WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR A MIRANDA WAIVER?

WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR A MIRANDA WAIVER?

We’ve got the familiar wording: “You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney. Anything you say may be used against you in court.” In the Philippine context this is recognised through Republic Act No. 7438 and related jurisprudence. But despite reading of those rights being “regularly practised”, what is striking is that the formal waiver – the signed document or formal act where the suspect voluntarily gives up those rights – is rarely seen in routine police work here.

And yet — internationally, the waiver or equivalent declaration is central to ensuring that any subsequent statements made by the suspect are admissible in court. Without it, the safeguards are weak. So, the question is: Are we missing a vital link in the chain of procedural fairness?

The Legal Framework

In the United States, the landmark Miranda v. Arizona (1966) requires that suspects in custodial interrogation be informed of their rights, and then, if they choose to speak, that waiver of those rights be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. In the Philippines, Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution and RA 7438 provide the basis for the rights of persons under custodial investigation. RA 7438 explicitly provides that any waiver “shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect” (Section 2(d) & (e)). So, yes — the law recognises the need for a waiver in the Philippines.

But: how uniformly is it being implemented?

Why a formal waiver matters

  1. Legal safeguard
     A formal waiver confirms the suspect understood the rights being given (right to remain silent; right to counsel) and nonetheless chose to answer questions. Without it, the statement may be challenged as involuntary or uninformed. This ensures protection against self-incrimination and coerced confessions.

  2. Admissibility of evidence
     If the waiver is invalid (e.g., not in writing, not in presence of counsel, or not ‘voluntary’), then any statement made might be excluded from court proceedings. Philippine jurisprudence holds that extrajudicial confessions obtained without valid waiver are inadmissible.

  3. Protecting rights in practice, not just theory
     It’s one thing for the rights to be statutorily recognised; it’s another for them to be operationalised. A formal waiver creates the paper trail, the accountability, the clarity that the suspect had choice. If we only read rights but don’t formalise waivers, we leave open questions of “Did the suspect really understand?” “Was counsel present?” “Was there coercion?”

So what’s the situation in the Philippines?

From the sources:

  • RA 7438 clearly demands that any waiver be in writing, signed by the person, in the presence of counsel.

  • Good news: there’s normative clarity. But: commentary suggests that in practice, compliance may vary – especially in rural or high-pressure situations, or where legal counsel is not present or not effective.

  • One legal commentary emphasises: “These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”

Yet — you ask: how many people have been convicted wrongly because of absence of formal waivers? I did not find a publicly available data set quantifying “wrong convictions due to missing Miranda waivers.” That in itself is telling. If the process is patchy, it may slip below statistical radar.

My reflections & suggestions

  • I suspect we have accepted the general principle of informing suspects of their rights. But we may not have consistently implemented the formal waiver protocol: signing, counsel present, recorded. This gap may undermine procedural safeguards and, in worst cases, lead to wrongful convictions or appeals overturning verdicts.

  • Should this be part of training? Absolutely. I wonder: Is the Philippine National Police (PNP) curriculum or the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) oversight requiring formal waivers? Are recruits taught explicitly the difference between “reading rights” and “secured waiver”? If not, that needs to change.

  • Should NAPOLCOM or another oversight body systematically monitor the use of waivers? I believe yes. A system of audit and accountability would reinforce the formal practice. It’s not enough that “we read the rights” — we must document that suspects knowingly and voluntarily waive them if they choose to speak.

  • Consider modernisation: Why not explore a blockchain ledger-based system (as I suggested) for recording rights advice and waiver? Time-stamped, tamper-resistant record of when rights were read, waiver signed, counsel present — could add an extra layer of transparency and trust. Of course, that would require investment and robust data-privacy safeguards, but it is worth exploring.

  • A question: Are we educating the public about the difference between rights being read and rights being waived? Many suspects (and their families) may genuinely not realise that a waiver is required and what its significance is.

Questions worth asking, and data worth gathering

  • What percentage of custodial investigations in the Philippines actually include a written waiver signed by the suspect, with counsel present?

  • In how many documented cases has a confession or admission been tossed out specifically because the waiver requirement under RA 7438 was not met?

  • Is there statistical tracking of violations of RA 7438 (e.g., officers penalised for failing to inform or fail to secure waiver) and their outcomes?

  • Does the PNP or NAPOLCOM issue annual reports on compliance?

  • From an education/training standpoint: are recruits taught the formality of the waiver and how to document it properly?

  • And if blockchain or similar technology is to be introduced: who will maintain the ledger, how will access be governed, how will it tie to existing case-management systems?

In sum: Yes, there is a strong and compelling need for a formal Miranda waiver process in the Philippines. The law recognises it. Yet the culture of its consistent use — the “signed in writing, in presence of counsel” formality — seems under-emphasised or under-enforced.

We must move beyond the theoretical. Reading rights is good. But without formally documenting and obtaining a proper waiver, we risk the integrity of our criminal justice system, suspect rights, and the admissibility of statements. Implementing robust protocols — perhaps even modernising with digital/ledger systems — training officers, educating suspects, and auditing compliance are all part of making the principle real in practice.

We owe it to suspects, to victims, and to the integrity of our justice system.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 04-02-2026

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES

LOCALIZED FREE AMBULANCE SERVICES As it is supposed to be, anyone in the Philippines should be able to dial 911, and a telephone operator should be able to dispatch fire, rescue, ambulance and police (FRAP) units as soon as possible, based on acceptable response times. I invented the FRAP acronym for easy recall, and I hope it sticks, if there is no other alternative. Unfortunately, due to a mixture of technical and political reasons, the Philippines has not adopted 911 as a national number, because some LGUs would rather use their own three-digit numbers such as 117 and 168. I actually proposed a technical solution to that problem, but it was not adopted either. For whatever it is worth, my solution is to install a call forwarding system that could route all calls to a central operator, regardless of what number is dialed. It is very sad for me to know that up to now, even if our country is already over one hundred years old, there are still many LGUs that do not have fire trucks. it ...
Read more