Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
168Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
PERSONS Finals Reviewer (Chi 08-09)

PERSONS Finals Reviewer (Chi 08-09)

Views: 4,021|Likes:
Published by saintkarri

More info:

Published by: saintkarri on Aug 28, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Visibility:Private
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

PERSONS
& FAMILY
RELATION
S
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | Prof. E. A. Pangalangan, A.Y. 2008-2009
Page 1 of 170
Karichi E. Santos | UP Law B2012
Professor E. A.
Pangalangan
Karichi Santos |UP Law
B2012
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | Prof. E. A. Pangalangan, A.Y. 2008-2009
Page 2 of 170
Karichi E. Santos | UP Law B2012

Beware of false knowledge;
it is more dangerous than
ignorance.

- George Bernard Shaw
Caveat lector.
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | Prof. E. A. Pangalangan, A.Y. 2008-2009
Page 3 of 170
Karichi E. Santos | UP Law B2012
I. INTRODUCTION

A. Intersection of Modern
Constitutional Developments
and Traditional Family Law

Provisions of the 1987
Constitution
Sec 12, Art II

The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

Sec 14, Art II
The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women
and men.

Art XV (The Family), 1987 Constitution

Sec 1 The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Sec 2 Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

Sec 3 The State shall defend:

(1) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;

(2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;

(3) The right of the family to a family living wage and
income;

(4) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.

Sec 4 The family has the duty to care for its elderly
members but the State may also do so through just

Sec 1, Art III
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.

Overview of Due Process and
Equal Protection Cases
GRISWOLD v CONNECTICUT (1964)
381 U.S. 479
-

Griswold, Executive Director of the planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and its medical director as accessories for giving married persons information and medical advice on how to prevent conception and, following examination prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the wife\u2019s use.

-
Griswold said the statute violates the 14th
Amendment (due process clause)
-

Purpose of the statute was to discourage extra marital relations and it only prohibits distribution of contraceptives and not manufacture or sale

ISSUES:
1.WON the appellants have the standing to
assert constitutional rights of people to
marital privacy
2.WON the contraceptive ban statute violates
right of marital privacy (from the right of
liberty)

HELD: Although not stated in the Bill of Rights, it is included in the penumbra of rights afforded to the citizens. It also sweeps unnecessarily broadly and does not prove to be a sufficient method of family planning. It deprived married people the due process of law by including people who are not meant to be included. Statute struck down as unconstitutional.

* What if the couples\u2019 intention for using contraceptive was for medical purposes and family planning?

* Does it mean that people only use contraceptive when they are having extra-marital affairs? And that if they don\u2019t have access to contraceptives, they will no longer engage in extra-marital affair?

EISENSTADT v BAIRD (1971)
405 US 438
-

Baird was arrested for violation of Massachusetts law by exhibiting contraceptive devices and giving a contraceptive foam to a woman when he ended his lecture at Boston University.

-

The statute prohibited the sale, lending or giving away of contraceptives unless prescribed by a physician to married people. Its purpose is to discourage fornication (pre-marital sex) and prevent spread of sexually transmitted disease.

-

However, the \u201cmedical policy\u201d was a mere afterthought, amended after the Griswold decision in 1966

ISSUE: WON the statute is unconstitutional for
denying equal protection to unmarried people

Activity (168)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
nuvelco liked this
Renie Mairina liked this
kquitlong liked this
Max Arce liked this
*Marcelino liked this
annabie_g liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->