Bill of Rights
Effect of the 1986 February Revolution on the 1973 Constitution.
The 1986 February Revolution was done in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution. The resulting government was indisputably a revolutionary government bound by no constitution or legal limitations except treaty obligations that the revolutionary government, as the de jure government, assumed under international law. The Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution was inoperative during that period, as it was abrogated by the Revolutionary government. But since the Philippines is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Declaration of Human Rights, the protection accorded to individuals under the same remained in effect even without the 1973 Constitution. (Republic vs. SB, Maj. Gen. Josephus Ramas, et al., G.R. No. 104768, July 21, 2003).
The 1973 Constitution was abrogated by the Revolutionary government;
During the interregnum (from the time of the Revolutionary government up to February 2, 1987), the directives and orders of the revolutionary government were the supreme law because no constitution limited the extent and scope of such directives and orders. With the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution by the successful resolution, there was no municipal law higher than the directives and orders of the revolutionary government. Thus, during the interregnum, a person could not invoke any exclusionary right under a Bill of Rights because there was neither a constitution nor a Bill of Rights during that interregnum. (Republic vs. SB, et al., supra.)
Effect of the operation of the Bill of Rights under the 1973 Constitution remained operative even during the Revolutionary government.
It rendered void all sequestration orders issued by the PCGG before the adoption of the Freedom Constitution. The sequestration orders, which direct the freezing and even the take-over of private property by mere executive issuance without judicial action, would violate the due process and search and seizure clauses of the Bill of Rights. During the interregnum the government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by no constitution. No one could validly question the sequestration orders as violative of the Bill of Rights because there was no Bill of Rights at that time. (Republic vs. SB, et al., supra.).
Case Reference:
In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus of Camilo L. Sabio, et al., Miguel vs. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340 and companion cases, October 17, 2006
