text:
Right to silence

The right to silence is a legal principle which guarantees any individual the right to refuse to answer questions from law enforcement officers or court officials. It is a legal right recognized, explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.

The right covers a number of issues centered on the right of the accused or the defendant to refuse to comment or provide an answer when questioned, either prior to or during legal proceedings in a court of law. This can be the right to avoid self-incrimination or the right to remain silent when questioned. The right may include the provision that adverse inferences cannot be made by the judge or jury regarding the refusal by a defendant to answer questions before or during a trial, hearing or any other legal proceeding. This right constitutes only a small part of the defendant's rights as a whole.

The origin of the right to silence is attributed to Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their ex officio oath. In the late 17th century, it became established in the law of England as a reaction to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts. In the United States, informing suspects of their right to remain silent and of the consequences for giving up that right forms a key part of the Miranda warning.

History
Neither the reasons nor the history behind the right to silence are entirely clear. The Latin brocard nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare ('no man is bound to accuse himself') became a rallying cry for religious and political dissidents who were prosecuted in the Star Chamber and High Commission of 16th-century England. People coming before these tribunals were forced to make the ex officio oath by which they swore to truthfully answer the questions to be put before them without knowing what they were being accused of. This created what has been termed the cruel trilemma whereby these accused were forced to choose between committing the mortal sin of perjury (if they lied under oath to protect themselves), harsh punishment for contempt of court (if they refused to answer), or betraying their "natural" duty of self-preservation (if they told the truth to honour their oath). Sir Edward Coke's challenge to the ecclesiastical courts and their ex officio oath is seen as the origin of the right to silence. With his decision that common law courts could issue writs of prohibition against such oaths and his arguments that such oaths were contrary to the common law (as found in his Reports and Institutes), Coke "dealt the crucial blow to the oath ex officio and to the High Commission".

After the parliamentary revolutions of the late 17th century, according to some historical accounts, the right to silence became established in the law as a reaction to the excesses of the royal inquisitions in these courts. The rejection of the procedures of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission eventually resulted in the emergence of the principle, according to US jurist and law of evidence expert John Henry Wigmore, "that no man is bound to incriminate himself, on any charge (no matter how properly instituted), or in any Court (not merely in the ecclesiastical or Star Chamber tribunals)". It was extended during the English Restoration (from 1660 on) to include "an ordinary witness, and not merely the party charged".

However, the right to silence was not always a practical reality for all accused in the English courts for some period afterwards. With limited access to legal counsel (often depending on the social status of the accused), a shifting standard of proof, and a system generally distrustful of silent defendants, a criminal accused who remained silent was often believed to be guilty and was sentenced. Nevertheless, it remained a basic right available to the accused and has been an accepted practice over the past few centuries. In England, the practice of judicial questioning of accused persons at trial (as distinct from questioning prior to trial), did not really disappear until well into the 18th century, but by the 19th century, the accused were not allowed to give evidence on oath even if they wanted to – also said to be a reaction to the inequities of the Star Chamber and High Commission.

In countries formerly part of the British Empire (such as Commonwealth nations, the United States and the Republic of Ireland) the right to silence has remained enshrined in the common-law tradition inherited from England, although it no longer applies in England and Wales, where remaining silent can be considered a sign of guilt by juries. NB Scots law, which is not derived from English law but wholly separate, still upholds the full right to silence. In the US, the right existed prior to the American Revolution. However, it was considered one of the most important safeguards protecting citizens against arbitrary actions of the state, and was enshrined in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, along with the words "due process", which was first mentioned in a statute of Edward III in 1354 and contains similar wording to the Fifth Amendment.

The right to silence spread to many nations of the British Empire. The two different but diverging paths along which these rights evolved and operate in Anglo-American jurisprudence (one through rights expressed in an entrenched constitution, the other in Acts of Parliament specifying rights or protections at common law) can be seen today in Commonwealth nations like New Zealand, where police officers are still required at common law to issue "Miranda-style" warnings (but which are completely unrelated to the US Miranda warning ruling) and inform arrested persons that they do not have to answer any questions but that whatever they do say (or do) can be used in court as evidence. The police must also determine whether the arrested persons understand these rights. Any failure to do so can jeopardize a criminal prosecution. While differing slightly from the wording used in the US, the intent is identical and comes from the inherited tradition of law. However, in Australia for instance, anything said by the accused under police questioning while in custody will generally not be accepted into evidence unless it is corroborated, generally by audio or video record. Australian police all wear chest cams as part of their standard issue, and turn them on with every interaction, so that they record and provide such evidence.

As in the US, suspects in some Commonwealth countries are also entitled to have counsel present during questioning. In the United Kingdom, laws introduced, have the suspects told they have the right to remain silent, but are now also cautioned that anything they do not reveal in questioning, but later rely upon in court may harm their defence. In other words, in some cases inferences can be drawn. The right to counsel, which also became increasingly entrenched in the US following the American Revolution, gave defendants a practical method of mounting a defense while remaining silent, and the development of the modern police force in the early 19th century opened up the question of pretrial silence for the first time. The key American case of Bram v. United States paved the way for the right to be extended to pretrial questioning, and the practice of "Miranda warnings" became established in the US and elsewhere following the case of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966.

While initially alien to inquisitorial justice systems, the right to silence spread across continental Europe, in some form, throughout the late 20th century, due to developments in international law which had an increasing universalisation of certain due process protections.

Worldwide
Warnings of a right to remain silent are given in approximately 108 nations around the world.

Australia
Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence, but it is broadly recognized by State and Federal Crimes Acts and Codes and is regarded by the courts as an important common law right and a part of the privilege against self-incrimination. In general, criminal suspects in Australia have the right to refuse to answer questions posed to them by police before trial and to refuse to give evidence at trial. As a general rule judges cannot direct juries to draw adverse inferences from a defendant's silence (Petty v R) but there are exceptions to this rule, most notably in cases which rely entirely on circumstantial evidence which it is only possible for the defendant to testify about (Weissensteiner v R). This exception has been abolished in Victoria by sections 42 and 44 of the Jury Directions Act 2015. The right does not apply to corporations (EPA v Caltex).

Within Australia, the right to silence derives from common law's Companion rule. The basic position is adverse inference may not be drawn about the defendant's culpability, where he/she does not answer police questions. While this is the common law position, it is buttressed by various legislative provisions. Some investigations can strip the right, such as those undertaken by the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

Bangladesh
Article 33 of the Constitution of Bangladesh discusses the rights of the arrested and detained; no right to silence is mentioned either in the Constitution or the Bangladesh Penal Code, except in Article 35(4) of the Constitution, which protects individuals from self-implication. To facilitate protection from self-implication, Bangladesh Penal Code makes an exception in cases of confessions, in which case, the Magistrate obtaining a confession under Section 164 must explain the confessor's right to silence, and must attest to the fact that the rights of the confessor were read out to him and explained, and the confessor waived his right of silence.

Article 33 of the Constitution of Bangladesh compels arresting authorities to inform the accused of the accusations brought against him before he is detained, and that the detained must be presented to the nearest court within 24 hours. Exceptions to this rule include preventive detention and the arrest of an enemy alien. Right to counsel is an inalienable right, but the arresting officer need not explicitly state it to the detained.

Article 35(4) of the Constitution protects individuals from self-implication. Therefore, warnings must be read out to the detained person if he wants to voluntarily confess to the charges; in this case, a Magistrate must read and explain the confessor's right to silence and protection from self-implication, and attest to the fact that the rights of the confessor were read out to him and explained, and the confessor waived his right of silence.

Canada
In Canada, the right to silence is protected under the common law confessions rule, and section 7 and section 11(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The accused may not be compelled as a witness against himself in criminal proceedings, and therefore only voluntary statements made to police are admissible as evidence. Prior to an accused being informed of their right to legal counsel, any statements they make to police are considered involuntarily compelled and are inadmissible as evidence. After being informed of the right to counsel, the accused may choose to voluntarily answer questions and those statements would be admissible.

These rights to silence exist only when the suspect is knowingly dealing with a person in authority. When the subject is unaware he is dealing with the police, such as in the case of an undercover operation, these protections do not exist unless the authority figure actively elicits a statement. Statements made to police officers during undercover operations almost always comply with the confessions rule unless the conduct of the police was deemed so egregious that it would "shock the community." However, section 7 rights might still become implicated in the case of elicitation, after which a court could only admit the statement if it is satisfied that it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Under the Charter, an arrested person has the right:

 * To be informed promptly of the reasons therefor.
 * To retain and instruct counsel without delay and be informed of that right.
 * To have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

The Canadian Charter warning reads (varies by police service): "You are under arrest for _________ (charge); do you understand? You have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. We will provide you with a toll-free telephone lawyer referral service, if you do not have your own lawyer. Anything you do say can and will be used in court as evidence. Do you understand? Would you like to speak to a lawyer?"

A more detailed version:

"I am arresting you for (charge). It is my duty to inform you that you have the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. You may call any lawyer you want. There is a 24-hour telephone service available which provides a legal aid duty lawyer who can give you legal advice in private. This advice is given without charge and the lawyer can explain the legal aid plan to you. If you wish to contact a legal aid duty lawyer, I can provide you with a telephone number. Do you understand? Do you want to call a lawyer? You are not obliged to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence in court."

Section 14 of the Charter further provides that a translator must be made available so that the person can understand the proceedings against them. This right to a translator extends to the deaf. In Quebec, the Charter warning is read in Canadian French. In New Brunswick and Ottawa, the warning is read in either English or French, and the officer is required to ask the person's language of preference before issuing the warning. In the rest of Canada, the Charter warning is read in Canadian English.

While Section 10b of the Charter guarantees the right to be provided legal counsel, Canadian law only entitles criminal suspects under the age of 18 to have counsel actually be present throughout the entire interrogation. Once an adult suspect has asserted their right to counsel, the police are obliged to hold off in attempting to obtain evidence until the suspect has had a reasonable opportunity to contact legal counsel. However, after that opportunity has been exhausted, there is no guarantee of further access until the interrogation is over. Additionally, even if the suspect directly asserts his decision to remain silent, the police may continue the interrogation. There is no automatic exclusion of evidence obtained after such an assertion, however it risks breaching the confessions rule if a court finds that it created reasonable doubt to whether the confession was obtained under "oppressive conditions," a determination which is made upon the totality of evidence.

A leading case on the right to silence in Canada is R. v. Singh, where a person in police custody invoked his right to silence 18 times yet was continually questioned. In a 5–4 majority, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that there was no ancillary right under section 7 to have the police stop questioning a suspect after the asserted their right to silence. The court did, however, acknowledge that repeated police questioning after a defendant has asserted their right to silence raises doubts regarding the admissibility of further evidence under the confessions rule, though that was not the finding in the case. Another Supreme Court case, R. v. Hodgson, clarified that the right to silence only applied to the state and could not be used to exclude confessions made to private actors.

Although an accused has the right to remain silent and may not be compelled to testify against themselves, where an accused freely chooses to take the witness box and testify, there is no further right to silence and no general restriction on what kinds of questions they may be required to answer. Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that witnesses may not have any incriminating evidence they gave as testimony used against them in separate proceedings. In effect, a person can be compelled to give involuntary self-incriminating evidence, but only where that evidence is to be used against a third party.

In the past, most cases, except for certain sex offences or where the victims were children, spouses could not be compelled to testify against each other. However, after Bill C-32, The Victim's Bill of Rights Act, this is no longer the case. Spouses retain the right to assert privilege, and to refuse to answer questions about communications during the marriage.

China
The right of silence is not guaranteed by law in China. Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Law states that "The criminal suspect shall answer the investigators' questions truthfully, but he shall have the right to refuse to answer any questions that are irrelevant to the case." But since the 1996 amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law, Article 15 states that "It shall be strictly prohibited to extort confessions by torture, gather evidence by threat, enticement, deceit, or other illegal means, or force anyone to commit self-incrimination." In 2012 the law was also re-amended to include clauses that protect human rights. China has recognized the right against self-incrimination and forced confessions are prohibited by law. The signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1998, also guarantees Chinese citizens the right against self-incrimination, however the treaty has not been ratified in China.

Czech Republic
The Czech Republic protects the right to silence by two clauses in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Article 37, clause 1 states that "everyone has the right to refuse a statement if he/she would cause risk of prosecution of himself/herself or a close person". In Article 40, clause 4, it is stated that "an accused person has the right to refuse a statement; he/she must not be deprived of this right in any way".

European Union
Within the European Union, a gradual process of harmonising the laws of all the states of the Union has resulted in the adoption a common letter of rights that will apply to everyone across the European Union. The agreed law—also known as "the Reding Rights" taking the name of the EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who has proposed and negotiated the measure to become law across the entire European Union—will mean that suspects in the European Union will once detained receive a "Letter of Rights listing their basic rights during criminal proceedings".

The European law ensures that people suspected of a criminal offence receive adequate information about their basic rights during criminal proceedings. These are the right to a lawyer; to be informed of the charge; to interpretation and translation for those who do not understand the language of the proceedings; the right to remain silent and to be brought promptly before a court following arrest.

In particular, the law includes five innovations:

Suspects will be informed of their rights following the arrest; They will be given a "letter of rights" spelling out their rights in writing; The letter of rights will be easy to understand, without legal jargon; It will be made available in a language the suspect understands; It will contain practical details about the person's rights.

These rights are contained in a letter of rights—"the Reding Rights"—a printed document given to suspects after they are detained and before interrogation. The European Union law, proposed in July 2010 by the European Commission, was adopted by the European Parliament and Council in December 2011. The European Union Directive was published officially on 1 June 2012 in the Official Journal of the European Union L 142, 1 June 2012. It became operational across the European Union by 2 June 2014.

European Convention on Human Rights
The concept of right to silence is not specifically mentioned in the European Convention on Human Rights but the European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to remain silent under police questioning and the privilege against self-incrimination are generally recognized international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6.

France
In France, any person brought in police custody (garde à vue) must be informed of the maximal duration of the custody, and a number of rights, in a language that this person understands. Among these rights are: the possibility of warning a relative or employer of the custody, that of asking to be examined by a physician, and that of discussing the case with a lawyer.

The French Code of Criminal Procedure (art. L116) makes it compulsory that when an investigating judge hears a suspect, he must warn him that he has the right to remain silent, to make a statement, or to answer questions. A person against which suspicions lay cannot legally be interrogated by justice as an ordinary witness.

At the actual trial, a defendant can be compelled to make a statement. However, the code also prohibits hearing a suspect under oath; thus, a suspect may say whatever he feels fit for his defense, without fear of sanction for perjury. This prohibition is extended to the suspect's spouse and members of his close family (this extension of the prohibition may be waived if both the prosecution and the defence counsel agree to the waiver).

Since 15 April 2011, any person held by the police has new rights:

 * The person is immediately informed by a police officer, or in the presence of one, in a language that he can understand, that (Article 3):
 * he has the right to ask assistance of a lawyer (63-3-1 to 63-4-3 of Penal Procedure code);
 * he has the right, after answering questions about his identity, to answer other questions or to remain silent.
 * From the beginning of custody, the person can ask for the assistance of a lawyer (Article 6).
 * The conversation with the lawyer has to remain confidential (Article 7).
 * The lawyer has the right to access some of the documents related to the procedure and to be present at any police interview of the suspect made by the police (Article 8).

Witnesses under indictment (or who are cited as suspects) cannot be heard under oath, and thus do not risk prosecution for perjury. Such witnesses must be assisted by an attorney, and must be informed of these rights when heard by the judiciary. Suspects brought before a Juge d'instruction must be informed of their right to remain silent, to make statements, or to answer questions. In all cases, an attorney can be designated by the head of the bar if necessary.

Germany
According to § 136 Strafprozessordnung (Germany) (StPO, i.e. Criminal Procedure Code) a suspect, arrested or not, has to be informed before any interrogation about their right to remain silent. Though the police and courts may not draw inference from the complete silence of the accused in any stage of criminal proceedings, inference may be drawn if the accused is selectively silent. Suspects cannot be heard under oath.

Before any interrogation begins a suspect, arrested or not, must be informed:

 * Of the crime for which he is charged
 * About his right to remain silent
 * About his right to consult an attorney before the interview
 * About his right to name any evidence in his favour

Foreign suspects have the following additional rights:

 * Translation assistance, and
 * Consular assistance

A person against which exist plausible causes of suspicion can be interrogated as an ordinary witness in criminal proceedings against another person. However, in this case according to § 55 StPO, the witness can refuse to answer questions which could incriminate themselves (or one of their relatives). The suspicious witness also must be cautioned about the right to remain silent. Suspicious witnesses cannot be heard under oath.

However, the German constitutional court has decided that the much more strict UK laws, in which complete silence of the accused can be used against him depending on additional evidence, are compatible with the German constitution. Thus, Germany may extradite persons to the UK. It also implies that changing the German laws towards those of the UK would not violate the German constitution.

Hong Kong
The right to silence is protected according to common law. The "Rules and Directions for the Questioning of Suspects and the Taking of Statements" (Rules and Directions), promulgated by the then Secretary for Security in 1992, stipulate that the caution to be used to remind a suspect of his right to remain silent when he is questioned. The statement can be read in English, Cantonese or Mandarin:

"English: 'You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but what you say may be put into writing and given in evidence.'"

This is similar to the caution given in England and Wales prior to the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

According to Jessica Wing-kay Chiu (趙穎琦), then a PhD candidate of the University of Hong Kong, the law does not codify the exact procedure for law enforcement to serve a notice to the right to silence.

India
The Constitution of India guarantees every person the right against self incrimination under Article 20 (3): "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself". It is well established that the Right to Silence has been granted to the accused by virtue of the pronouncement in the case of Nandini Sathpathy vs P. L. Dani, no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused, who has the right to keep silent, but only in the court of law. It is not clear if the accused can exercise his right to silence during interrogation by public servants. In 2010, the Supreme court found that forced narco-analysis, brain mapping and lie detector tests violate of Article 20(3).

Israel
In Israel, according to Sections 28 (Hearing arguments of the detainee) and Section 31 (Explanation of rights to the detainee) of the Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Authority—Arrests) 1996, an officer interrogating/arresting a suspect must duly warn him first that he does not have to say any thing that may incriminate him, and that any thing he will say may be used against him. According to Israeli law, the exercise of the right to remain silent may be considered as supplemental evidence in most cases, and this fact also needs to be explained to the suspect. Also the officer needs to inform the suspect that he has the right to notify a family member or acquaintance and a lawyer of his arrest, his right for counsel, and the duration he can be held before he is released or brought before a judge.

Israeli law has not adopted the "Fruits of the Poisoned Tree" doctrine, and flaws in the process of collecting it affect only the weight of tainted evidence. However, in Criminal Appeal 5121/98, Issaharov v. The Military Prosecutor, a court of nine ruled that the defendant's confession, given without proper warning regarding the right of representation, was not considered as given with consent and free will, and was not accepted by the court.

Japan
According to the Constitution of Japan under Article 38(1), no person is allowed to testify against themselves.

Latvia
In Latvia, the Criminal procedure law (Kriminālprocesa likums) (sections 60.2, 150, 265, and more) sets out a right for anyone against whom criminal proceedings has been initiated or suspicions raised to remain silent. Upon arrest and before first interrogation of a person against whom any (official or unofficial) suspicion has been raised in a criminal case, such person must be warned of his or her right to remain silent, and that everything such person says may be used against that person in a criminal proceedings. Witnesses, victims and persons whose property rights has been affected by criminal proceedings has a right not to incriminate oneself and his or her relatives and not to give any information that is directly or indirectly self-incriminating or may incriminate such persons' relatives. Refusal to testify or answer all or any questions on the basis of right against self-incrimination cannot be used against such person in any way or be used as evidence of guilt. No judge, prosecutor, investigator or any other public body may draw adverse inferences about a person from exercising a right against self-incrimination. Outside criminal proceedings right against self-incrimination is honored as long-standing unwritten general principle of law in all quasi-criminal (such as administrative offense law) and public proceedings, which has been repeatedly upheld by legal precedent and case law.

Netherlands
In the Netherlands, each accused suspect has the right to remain silent to questions of the police and the prosecutor, during interrogation or investigation at the hearing. According to Dutch law, only the police officer will read the rights of the suspect in the police station. Security guards have the right to put somebody under arrest, but they have to hand over the suspect immediately to the police officer who will read the rights of the suspect later in the station. The rights are: to remain silent, the right to have an attorney, the right to have access to some files coming from the criminal dossier, and the right to make contact to an attorney.

There is an exception: The accused must co-operate when there is "een aan de wil van de verdachte onafhankelijk goed" (material which has an existence independent of the will of a suspect) and a legal obligation for the suspect to hand over such material exists. For example, a suspect has to co-operate with giving a blood sample (with a suspicion of alcohol in traffic), or co-operate in handing over mucus, dandruff or hair for a DNA test. Such a DNA test can only be done at the request of the prosecutor and ordered by the judge. There also have to be serious objections against the accused, and temporary detention has to be applicable.

New Zealand
In New Zealand, the right of persons arrested to refrain from making a statement and to be informed of that right is contained in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, as further reflected in a practice note on police questioning issued in 2006, by then Chief Justice Sian Elias. The Evidence Act 2006 explicitly prohibits the inference of guilt in a criminal proceeding from a defendant exercising their right to silence. At common law the leading case is Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board where Justice Cooke held, "The starting point ... [is], unless an Act of Parliament imposes or authorises the imposition of a duty to the contrary, every citizen has in general a right to refuse to answer questions from anyone, including an official."

The obligation to caution arises when:

 * a suspect is in custody;
 * when police have enough evidence to believe the person has committed an offence;
 * when detained, such as for the execution of a statutory or common law power of search or in the execution of drink driving investigations;
 * other situations as dictated by statute or case law.

The caution to be given to adults is as follows:

"I am speaking to you about/You have been detained for/You have been arrested for [offence]. You have the right to remain silent. You do not have to make any statement. Anything you say will be recorded and may be given in evidence in court. You have the right to speak with a lawyer without delay and in private before deciding to answer any questions. Police have a list of lawyers you may speak to for free."

The caution in Māori is as follows:

"Kei te kōrero au ki a koe mō te/Kua mau koe e te ture mō te/Kua hopu koe e te ture mō te [offence]. He tika tāu ki te noho wahangū. Kāore he here i runga i a koe ki te whakaputa kōrero. Ka hopukina ō kōrero, ā, tērā pea ka whakaputahia hei taunakitanga i te kōti. He tika tāu ki te kōrero wawe ki tētahi rōia i roto i te tapu i mua i te whakarite ki te whakautu pātai. He rārangi rōia tā ngā pirihimana hei kōrerotanga māu mō te kore utu."

Norway
According to Straffeprosessloven (Criminal Procedures Code), a defendant cannot be obliged to testify(§90). Further; no promises, inaccurate information, threats or coercion can be used. The same applies to any means which reduces the defendants consciousness or his ability to self-determination. Any interrogation must not have as a goal to wear out the defendant(§92). However, if the defendant decides not to testify, the judge may advise him that it may in certain circumstances be held against him(§93).

In general, anyone is required to appear before the courts and give testimony, except dictated otherwise by the law(§108)

There are some notable exceptions:

§119: The court may not hear evidence from a priest in the Norwegian Church, or indeed any priest or similar in any registered faith, lawyers, defence attorneys, arbitrators in marriage affairs, medical doctors, psychologists, nurses, midwives or apothecaries, except with the explicit permission of the person entitled to silence, concerning anything they have learnt during the performance of their function. The above does not apply if testimony is required to prevent someone from being wrongfully convicted(§119). Catholic priests have refused to testify about information obtained in confession even in these cases, and the Supreme Court has not sanctioned this.

§121: Even if the relationship is not regulated by §119, the courts may relieve a witness of the duty to testify concerning information obtained in counseling, social work, medical care, judicial assistance "or similar".

§122: A defendants spouse, relatives in directly ascending or descending order, siblings and their spouses are not required to give testimony. The same applies to separated or divorced spouses, or people living in a "marriage like" relationship, e.g. common-law marriages. The court may extend this right to fiancees, foster-parents/children/siblings.

§123: A witness may refuse to answer questions leading to self-incrimination either for the witness itself, or for anyone related to the witness as described by §122.

§124: A witness may refuse to answer questions relating to business secrets. The court may oblige the witness to testify after consideration.

§125: The editor of a printed magazine/newspaper may refuse to divulge the writer of any articles in his journal, or sources for its content.

Pakistan
Article 13 of the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan protects a person, when accused of an offence, from self-incrimination.

Philippines
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, in section 12(1) of Article 3 (Bill of Rights), states:

"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."

This was expanded into a caution during arrest under Republic Act 7438. Previously, informing arrested persons of their rights occurred long after arrest, if it ever occurred at all. "Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer."

Section 17 of the Bill of Rights further states that "[n]o person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself", meaning a person has the right not to serve as a witness in cases in which they are the defendant so as to avoid self-incrimination.

Punishments for law enforcement officers who fail to read suspects their rights, under RA7438, are severe: besides a fine of 6,000 Philippine pesos, officials may be jailed for between eight and ten years.

In the 1999 case People vs Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, the Supreme Court of the Philippines was asked to consider the case of Larry Mahinay y Amparado, a man convicted of the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl, the neighbor of his employer. Mahinay confessed but later retracted his confession, claiming that he made it due to fear surrounding his imprisonment and not actual guilt. Mahinay claimed that the police officers attacked him and threatened to kill him if he would not confess, and they did not inform him of his right to remain silent until after he had already confessed and all that remained was to sign the confession.

There was no physical evidence to back up Mahinay's claims, and his attorney claimed that Mahinay was read his rights before he confessed. In its decision to affirm Mahinay's conviction, the court declared:

"There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained as a result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of reward or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct the facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the accused is held to be true, correct and freely or voluntarily given."

But the court also declared the following, which has since become a landmark decision in the rights of the accused in the Philippines, and is sometimes referred to as the Mahinay doctrine:

"It is high-time to educate our law-enforcement agencies who neglect either by ignorance or indifference the so-called Miranda rights which had become insufficient and which the Court must update in the light of new legal developments:

 * 1) The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person;
 * 2) He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him;
 * 3) He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice;
 * 4) He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;

No court or legislature has as yet determined the exact wording of the caution to be presented to arrested persons. As such, the Philippine National Police has created their own version. According to the 2010 edition of the official PNP manual, "every police officer, either on board a mobile car, motorcycle or on foot patrol must always carry with him a police notebook, a pen and the Miranda Warning card.  The notebook, which is approximately pocket-sized, will be used to inscribe important events that transpire during his tour of duty."

The version in use by the PNP reads: Various regional offices of the PNP use translations in other languages spoken in the Philippines depending on the jurisdiction of the office. In 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross donated 15,000 cards to the PNP, and commissioned the translation of the warning into two more languages, Visaya and Cebuano, shown on the front of the card along with the Filipino version above.

Due to the increasing numbers of arrests of foreign nationals during President Rodrigo Duterte's Oplan Double Barrel, the Human Rights Affairs Office (PNP-HRAO) of the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame, Quezon City has further translated the Miranda warning into four foreign languages: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese. Distribution of the translated warnings to law enforcement officers will occur via a publicly available mobile app, according to the officer-in-charge of PNP-HRAO, Sr. Supt. Dennis Siervo.

According to the website of the Philippine National Police Regional Office 13, at Camp Rafael C Rodriguez in Butuan, failure to recite either the Miranda or anti-torture warnings above can result in "dismissal of the case against the suspect and filing of administrative case for the arresting police [officer]."

Republic of Ireland
In the Republic of Ireland, the Supreme Court held that the right was not only a common law right but also a constitutional right which might however be validly limited by legislation (O'Leary v AG [1995] 1 IR 254).

In this jurisdiction, a number of statutory measures have re-interpreted the right to silence, such as the Criminal Justice Act 1984, the Criminal Justice (Drug Trafficking) Act, 1998 and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998. The general effect of some of these measures is to provide for adverse inferences to be drawn against a suspect who declines to answer questions while being questioned in Garda custody. The Criminal Justice Act 2006 also affects the right to silence, in that it permits inferences to be drawn from silence where no solicitor is present.

Russian Federation
Clause 1 of the article 51 of the Russian Constitution grants everyone the right to not witness against either themselves or against their spouses and close relatives. As the decision whether or not an answer to a particular question would lead to (self)incrimination is left to the discretion of the person being questioned, this clause allows to remain silent at any time.

South Africa
The Constitution of South Africa requires that any arrested person be informed of their right to remain silent and the consequences of not remaining silent, their right to choose and consult with a legal practitioner, and their right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense if substantial injustice would otherwise result. The South African Police Service rules prescribe that arrested people be given a Form 14A "Notice of Rights in Terms of the Constitution" which describes these and other rights of arrested people.

According to Section 35 of the Constitution of 1996 ("Arrested, detained and accused persons") states:

 * 1) Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right
 * 2) * to remain silent;
 * 3) * to be informed promptly
 * 4) ** of the right to remain silent; and
 * 5) ** of the consequences of not remaining silent;
 * 6) * not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person;

and later in the section:

 * Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right
 * not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
 * not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;

Spain
In Spain, according to the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Penal procedure code) article 520.2, the suspect must be informed of the charges leading to his/her detention, as well as the reasons for being deprived of his/her freedom. Additionally, the individual must be advised of the following rights:

 * Right to remain silent, to answer only questions of his/her choosing, or to express their desire to make a statement only in front of a judge.
 * Right not to give evidence against him/herself, as well as not to confess his/her guilt.
 * Right to legal representation by a private or state-funded attorney, which will assist him during hearings and procedures.
 * Right to inform a member of his/her family or a person of his/her choosing regarding the detention as well as their location, at any moment of the proceedings. Foreigners have the right to contact their consulate in Spain.
 * Right to request the services of an interpreter, at no cost, when the foreign national does not speak Spanish.
 * Right to undergo a medical examination by the forensic doctor.

Switzerland
Article 158 of the unified Swiss code of criminal procedure, which entered into force in 2011, establishes that the results of an interrogation may not be used unless the accused has been informed that:

 * he/she is the subject of a criminal investigation for some specific infractions,
 * he/she has the right to remain silent and not to cooperate with police,
 * he/she has the right to legal representation by a private or state-funded attorney, and
 * he/she has the right to request the services of an interpreter.

The cantonal codes of procedure, which remain in force until 2011, generally contain similar provisions.

Thailand
Sections 83 and 84 of the Thai Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been amended by the Act Amending the Criminal Procedure Code (No. 22), BE 2547 (2004), require the police officers who conduct the arrests to inform the arrestees of their right against self-incrimination.

Paragraph two of section 83 reads:

"In cases an arrest is conducted by an officer, the officer must inform the arrestee of the charge, produce to him a warrant of arrest, if any, and enlighten him that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can and will be used as evidence in a trial, and that he also has the right to meet and confer with a counsel or person to become his counsel. If the arrestee wishes to inform his relative or intimate of his arrest and the fulfillment of his wish would not be difficult and not be disruptive to his arrest or restraint or detrimental to any person, the officer shall allow the arrestee to so fulfill to the extent reasonable according to the circumstances. In this respect, the arresting officer shall also draw up a record of arrest."

While paragraph one of section 84 prescribes:

"An officer or private citizen conducting an arrest must without delay bring the arrestee to the judicial police office under section 83. Upon arriving there, the arrestee must be delivered to an administrative or police officer thereof to further be dealt with as follows:

(2) In cases the arrest is conducted by a private citizen, the administrative or police officer receiving the arrestee shall draw up a record of the name, occupation and address of the citizen, including the information and circumstances as to the arrest as well, and require the citizen to sign such record. The officer shall then inform the male arrestee of the charge and detailed grounds for his arrest, and enlighten him that he has the right to remain silent and anything he says can and will be used as evidence in a trial."

Ukraine
Section 4 of Article 29 of Constitution of Ukraine reads:

"Everyone arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention, apprised of his or her rights, and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself, or to have the legal assistance of a defender."

Article 63 of Constitution of Ukraine reads:

"A person shall not bear responsibility for refusing to testify or to explain anything about himself or herself, members of his or her family or close relatives in the degree determined by law.

A suspect, an accused, or a defendant has the right to a defense.

A convicted person enjoys all human and citizens' rights, with the exception of restrictions determined by law and established by a court verdict."

The Criminal Process Code of Ukraine has some regulations on how the rights of suspects and accused. Section 2 of Article 21 reads:

"Inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, judge, and court, before the first examination of the suspect, accused, and defendant, are required to advise them of the right to have a defense counsel and draw up an appropriate record thereon, as well as provide the suspect, accused, and defendant the possibility to defend themselves with legal remedies from the charge brought and ensure protection of their personal and property rights."

Article 43–1, Section 1 gives the following definition of "suspect":

"The following person is considered to be a suspect:

1) a person apprehended on the suspicion of having committed a crime;

2) a person in whose respect a measure of restraint has been imposed before the decision to prosecute him/her has been made."

Consequently, the list of suspect's rights follows:

The suspect has the right to: know what he/she is suspected of; give testimonies or refuse testifying and answering questions; have a defense counsel and meet him/her before the first examination; produce evidence; submit motions and propose disqualifications; request that the court or prosecutor verify legality of the apprehension; submit complaints against actions and decisions of the officer who conducts operational-detective activities, inquirer, investigator, and prosecutor, and, with appropriate grounds present, have his/her security ensured. The fact that the suspect was advised of his/her rights is entered into the record of apprehension or decision to impose a measure of restraint.

Article 53 contains the following regulation:

"Court, prosecutor, investigator and the inquirer are required to advise participants to the case of their rights and to ensure the possibility to enjoy such rights."

However, there are no clear regulations on how the rights should be announced. This is commonly made by reading them out when announcing the decision on instituting criminal proceedings or arrest and then requiring a suspect or arrestee to sign the list of these rights.

United Kingdom
The right to silence is different depending on which UK jurisdiction the suspect is questioned. In England and Wales it is possible for an adverse inference to be drawn from an accused person's silence during questioning. The same is true for Northern Ireland under the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, but no adverse inference may be drawn in Scotland under Scots law.

England and Wales
The right to silence has a long history in England and Wales, first having been codified in the Judges' Rules in 1912. A defendant in a criminal trial has a choice whether or not to give evidence in the proceedings. Further, there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries.

At common law, and particularly following the passing of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where the accused:

 * fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
 * fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
 * fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
 * fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.

There may be no conviction based wholly on silence. Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence.

In respect of those questioned by the Serious Fraud Office, the right to silence has been reduced by virtue of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987. The right has also been reduced for those accused of terrorist offences.

The UK has some of the strictest key disclosure laws of the western world. Under Section 49 and Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it is an offence to fail to disclose when requested the key to encrypted data (with a penalty of two years in prison, or five years with regards to child sex abuse cases). Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to convict people who have refused to disclose their password to customs.

History
Warnings regarding the right against self-incrimination may have originated in England and Wales. In 1912, the judges of the King's Bench issued the Judges' Rules. These provided that, when a police member had admissible evidence to suspect a person of an offence and wished to question that suspect about an offence, the officer should first caution the person that he was entitled to remain silent. However, the warning about the possibility of anything the male suspect said being potentially used against him predates even that.

The pre-trial operation of the privilege against self-incrimination was further buttressed by the decision in Ibrahim v R [1914] AC 599 that an admission or confession made by the accused to the police would only be admissible in evidence if the prosecution could establish that it had been voluntary. An admission or confession is only voluntary if made in the exercise of a free choice about whether to speak or remain silent:

In R v Leckey (1943) CAR 128 the Court of Criminal Appeal said:

"... an innocent person might well, either from excessive caution or for some other reason, decline to say anything when charged and cautioned, and if it were possible to hold that out to a jury as a ground on which they might find a man guilty, it is obvious that innocent persons might be in great peril."

Therefore, a caution of the form of:

"You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do say will be taken down and may be used in evidence."

was used. Major reform to the questioning and treatment of suspected offenders occurred in 1984 when the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force. Under Code C the right to silence was amended by allowing adverse inferences to be drawn at a court hearing in cases where a suspect refuses to explain something, and then later produces an explanation (see right to silence in England and Wales). In other words, the jury is entitled to infer that the accused fabricated the explanation at a later date, as he refused to provide the explanation during police questioning. The jury is also free to make no such inference. The new caution is:

"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

If questioning is forthcoming, "when questioned" may be replaced with "now". In cases in which the suspect has clearly nothing to gain by failing to remain silent:

"Anything you do say may, and will, be given in evidence."

or:

"You do not have to say anything unless you wish to do so, but I must warn you that if you fail to mention any fact which you rely on in your defence in court, your failure to take this opportunity to mention it may be treated in court as supporting any relevant evidence against you. If you do wish to say anything, what you say may be given in evidence."

or even (in circumstances where no adverse inference can be drawn from silence):

"You do not have to say anything, but anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Northern Ireland
The Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 provided for adverse inferences being drawn for failure to mention something prior to being charged to an offence. The Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2009/2087 which came into effect on 5 October 2009, and replaced the Criminal Procedure Rules 2005, Pt 24 provides for post-charge questioning. This can be applied for failure to mention facts after a suspect has been charged with an offence.

The scope of emergency legislation in Northern Ireland includes limitations on the right to silence, extended police detention powers and limitations on a suspect's right to legal counsel at time of arrest which can all impact upon a suspect's right to a fair trial. In John Murray v United Kingdom, the ECHR declared that the fair trial guarantee encompassed the entire legal process from the moment of arrest through to conviction. The ECHR addressed this issue in a limited context in Murray v UK (1996); "To deny access to a lawyer for the first 48 hours of police questioning, in a situation where the rights of the defense may well be irretrievably prejudiced, is – whatever the justification for such denial – incompatible with the rights of the accused under Article 6."

Scotland
The right to silence in Scots law has been enshrined in statute by section 34 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016. Previously, the right to silence, as with much of Scots criminal law, was held under common law.

The common law caution given by police to inform a person of their right to silence in Scotland is: "'You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted down and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?'"

The only exception to this rule is that a person must state, upon being required to do so, their name, address, date of birth, place of birth (in such detail as a constable considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of establishing the person's identity), and nationality. The requirement to give personal details also exists in Scots law under section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which provides that a person suspected to have committed, or suspected of having been witness to, an offence must provide the aforementioned details to a constable upon being required to do so. Failure to provide said details under section 13 is a criminal offence.

No adverse inference can be drawn by an accused person's silence when they are interviewed under caution.

United States
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themself. At trial, the prosecution can neither call the defendant as a witness, nor comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Whether to testify or not is exclusively the privilege of the defendant, although defendants were originally not allowed to testify on their own behalf at all. An 1864 appropriations act allowed defendants to do so while removing race restrictions, and the 1987 Supreme Court case Rock v. Arkansas established a constitutional "right to take the witness stand."

Outside the context of lawful detention or arrest, a person has no duty to answer any questions of the police. If judicial compulsion is sought by the State, the person can still invoke his or her Fifth Amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination, and refuse to testify if answers to questions posed are potentially self-incriminating. Only if granted immunity by the state, in a formal proceeding, from having any testimony or evidence derived from the testimony used against him or her, can a person be compelled to answer over an assertion of this right. If police detain (or arrest) a person, they must advise him or her that he or she has a right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, among other rights. (This is known as the Miranda warning.) If the detained person invokes these rights, all interrogation must cease, and ordinarily nothing said by the defendant in violation of this rule may be admitted against him or her at trial.

The form of the Miranda warning varies based on jurisdiction, but it usually follows this pattern: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. 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. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present, you have the right to stop answering at any time. Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?"

On 17 June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas that, prior to being arrested, an individual must specifically invoke the Fifth Amendment right to "remain silent", otherwise selective silence can be used against him or her in court.

Uniform Code of Military Justice
Members of the United States Armed Forces are covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Under the UCMJ, sworn military personnel, whether of enlisted, warrant or commissioned rank, have a right to remain silent that was established 16 years before the Miranda v. Arizona ruling. There are significant protections against coercive self incrimination in Article 31, UCMJ, but it does differ somewhat from the Miranda warning, and in essence provides greater protections. This is one difference between civilian and military justice in the United States, and many other nations have similar corollary rules regarding military justice vs. civilian justice.

title: Right to silence


text:
Zamboanga del Norte

Zamboanga del Norte (Cebuano: Amihanang Zamboanga; Subanon: Utara Sembwangan; Hilagang Zamboanga), officially the Province of Zamboanga del Norte, is a province in the Philippines situated within the Zamboanga Peninsula region in Mindanao. Its capital is Dipolog and the province borders Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga Sibugay to the south, Misamis Occidental to the east, and the Sulu Sea to the west.

Zamboanga del Norte is the largest province of the Zamboanga Peninsula region by land area covering 7,301.00 km2. Zamboanga del Norte is the 26th populous province in the Philippines.

American invasion era
Prior to its creation as a province, Zamboanga del Norte formed the northern portion of the historical province of Zamboanga.

The early history of Zamboanga del Norte is shared with that of Zamboanga City, which had been the center of the entire Mindanao area, most notably during the American era. When Zamboanga City became a chartered city on October 12, 1936, it encompassed the southern tip of the Zamboanga Peninsula and the island of Basilan, making it the largest city in the world in terms of land area.

Foundation
Through Republic Act No. 711 issued on June 6, 1952, Zamboanga province was divided into two independent provinces, which included Zamboanga del Sur.

Martial law era
Zamboanga del Norte was the site of at least one major assassination during the Marcos Martial law era - the gunning down of Human Rights lawyers Jacobo Amatong and Zorro Aguilar by two soldiers of the Marcos government, who were never caught. Both lawyers have since been honored by having their names inscribed on the wall of remembrance at the Philippines’ Bantayog ng mga Bayani, which honors the heroes and martyrs who fought against Ferdinand Marcos and his martial law regime.

Proposed carving out of new province
In 2017, House Bill No. 5040 was introduced in the House of Representatives seeking to carve out a new province from Zamboanga del Norte. The proposed Zamboanga Hermosa province was to consist of 12 municipalities and 2 legislative districts that make up the 3rd legislative district of Zamboanga del Norte: Baliguian, Godod, Gutalac, Kalawit, Labason, Leon B. Postigo, Liloy (its proposed capital), Salug, Sibuco, Siocon, Sirawai, and Tampilisan. However, the bill ultimately did not pass the 17th congress.

In 2023, a new House Bill 9311 proposed a creation of a new province, Zamboanga Occidental. The proposed province is supposed to include twelve municipalities: Leon B. Postigo, Salug, Godod, Liloy, Tampilisan, Kalawit, Labason, Gutalac, Baliguian, Siocon, Sirawai, and Sibuco.

Geography

Zamboanga del Norte covers a total area of 7,301.00 km2 occupying the northern portion of the Zamboanga Peninsula in western Mindanao. The province is bordered on the north and west by the Sulu Sea, on the northeast by Misamis Occidental, and on the south by Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga Sibugay.

It has an average elevation of 243.8 m, with Mount Dabiak in Katipunan as the highest peak at 2600 m. Other parts, near the coastlines, are plains. The province's irregular coastline runs some 400 km from north to south.

Climate
Zamboanga del Norte has a mild and moderate climate due to evenly distributed rainfall throughout the year. Its southern portion has a longer dry season.

Administrative divisions

Zamboanga del Norte comprises 25 municipalities and 2 cities. Dipolog, Sindangan and Dapitan are the top most densely populated area in the province These are further subdivided into 691 barangays, and clustered into 3 congressional districts.

Sibuco is the largest municipality by land area, constituting 10.72% (782.54) of the total provincial area. Sibutad is the smallest, with 0.90% (65.57).

Provincial capital and component city

Component city

Demographics
The population of Zamboanga del Norte in the 2020 census was 1,047,455 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2. Dipolog is the most populated locality in the province, followed by the town of Sindangan and city of Dapitan.

The main language spoken is Cebuano. Other languages include Chavacano, Subanon, Filipino, and English.

Religion
The predominant religion was Islam until the Spanish regime took over the region and spread Christianity with the help of the church's mission orders like the Jesuits, Augustinians, and Dominicans. The province's first martyr of faith, soon to be raised as a saint, in Mindanao island was Padre Francesco Palliola, S.J. He was a Jesuit missionary from Nola, Italy, and was assigned to Zamboanga Peninsula. He was active as a missionary in Lubungan (Katipuan), Zamboanga del Norte, Iligan, Dapitan, and met his martyrdom at the barrio of Ponot, now a town of Jose Dalman. Roman Catholicism is a significant majority with about 50% adherence. The province has one diocese – the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dipolog under the Archdiocese of Ozamis, covering the entire province. There are also followers of other Christian sects.

Officials
These are the officials after the local elections of 2022:

Governor: Rosalina "Nene" G. Jalosjos (Nacionalista)

Vice Governor: Julius C. Napigquit (PDP–Laban)

Members of the House of Representatives:

 * 1st District: Rep. Roberto T. Uy Jr. (PDP–Laban)
 * 2nd District: Rep. Glona G. Labadlabad (PDP–Laban)
 * 3rd District: Rep. Adrian Michael "Ian" A. Amatong (LP)

Board Members

 * 1st District:
 * Angelica "Angel" Jalosjos Carreon
 * Patri "Jing" Bajamunde - Chan

 * 2nd District:
 * Peter Y. Co
 * Jasmin N. Pinsoy-Lagutin
 * Dante G. Bagarinao
 * Michael "Jojo" M. Documento, Jr.

 * 3rd Drstrict:
 * Kay Marie P. Bolando
 * Leo Nicanor B. Mejorada
 * Franco Angelo "Conkee" C. Buctuan
 * Jeff Raymund "JR" M. Brillantes

Economy
About half of the province's land area is devoted to agriculture. Corn, coconut, and rice are the major crops. The province being rich in marine and mineral sources, its fish production has accelerated through the development of fishponds. Commercial fishing has steadily increased through the years, with the yellow fin tuna as the primary species.

In 2006, a study by National Statistics Coordination Board (NSCB), found Zamboanga del Norte Province to be the Philippines' poorest province with a poverty incidence rate of 64.6%, an increase from 47% in year 2000 statistical figures.

As of 2015, the province's poverty incidence has dropped to 51.6% (ranking 8th). Large foreign mining companies operating within the province such as Canadian company TVI Resource Development and Philex Mining Corp. cause adverse effects to the culture and traditions of the indigenous Subanon and other poor settlers.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Zamboanga del Norte


text:
Ernie Eves

Ernest Larry Eves (born June 17, 1946) is a Canadian lawyer and former politician who served as the 23rd premier of Ontario from 2002 to 2003. A Progressive Conservative, he took over the premiership upon Mike Harris's resignation as party leader, but the party was defeated in the 2003 election by the Liberals, under Dalton McGuinty.

Eves was born in Windsor, Ontario, to a working-class family. He studied law at Osgoode Hall Law School and practised law in his own firm, Green & Eves. He was elected in the northern Ontario riding of Parry Sound in 1981 by a margin of six votes but retained the seat for 20 years. He served briefly as a cabinet minister in the short-lived government of Frank Miller in 1985, but he was consigned to the opposition benches when the Tories were defeated in a motion of no confidence by an alliance of the opposition Liberal and New Democrats. He remained in opposition until 1995, when the Tories returned to power under Mike Harris, who appointed Eves as his Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance. Family tragedy and marital problems led to his resignation from the legislature in 2001.

After a brief return to the private sector, Eves returned to politics when Harris resigned in 2002. He won the party leadership and regained a seat in the legislature after winning a by-election in the central Ontario riding of Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. His tenure as premier was short, as his party was defeated 16 months later in the 2003 election, which saw the PC party lose 35 of its 59 seats. He resigned as leader in 2004 and retired from the legislature on January 31, 2005.

In 2007, Eves was appointed as Chairman of Jacob Securities Inc., a Toronto-based financial services company. He served in that position until July 2012.

Early life and career
Eves was born into a working-class family in Windsor, Ontario, in 1946, the son of Julie (née Hawrelechko) and Harry Lewis Eves, a factory worker. His maternal grandparents were Ukrainian. As a teenager, Eves moved with his family to the central Ontario town of Parry Sound. Eves went to Osgoode Hall Law School, was called to the bar in 1972, and practiced with the firm of Green and Eves. In 1981, he ran for provincial parliament in the riding of Parry Sound. He defeated Liberal candidate Richard Thomas by only six votes, leading to the nickname "Landslide Ernie", and went on to keep the seat for twenty years.

Eves was a cabinet minister in the short-lived government of Frank Miller, serving as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development from February 8 to March 22, 1985, Minister of Skills Development from March 22 to May 17, 1985, and Minister of Community and Social Services from May 17 to June 26, 1985. As Minister of Skills Development, Eves was also the minister responsible for Native Affairs. In this capacity, he made history in 1985 by proclaiming Ontario as favouring native self-government. He left cabinet on the defeat of the Miller ministry in the legislature, and served as an opposition Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) until the Progressive Conservatives returned to power in 1995.

Harris years
Eves is a long time close friend of fellow northern Ontario MPP Mike Harris. In 1990, Eves backed Harris' bid for the party leadership. In 1995, after being elected on the "Common Sense Revolution", a program of tax cuts and government cutbacks, Eves was appointed Harris' Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier.

In Finance, Eves supervised significant cuts to taxes and public spending, particularly in the field of social assistance. Provincial income taxes were cut by 30% and welfare rates were reduced by 22%, resulting in 500,000 people being cut from the Ontario welfare rolls. There were also cuts to education and health services. The Harris government justified these measures as necessary to eliminate the provincial deficit.

After initially adopting a policy of restraint toward health care costs, Eves' later budgets increased health spending. He eventually succeeded in balancing the budget early in the government's second term.

As Minister of Finance, Eves also oversaw two privatization initiatives: the long-term lease of the Bruce nuclear generating station to British Energy and the 99-year lease of Highway 407 to a consortium of mainly foreign investors.

Upon his retirement, Eves claimed that the impact of his 22% reduction in welfare rates "kept him up at night". There have also been reports that Eves was conflicted about the risks of adding $22 billion to the provincial debt by cutting taxes before balancing the budget. Some believe that Eves was responsible for restraining some of Harris' more radical initiatives during their time in office.

Despite the close friendship and similar backgrounds and beliefs of Harris and Eves, the two have very different public personae. While Harris tried to be the embodiment of a grass-roots politician, Eves was just the opposite. He was always meticulously well-turned-out in expensive suits, with court-filings revealing he spent $25,000 a year on clothing, $5,000 a year on jewelry and cufflinks and $700 a month on dry cleaning. Eves also sported a slicked-back hair style that reinforced his image as a "slick" politician.

Eves' personal life in the last few years of the Harris government was tumultuous. His son, Justin, was killed in a traffic accident in Parry Sound, and soon afterward his long-standing marriage broke down. Eves began a relationship with a fellow cabinet colleague, Isabel Bassett, and he and his wife separated. On February 8, 2001 Eves decided to resign from his post of Finance Minister to seek opportunities in the private sector. He became vice-chair of the investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston and senior partner at a prominent Toronto law firm.

In a March 2001 by-election, he was replaced as MPP for the riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka by Norm Miller, son of former Premier Frank Miller.

Return to politics
Eves' retirement was brief. When Mike Harris stepped down as Conservative leader, he ran in the 2002 Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership election. He immediately became the front-runner and most PC MPPs and members of the party came to support him. He staved off a determined run by his successor at Finance, Jim Flaherty, who pushed a hard-right agenda to appeal to the party's grassroots. Flaherty's campaign featured scathing attacks on Eves, calling him a "serial waffler" and a "pale, pink imitation of Dalton McGuinty". He became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario on March 23, 2002 despite not holding a seat at the time, following a second-ballot victory.

Premier
Eves was sworn in as Ontario's 23rd Premier on April 15, 2002, and returned to the legislature as the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey after a by-election on May 2, 2002.

Reforms were made to the power system. Cost over-runs at nuclear reactors and a very hot summer combined with problems in market regulation to drive hydro prices up significantly (particularly in northern Ontario). The government was forced to cancel the privatization and capped hydro rates below cost, billing the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

In late 2002, cabinet minister Cam Jackson was forced to resign when the Liberals alleged he had spent more than $100,000 on meals and alcohol in expensive restaurants and in four star Toronto hotels. Jackson was later fully exonerated of allegations of wrongdoing. Eves was also caught unaware when the Liberals broke that Mike Harris had arranged a secret tax break for professional sports teams on his last day in office.

In December 2002, a coroner's inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers recommended numerous changes to the government's welfare legislation, which Community and Social Services Minister Brenda Elliott dismissed as unnecessary tinkering with a system that "was working effectively".

Concerned about returning to the Legislature, Eves' advisors instead hatched a public relations disaster. They convinced the Premier to have Minister of Finance Janet Ecker present the government's 2003 budget on 28 March at a televised press conference at the headquarters of auto parts maker Magna International, instead of in the legislature. Magna's CEO was prominent PC supporter Belinda Stronach, who later became a Liberal cabinet minister at the federal level. The "Magna Budget" resulted in accusations that the government was trying to avoid the scrutiny of the legislature and was flouting centuries of parliamentary tradition in favour of a PR stunt. Furthermore, the expense of this move was condemned as a waste of money considering that the legislative chamber was already equipped with video equipment for televised coverage. The "Magna Budget" was intended to launch a provincial election campaign, but was so poorly received that the election was delayed until the autumn. Attacks came from not only the opposition parties and the media but from one of Eves' own party members, Gary Carr. As Speaker of the legislature, Carr ruled that the government's actions were prima facie in contempt of the legislature. (Subsequently, the PC majority in the Legislature voted to overturn Carr's ruling.) The budget also included several assumptions that led many commentators to believe the government was in fact running a deficit in the range of $2 billion.

On 10 June, the Eves cabinet selected Archie Campbell (judge) to chair its SARS Commission inquiry into the failures of the health system when the virus that caused the SARS epidemic was transmitted on 23 February from China to Toronto, where it wreaked havoc including from 7 March at Scarborough Grace Hospital.

Soon after the budget, Energy Minister Chris Stockwell ran into trouble when he allowed a company he regulated to pay for a family trip to Europe. After several weeks of front-page news on the scandal and an unfavourable ruling from the province's Integrity Commissioner, Eves forced Stockwell to resign on 17 June.

In the summer of 2003, the power issue caused further trouble for Eves. During its time in office, the PC government had failed to make any substantial investments in new sources of power. Warm weather and the use of air conditioners pushed the Ontario hydro grid to the brink, and after the Northeast blackout of 2003, the provincial power utility was forced to buy expensive power from neighbouring producers in Quebec. During that time, Eves made daily television appearances announcing developments in the situation, and appealing to the public to conserve as much electricity as possible during the period. As a result of this exposure, Eves enjoyed a moderate uptick in the polls.

A highlight of his premiership was Eves' meeting with Ukrainian opposition leader Victor Yushchenko in May 2003. During Yushchenko's visit to Toronto was a banquet organized by the Ukrainian Canadian Congress which attended by over 1,000 people. Yushchenko was welcomed by "the members of the Canadian political elite in Toronto, headed by Premier of Ontario Ernie Eves", who was presented as a leading Canadian of Ukrainian heritage, as well as federal cabinet minister Sheila Copps and Bishop Augustine Eugene Hornyak, Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk, and City Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby.

2003 election
In September 2003, Eves called an election for October 2, 2003. While exposure from the blackout had boosted the PCs into a short-lived tie with Dalton McGuinty's Liberals in the polls, and despite the reputation of the Ontario Tories for increasing their support base in mid-campaign, Eves had trouble convincing voters that his party deserved to stay in office. The Tories had released their platform, "The Road Ahead", in May. Eves had hired many of Harris' advisers for the campaign, and they drafted a platform that was closer to Flaherty's (and Harris') views than those of Eves. Eves was visibly uncomfortable defending policy proposals that he had opposed a year earlier. When a PC campaign staffer distributed a press release referring to McGuinty as an "evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet", many voters were turned off by the attack.

In contrast, the Liberals ran a highly focused, disciplined campaign on the simple theme of "Choose Change". They had spent the last four years positioning themselves as the government in waiting. McGuinty appeared ready for the office of Premier and tapped into voter frustration over deteriorating public services and the needless conflict of the Harris/Eves governments. Eves was unable to make any headway in the leadership debate, appearing uncharacteristically restrained in the face of criticism from McGuinty, and was unable to revive support for his party in the final days of the campaign.

On October 2, 2003, the Liberals won 72 of the 103 seats in the Legislature, and Eves' Tories won just 24. He won his own seat by the largest margin of any PC candidate.

Resignation
Eves' time as Opposition leader was more fruitful, when he led attacks against the McGuinty government's first budget, particularly the Ontario Health Premium —which broke the Liberals' campaign pledge not to raise taxes and the elimination of health services such as eye examinations and physical therapy. Despite being considered a lame-duck leader, Eves led in opinion polls for that period of time.

In early 2004, Eves announced his intention to resign prior to the fall 2004 legislative session. A leadership election chose John Tory as Eves' successor on September 18, 2004; Eves was officially neutral in the contest. Tory and Eves shared a number of attributes, both coming from the so-called Red Tory wing of the party.

Eves had been widely expected to resign his seat in the provincial legislature during the 2004 Christmas holidays in order to allow Tory an opportunity to enter the Ontario legislature through a by-election. Eves' resignation was not forthcoming. After staff in Tory's office leaked Eves' impending resignation, Eves refused to resign, thereby undercutting the new leader's credibility. Another report contends that Eves was refusing to resign before securing an appointment to the Canadian Senate or to a public board. As federal and provincial patronage appointments were in the hands of Liberals, it would have been difficult for John Tory to persuade either the provincial or federal government to make such an appointment.

On January 31, 2005, Eves resigned his seat in the provincial legislature. Although he had received several high-profile job offers from the private sector after stepping down as leader, he had reportedly turned them down. In 2007, he joined Jacob & Company Securities Inc. (now Jacob Securities Inc.), a Toronto-based boutique investment bank that specializes in the renewable energy and clean technology sectors, where he served as Executive Chairman until July 2012.

Career in cannabis
In 2015, Eves became chairman of Timeless Herbal Care, a medical cannabis firm in Jamaica.

Federal politics
For many years, Eves was known as the most prominent supporter of the federal Progressive Conservative Party in Mike Harris's government. He had supported Joe Clark from the first ballot at the party's 1976 leadership convention, and continued to support the federal Tories in the 1990s despite the rise of the Reform Party as a rival right-wing force. He endorsed Hugh Segal's bid for the leadership of the federal party in 1998.

Eves took out a membership in the Canadian Alliance in 2000 to support Tom Long's leadership bid, but rejoined the Tories after Stockwell Day was chosen as the Canadian Alliance leader. During the 2002 Ontario PC Party leadership race, Eves and his supporters invited federal PC Party leader Joe Clark to attend as an honorary delegate. No such invitation was extended by any camp to the newly named Canadian Alliance leader Stephen Harper, who attended the provincial PC convention in late 2004 as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.

title: Ernie Eves


text:
Zamboanga del Sur

Zamboanga del Sur (Cebuano: Habagatang Zamboanga; Subanen: S'helatan Sembwangan/Sembwangan dapit Shelatan; Salatan Sambuangan, Jawi: سلاتن سامبواڠن; Katimugang Zamboanga), officially the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, is a province in the Philippines located in the Zamboanga Peninsula region in Mindanao. Its capital is the city of Pagadian.

Statistically grouped with Zamboanga del Sur is the highly urbanized City of Zamboanga, which is geographically separated and a chartered city and governed independently from the province and also its largest city.

The province borders Zamboanga del Norte to the north, Zamboanga Sibugay to the west, Misamis Occidental to the northeast, and Lanao del Norte to the east. To the south is the Moro Gulf.

Etymology
The name of Zamboanga is the Hispanicized spelling of the Sinama term for "mooring place" - samboangan (also spelled sambuangan; and in Subanen, sembwangan), from the root word samboang ("mooring pole"). "Samboangan" was the original name of Zamboanga City, from where the name of the peninsula is derived from. "Samboangan" is well-attested in Spanish, British, French,  German, and American historical records from as far back as the 17th century.

This is commonly contested by folk etymologies which instead attribute the name of Zamboanga to the Indonesian word jambangan (claimed to mean "place of flowers", but actually means "pot" or "bowl"), usually with claims that all ethnic groups in Zamboanga were "Malays". However, this name has never been attested in any historical records prior to the 1960s.

History
.

Early history
The original inhabitants of the Zamboanga Peninsula were the Maguindanaon and Subanen, who settled along the riverbanks in inland areas; and the various Sama-Bajau and Yakan ethnic groups who settled in coastal areas. Tausūg settlers from northeastern Mindanao also migrated to the region in the 13th century.

The region was additionally settled by migrants (mostly from the Visayas islands) after World War II. Together with the original settlers, these pioneers helped develop Zamboanga del Sur into the abundant and culturally diverse province that it is.

American invasion era
Historically, Zamboanga was the capital of the Moro Province in western Mindanao, which comprised five districts: Cotabato, Davao, Sulu, Lanao, and Zamboanga. In 1940, these districts became individual provinces. Zamboanga City became the capital of Zamboanga province.

Philippine independence
Soon after World War II, the provincial capital was transferred to Dipolog. Molave was created as the provincial capital in 1948.

Foundation
On June 6, 1952, through Republic Act No. 711, Zamboanga del Sur was carved out from the former Zamboanga province that encompassed the entire peninsula in southwestern Mindanao. As the 52nd province of the Philippines, it originally consisted of 11 towns with the City of Zamboanga and the Island of Basilan, which were later expanded into 42 municipalities with the City of Pagadian as the capital.

This happened in the midst of the postwar period, a time when Mindanao was peaceful and increasingly progressive. Ethnic tensions were minimal, and there was essentially no presence of secessionists groups in Mindanao. Tensions in Mindanao mostly began to rise only as the 1970s approached, as a result of social and economic tensions which affected the whole country.

The Marcos era
The late 1960s in Mindanao saw a rise in land dispute conflicts arising from the influx of settlers from Luzon and Visayas, and from the Marcos administration’s encouragement of militia groups such as the Ilaga. News of the 1968 Jabidah massacre ignited a furor in the Moro community, and ethnic tensions encouraged with the formation of secessionist movements, starting from the largely political Muslim Independence Movement and Bangsamoro Liberation Organization, and eventually the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Additionally, an economic crisis in late 1969, violent crackdowns on student protests in 1970, and 1971, and eventually the declaration of Martial Law all led to the radicalization of many students. Many of them left schools in Manila and joined New People's Army units in their home provinces, bringing the New People's Army rebellion to Mindanao for the first time.

The September 1972 declaration of Martial Law began a 14-year period historically remembered for its human rights abuses, often involving the warrantless detention, murder, and physical, sexual, or mental torture of political opponents, student activists, journalists, religious workers, farmers, and others who fought against the Marcos dictatorship. In Zamboanga del Sur, these were often attributed to military-endorsed Militias, which included the Ilaga and a number of armed cult groups, which were used to enhance the military's numbers as it fought various resisntance movements.

The year 1982 was a particularly bloody year for Zamboanga del Sur under the Marcos dictatorship, as two massacres happened in the province that year. On February 12, 1982, members of the Ilaga killed 12 persons in Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur, allegedly to avenge the death of their leader, who they believed had been killed by the NPA. And on May 25, 1982, three people were killed and eight people were injured when the administration's airplanes dropped bombs on Barangay Dimalinao of Bayog, Zamboanga del Sur, allegedly as reprisal for the killing of 23 soldiers by supposed rebels two days earlier. Days later, two more men from the community were picked up and killed, and a few months later, the residence of Bayog's Jesuit parish priest was strafed after he had written letters decrying the torture and harassment of the indigenous Subanon people from his parish, whom government had tagged as communist supporters.

Separation of Zamboanga Sibugay
Political developments in February 2001 saw another major change in the territorial jurisdiction of Zamboanga del Sur. Its inhabitants voted to create a new province out of the third congressional district, named Zamboanga Sibugay.

Geography
Zamboanga del Sur covers a total area of 4,499.46 km2 occupying the southern section of the Zamboanga peninsula in western Mindanao. It is located at longitude 122° 30"" and latitude 7° 15"" north. When Zamboanga City is included for statistical purposes, the province's land area is 591416 ha. The province is bordered on the north by Zamboanga del Norte, west by Zamboanga Sibugay, northeast by Misamis Occidental, east by Lanao del Norte, southeast by Illana Bay, and south by the Moro Gulf.

Topography

Stretching northward from Sibugay in the southwest and running along the northern boundary to Salug Valley in the east is the province’s mountainous countryside. The coastal plains extend regularly from south to west then spread into wide flat lands when reaching the coastal plains of the Baganian peninsula in the southeast.

The longest river in Region IX, the Sibugay River gets its water from the mountains of Zamboanga del Sur most specifically in Bayog and Lakewood, from where it flows into Sibuguey Bay which is now part of Zamboanga Sibugay. Other notable rivers are the Kumalarang River, the Dinas River with its headwaters in the Mount Timolan Protected Landscape, and Salug River in Molave.

Climate
The province has a relatively high mean annual rainfall: 1599 to 3500 mm. Temperature is relatively warm and constant throughout the year: 22 to 35 C.

Administrative divisions
Zamboanga del Sur comprises 26 municipalities, 1 component city and 1 highly urbanized city organized into two congressional districts and further subdivided into 681 barangays.

Traditionally grouped with Zamboanga del Sur is the highly urbanized city of Zamboanga, which is administratively independent from the province.

Provincial capital and component city

Municipality

Highly urbanized city (statistically grouped but independent from the province)

Demographics
The population of Zamboanga del Sur in the 2020 census was 1,050,668 people, with a density of undefined PD/km2. When Zamboanga City is included for statistical purposes, the province's population is 2,027,902 people, with a density of.

Religion
Most of the inhabitants in Zamboanga del Sur are Roman Catholics. Other Christian groups are Baptists, Methodists, Aglipayans, Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventist and other Evangelical Christians. There is a large Muslim minority.

Languages
The most commonly spoken first language in the province is Cebuano, while Chavacano is the majority language in and around Zamboanga City. Filipino and English are also widely used and understood as the national and official language (Filipino) and co-official language (English) of the Philippines, with the former used as a lingua franca for and between various non-local ethnic groups or recent migrants and their families. Minority languages include Maguindanaon, Subanen, Tausug, Maranao, and Iranun.

Economy

The economy is predominantly agricultural. Products include coco oil, livestock feed milling, rice/corn milling, including the processing of fruits, gifts and housewares made from indigenous materials like handmade paper, roots, rattan, buri, and bamboo; wood-based manufacture of furniture and furniture components from wood, rattan, and bamboo; marine and aquaculture including support services; construction services and manufacture of marble, concrete, and wooden construction materials. There are also mining areas in the province, such as those found in the municipality of Bayog managed by TVI, a Canadian-based mining firm which concentrates on gold mining, and the Cebu Ore Mining which is handling the Ore-Copper-Steel mines. There are also small-scale mines in the municipality of Dumingag.

Government
Governor:
 * Victor J. Yu (PDP-Laban)

Vice Governor:
 * Roseller L. Ariosa (UNA)

Representatives:
 * 1st District - Divina Grace C. Yu (PDP-Laban)
 * 2nd District - Leonardo L. Babasa Jr. (PDP-Laban)

Board Members:

 * 1st District:
 * Baldomero Fernandez (PDP-Laban)
 * Rogelio Saniel (UNA)
 * Cesar Dacal Jr. (PDP-Laban)
 * Francisvic Villamero (PDP-Laban)
 * Almando Sanoria (NUP)

 * 2nd District:
 * Juan Regala (PDP-Laban)
 * Basilio Vidad (PDP-Laban)
 * Raul Famor (PDP-Laban)
 * Ronaldo Poloyapoy (PDP-Laban)
 * Jennifer Mariano (PDP-Laban)

 * Ex-Officio:
 * ABC President:
 * PCL President: Teomila Nobleza (PDP-Laban)
 * SK Federation President: Vergel Pilar

title: Zamboanga del Sur