Bing, allow me to comment on the presumption of innocence as

constitutionally enshrined right (Article III, Bill of Rights, Sec. 14 subsec

2). As it stands now in the Philippine Constitution, it applies to all
equally. And rightly so. But as you are wont to propose that this right
should not apply to public servants, the proposition is dangerous and
does not support the rule of law ( contrary to what you may think). The
values served by the presumption of innocence are (1) to prevent the
conviction of the innocent, and (2) to promote the rule of law. Your
proposition is to subjugate these values promoted by presumption of
innocence to the protection of the community or efficiency in the
justice system. This has been debated for some time. And it has been
shown that the right of the innocent to be protected from wrongful
conviction should not be balanced against the interests of the
community in pursuing other objectives.
You say that you believe in the presumption of innocence for you and
me, who are not public servants, but ordinary citizens. There is a
reason for this. Conviction carries with it a variety of negative
consequences in the form of punishment, censure and stigma.
Conviction sends the message that the person is an offender against
the standards of conduct expected by the community of its members.
Stigmatization has very serious consequences. Thus, before we impose
all these consequences on an individual, there must be a sound
justification. Can we justify withholding such right to public servants? I
do not think it is fair. When one who is not yet convicted is already
presumed guilty, you would have unfairly imposed upon him all the
negative consequences without hearing his side and without sound
justification. How would you recompense the public servant if indeed
he is found innocent? You would have destroyed his life ( and maybe
that of his family). And if your proposal to not apply the presumption
of innocence on public servants is carried, you will not have anyone
serving in the government for the fear that they will be presumed
guilty.
On the promotion of rule of law, the presumption of innocence is
necessary as the State is tasked with the role of enforcing shared
standards of proper conduct. The State has the apparatus of police
and courts to do this. And without the State, enforcement will fall to
individuals and only the strong will be able to protect themselves. If
so, you can expect the strong to abuse their stature to the detriment of
the weak. We therefore rely on the State for protection in exchange for
our promise not to use force on our own. For if vindication of breached
rights was left to individuals, there will be cycle of violence. Thus , the
State must be responsible for criminal justice and is obliged to operate
the system in a manner that minimizes risks of wrongful conviction.
Thus, for this, we have enshrined other rights like, fair trial, right to
cross-examine, placing the burden of proof on the prosecution. The
presumption of innocence, on the value of promotion of rule of law,

demands thus that we allocate the burden of proof to the party with
greater resources. The State has vast resources than those available
to most defendants. The presumption of innocence is also to
counteract a tendency to discount the evidence of the defendant and
to assume his or her guilt. The presumption of innocence promotes
the rule of law by insisting that conviction and punishment be reserved
for cases where the guilt of the defendant is clearly demonstrated. If
people were to be subjected to criminal sanctions without proof that
they were guilty, people cannot conduct their affairs in the confidence
that they are safe from unjustified coercive interference by the State
and the rule of law would be undermined.