Miranda vs.

Arizona
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested at Arizona his home. The
police took him into custody, and transported him to a Phoenix police station. The
witness whom had filed the complaint identified him. Miranda was then lead to the
interrogation room. Then, the police officers proceeded to question him. Miranda
had never been informed of his rights prior to the questioning. He was never told he
had the right to an attorney to be present during the questioning. After two hours,
the officers had succeeded in getting a written confession signed by Miranda.
Located on the top of the confession was a typed paragraph stating that the
confession was voluntary, without any promises of immunity or threats. The
statement also said that Miranda signed the confession "with full knowledge of my
legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."
The Supreme Court went on to say that the process of interrogation is
intimidating by its very nature, and that a suspect must be read his or her rights to
counteract this intimidation. The Court continued by specifically outlining how a
suspect must be informed of his or her rights. First, a suspect needs to be read his
rights only before he is to be interrogated. An officer may arrest a suspect without
reading the Miranda rights as long as her does not question or interrogate the
suspect in any way.
When questioning begins, the first statement to be made is "You have the
right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?" The
officer must receive a verbal or written confirmation that the suspect understands
his right to remain silent. The officer is then to say "Anything you do say can and
will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?" Once again, as with

all the Miranda rights, the officer must have a verbal or written acknowledgement of
his right. The next statement is "You have the right to consult an attorney before
speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in
the future. Do you understand?" That statement is followed by "If you cannot afford
an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do
you understand?" The next Miranda right states that "If you decide to answer
questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop
answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?" The last
Miranda right specifically asks "Knowing and understanding your rights as I have
explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney
present?"
These Miranda rights have revolutionized the way police handle suspects.
Most judges hold these rights as critical to the due process of Americans. Simply
confusing one word, for example saying "anything you say may be used against
you", as opposed to "can and will be used against you", has been grounds for
dismissal. While some feel that it is unreasonable for the guilty to go free on
technicalities, it is currently held that it is necessary to occasionally allow the guilty
to go free to protect the innocent form undue hardship.
In the Philippines, Under this doctrine, all Law Enforcement Agencies Officers,
prior to any questioning during custodial investigation, the person must be warned
that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he gives may be used as
evidence against him, and that he has the right to the presence of an attorney,
either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights,
provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.

The Constitution even adds the more stringent requirement that the waiver
must be in writing and made in the presence of counsel. Section 12, Article III of the
Constitution reads:
SEC. 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.

This case permanently changed law enforcement procedures not only in the
US and in the Philippines but also in all countries, such that people taken into police
custody must be formally advised of their rights before questioning which basically
safeguards the constitutional right of every member of the society.
This doctrine also discourages the police to commit abuses on the arrested
person. This serves as a check-and-balance system for any and all police officers
involved in the case.