The Miranda Rights
The "Miranda rights" stem from the landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so desires. This doctrine is enshrined in Article 3, Section 12 (1) of the Constitution, which provides:
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.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of these requirements are inadmissible in evidence against the accused (Art. 3, Sec. 12 [3], Constitution).
Compared to what is originally laid out in Miranda v. Arizona, Philippine law provides for more stringent standards - where the right to counsel was specifically qualified to mean competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspect’s own choice. Waiver of the right to counsel likewise provided for stricter requirements compared to its American counterpart; it must be done in writing, and in the presence of counsel. The right to counsel espoused in the Miranda doctrine was based on the leading case of People vs. Galit and Morales, Jr. vs. Enrile, rulings subsequently incorporated into the present Constitution. (Source: People vs. Mojello)
