6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly No. 41 must derive its life. Unfortunately, all of the supposed statutory authorities relied upon by the DOJ did not pass the completeness test and sufficient standard test. The DOJ miserably failed to establish the existence of the enabling law that will justify the issuance of the questioned circular. That DOJ Circular No. 41 was intended to aid the department in realizing its mandate only begs the question. The purpose, no matter how commendable, will not obliterate the lack of authority of the DOJ to issue the said issuance. Surely, the DOJ must have the best intentions in promulgating DOJ Circular No. 41, but the end will not justify the means. To sacrifice individual liberties because of a perceived good is disastrous to democracy. In Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[98] the Court emphasized: One of the basic principles of the democratic system is that where the rights of the individual are concerned, the end does not justify the means. It is not enough that there be a valid objective; it is also necessary that the means employed to pursue it be in keeping with the Constitution. Mere expediency will not excuse constitutional shortcuts. There is no question that not even the strongest moral conviction or the most urgent public need, subject only to a few notable exceptions, will excuse the bypassing of an individual's rights. It is no exaggeration to say that a person invoking a right guaranteed under Article III of the Constitution is a majority of one even as against the rest of the nation who would deny him that right.[99] The DOJ would however insist that the resulting infringement of liberty is merely incidental, together with the consequent inconvenience, hardship or loss to the person being subjected to the restriction and that the ultimate objective is to preserve the investigative powers of the DOJ and public order.[100] It posits that the issuance ensures the presence within the country of the respondents during the preliminary investigation.[101] Be that as it may, no objective will ever suffice to legitimize desecration of a fundamental right. To relegate the intrusion as negligible in view of the supposed gains is to undermine the inviolable nature of the protection that the Constitution affords. Indeed, the DOJ has the power to investigate the commission of crimes and prosecute offenders. Its zealousness in pursuing its mandate is laudable but more admirable when tempered by fairness and justice. It must constantly be reminded that in the hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and when weighed against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former.[102] Thus, in Allado vs. Diokno,[103] the Court declared, viz.: The sovereign power has the inherent right to protect itself and its people from vicious acts which endanger the proper administration of justice; hence, the State has every right to prosecute and punish violators of the law. This is essential for its self-preservation, nay, its very existence. But this does not confer a license for pointless assaults on its citizens. The right of the State to prosecute is not a carte blanche for government agents to defy and disregard the rights of its citizens under the Constitution.[104] elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/64165 21/70