Constitutional Law: Article III, Section 10-12 Summary (De Leon)

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

 

Meaning of Obligation of Contracts.

The obligation of a contract is the law or duty which binds the parties to perform their agreement according to its terms or intent if it (agreement) is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.

 

Scope of terms “law” and “contract”.

Law – includes (1) executive and administrative orders of the President, (2) administrative orders issued by heads of departments, and (3) ordinances enacted by local governments.

Contract – the obligation of which is secured against impairment under the Constitution, includes contracts entered into by the government.

Example of impairment: Tax exemption based on a contract entered into by the government is revoked by a later taxing statute.

Note: A contract which is entitled to protection against impairment must be a valid one.

 

Purpose of non-impairment prohibition.

The prohibition is intended (1) to protect creditors,  (2) to assure the fulfillment of lawful promises, and (3) to guard the integrity of contractual obligations against unwarranted interference by the State in the form of laws.

 

When obligation of contract impaired.

(l) Change or modification of terms or conditions

(2) Cases. - More specifically, a law which:

(a) takes from a party a right to which he is entitled under the contract;

(b) deprives him of the means of enforcing such right;

(c) imposes conditions not expressed in the contract, or dispenses with those which are expressed in the contract;

(d) diminishes the consideration agreed upon by the parties, as to diminish the value of the contract; or

(e) authorizes for its satisfaction different from that provided in its terms; or enlarges, abridges or in any manner changes, directly or indirectly, the intention of the parties, is void as impairing the obligation of the contract within the meaning of the Constitution.

(3) By way of illustration. -

(a) A law increasing or decreasing the rate of interest for the loan of money cannot apply retroactively to loans contracted before its enactment, otherwise impairment will result.

(b) Where the terms of a statute have been made a part of a public contract, a subsequent amendment of the statute will have the effect of amending (indirectly) the terms of the contract.

(c) If a contract is legal at its inception, it cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent legislation.

(d) Laws impairing the obligation of contracts are necessarily retroactive or retrospective. There will be no impairment if the law is given prospective effect, i.e., it is already in effect at the time of the execution of the contract.

 

Impairment depends upon the circumstances.

(1) End sought and means adopted legitimate.

Enacted for the promotion of the general good of the people, and the means adopted to secure that end be reasonable – within the scope of the reserved power of the State construed in harmony with the constitutional limitation of that power.

(2) Interference free from unreasonableness.

The test of validity today under the due process clause, even in the case of legislation interfering with existing contracts, is reasonableness. In other words, freedom from arbitrariness, capriciousness and whimsicality is the test of constitutionality.

Limits on freedom to contract.

(1) Police Power

(2) Power of Taxation

(3) Power of Eminent Domain

(4) Freedom of Religion

(5) Reservation Clause in the Constitution

Prohibition against impairment not absolute.

(1) Prohibition signifies unreasonable impairment only.

            General. It is not to be read with literal exactness of a mathematical formula.

(2) Prohibition subject to exercise of police power.

            All private contracts must yield to the superior and legitimate measures taken by the State to promote the general welfare.

            (a) Regulation of matters involving public rights and public welfare.

            (b) Protection of public interests.

            (c) Balancing of conflicting interests.

(3) Prohibition not applicable to particular remedies or modes of procedure.

(4) Prohibition not applicable to judicial decisions.

(5) Prohibition not applicable when there is waiver.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Meaning of right to free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies.

Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is deemed essential ma democracy and in the rule of law.

(1) Poor litigants intended beneficiaries. 

(2) Where litigant's right has been finally adjudicated.

(3) Where court or body has no jurisdiction.

Right to adequate legal assistance.

The State has also the constitutional duty to provide free and adequate legal assistance to citizens when by reason of indigence or lack of financial means they are unable to engage the services of a lawyer to defend them or to enforce their rights in civil, criminal, or administrative cases.

Indigent litigant.

One who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of his family.

Constitutional policy is to be liberally construed.

Income of litigant is the determinative factor.

Section 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

Rights of person under arrest or investigation.

(1) Miranda rights.

            (a) to remain silent;

            (b) to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice or to be provided with one;

            (c) to be informed of such rights;

            (d) not to be subjected to the use of torture, force, violence threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates the freewill; and

            (e) not to be held in secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention.

(2) Waiver.

It must be in writing and in the presence of the counsel of the person under investigation.

(3) When right can be invoked.  

These rights are available the moment an arrest, with or without a warrant, is made or from the time he is taken into custody for possible investigation, or he is singled out as a suspect although not yet in custody. 

They may not be claimed by a defendant in a criminal case already pending in court because he is no longer under custodial investigation.

When person under investigation.

"under investigation" include custodial or in custody interrogation or investigation;

not where the proceeding is a mere general inquiry into an alleged crime.

Custodial interrogation or investigation.

The critical pre-trial stage when the police investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular person as a suspect who had been taken into custody by the police who carry out a process of interrogation and propounds questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements.

People v. Dela Cruz

Facts:

Rodolfo de la Cruz was convicted of multiple murder. The victims were Teodorico M. Laroya, Jr., his 12-year-old daughter Karen Verona D. Laroya, and his 10-year-old son John Lester D. Laroya. The bodies of the victims were discovered in their residence by their neighbors. They had been stabbed multiple times, and one of the victims showed signs of sexual assault.

Two witnesses testified in court, one of whom witnessed the discovery of the bodies, and the other had interactions with the accused on the night of the murders. 

Accused-appellant was arrested and interrogated by SPO1 Carlos R. Atanacio, Jr. during which he allegedly confessed to the crimes and signed an extrajudicial confession. 

Accused-appellant claims that he was not fully informed of his constitutional rights and was not provided with a counsel of his choice during the custodial investigation. He also alleges that he was tortured into signing the confession.
The trial court noted that accused-appellant had difficulty expressing himself and had a speech impediment. He denied meeting his supposed counsel and insisted on his innocence.


Issues:
WoN the accused-appellant was fully and appropriately informed of his constitutional rights during the custodial investigation.
WoN the extrajudicial confession obtained from accused-appellant is admissible as evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the RTC and acquitted accused-appellant Rodolfo de la Cruz. The court held that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible as evidence due to violations of accused-appellant's constitutional rights during the custodial investigation. The court found that accused-appellant was not properly informed of his rights, particularly regarding the provision of a counsel if he could not afford one. The presence and independence of the counsel provided by the law enforcers were also questionable. Moreover, the confession was not corroborated by other evidence of guilt, and the prosecution relied mainly on circumstantial evidence. 

Guarantee remedies imbalance between investigator and investigated.

Section 12 seeks to remedy the imbalance. During the period of his detention, the detainee shall have the right to confer with his counsel at any hour of the day or, in urgent case , of the night, alone and privately, in the jail or any other place of custody.

Effect of failure to comply with the guarantee.

(1) Confession or admission inadmissible. 

            Two (2) kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions: 

            1) those which are the product of third degree methods such as torture, force, violence threat or intimidation (paragraph 2 of Section 12), and

            2) those which are given without the benefit of Miranda warnings (paragraph 1)

(2) Penal and civil sanctions.

Responsibility of arresting officer.

(1) To inform person arrested of his rights.

(2) To explain their effects in practical terms.

(3) To allow him to communicate with his lawyer, etc. 

(4) To be familiar with the constitutional rights of persons arrested

or under investigation.

Right of detained person to be informed of his rights.

Must be according to the procedure. (People v. Mahinay)

1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person;

2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;

3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;

4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;

5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;

6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio, letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;

7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same;

8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak;

9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must ceased if it has already begun;

10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;

11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.

Meaning of "right to be informed."

A person accused of a crime has the constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. He must be formally charged with a specific crime and be informed of the specific details so that he can respond by pleading guilty or not guilty,

Warnings required for admissibility of statements made.

The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court. This warning is needed

in order to make him aware not only of the privilege, but also of

the consequences, of foregoing it.