Jurisdiction over Non-Candidates
NO. The Supreme Court held that the COMELEC's constitutional power to regulate election
propaganda is limited to candidates and political parties. The electorate (private citizens)
should be allowed to shape the debates during elections without unreasonable restrictions. To
allow COMELEC to regulate the speech of private citizens would be to allow it to "rule-make" the
people into silence.

2. On the Nature of the Restriction (Strict Scrutiny)

CONTENT-BASED. The Court ruled that the regulation was content-based because the notice
to remove the tarpaulin was triggered by the political message it contained (the "Team
Buhay/Patay" labels).

● Because it was content-based, the State had to meet the Strict Scrutiny Test.
 ● The Court found no compelling state interest to justify limiting the size of the tarpaulin.
The goal of "equalizing the playing field" between candidates does not apply to private
citizens who are simply expressing an opinion on a matter of public concern.

3. On "Election Propaganda" vs. Political Speech

NOT ELECTION PROPAGANDA. The Court distinguished between "election propaganda"
(speech by candidates to entice votes) and "political speech" (expression by the electorate to
rouse public debate). The tarpaulin was a form of "speech hopeful of a quality of democracy."
The right to suffrage includes the right to inform others of the conditions for one's vote.

4. Property Rights
The Court emphasized that the tarpaulin was posted on private property. While the State can
regulate the "time, place, and manner" of speech, it cannot use size restrictions to effectively
stifle a citizen's chosen medium of expression on their own land, especially when that speech
involves high-value political content.

V. CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The COMELEC’s Notice and Letter were declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The permanent injunction against the removal of the tarpaulin was
made permanent. The Court concluded that the "sacred" form of speech by the electorate must
be protected against benign-looking regulations that actually chill free expression.

Justice Leonen’s Core Principle: "No unreasonable restrictions of the fundamental and
preferred right to expression of the electorate during political contests... will be tolerated."
Who we are
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is an independent National Human Rights Institution
(NHRI) created under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, established on 05 May 1987 by virtue of
Executive Order No. 163.

The Commission is mandated to conduct investigations on human rights violations against

marginalized and vulnerable sectors of the society, involving civil and political rights.

CHR is an “A” accredited NHRI, fully complying with the Paris Principles adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1995. As an NHRI, the Commission upholds six fundamental
characteristics — independence, pluralism, broad mandate, transparency, accessibility, and
operational efficiency.
The Commission commits to deliver prompt, responsive, accessible, and excellent public ser vice
for the protection and promotion of human rights in accordance with universal human rights
principles and standards.

History
The CHR was created as a response to the atrocities committed during Martial Law. When the
1987 Philippine Constitution was drafted, Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights clearly
defined the creation of the Commission.

“There is hereby created an independent office called The Commission on Human

Rights…
(to) investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights
violations involving civil and political rights …” (Sec. 17-18, Art. XIII, Philippine
Constitution)

“I, Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines… do hereby (declare) the Commission on
Human Rights as provided under Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution to be now in existence…”
(Executive Order No. 163)

The 1987 Philippine Constitution primarily gave CHR the mandate to protect and promote the
rights and dignity of every human being in the country. The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. (Sec. 11, Art. II, Philippine
Constitution)

The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic and political inequalities,
and remove cultural inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the
common good.
(Sec. 1, Art. XIII, Philippine Constitution)

Functions of the CHR

Under Section 18, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights shall
have the following powers and functions:
 ● Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations
involving civil and political rights;
● Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
● Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons
within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection;
● Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
● Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance
respect for the primacy of human rights;
● Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
● Monitor the Philippine Government’s compliance with international treaty obligation on
human rights;
● Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
● Request the Assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance
of its functions;
● Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
● Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

Mantra
CHR ng lahat: Naglilingkod maging sino ka man

Vision
A society where human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully enjoyed by everyone and are
respected, protected, and fulfilled.
Mission
The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines shall protect and promote human rights of
all; prevent human rights abuses; and monitor and advise the Philippine’s compliance with its
international treaty obligation, through collaborative effort with the government and the people.

Quality Policy
We, the Commission on Human Rights, commit to provide prompt, accessible, responsive, and
excellent public services in accordance with our Constitutional mandates and universal human
rights standards and continually improve our Quality Management System to meet the
requirements of our clients and stakeholders.

 Investigate all forms of human rights violations, either on its own or through complaints
 Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite CONTEMPT in violations
thereof.
 Providing legal protection, aid, and preventive measures within the Philippines as well as
Filipinos living abroad
 Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
 Promoting human rights through research, education, and public awareness
 Recommend to Congress effective measure to promote human rights and provide for
compensation to victims of violation of human rights
 Monitoring the government’s compliance with international human rights treaties
 Granting immunity to witnesses when needed for investigations
 Seeking assistance from government agencies in the performance of its functions
 Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law
 Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.