University of the Philippines Garcia vs.

College of Law
Constitutional Law II
Midterms Reviewer • Original application of Bataan Petrochemical Corp
Prof. Harry Roque (BPC) (Taiwanese owned) to BOI specified that:
Dean Pangalangan’s Syllabus
a. it’s going to build a plant in Limay Bataan,
Transcribed and compiled by: Paulyn Duman where the Petrochemical Industrial Zone (run by
Digests by Mike Ocampo (2011) and Batch 2008 PNOC) and the Bataan Refining Corp (producer of
the 60% of the Phil’s naptha output and a GOCC)
POWER b. It’s going to use naptha cracker and naptha as
fuel for its plant
A. General
• BPC tried to amend its application by changing
Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 1 the site to Bataan and the fuel from naptha to
naptha and/or LPG. Shell Phil operates an LPG
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one depot in Batangas. (reason for the amendment:
Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be insurgency in Bataan and unstable labor
established by law. situation)
• Several quarters objected to the transfer but BOI
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to asserted that thought it preferred the Bataan site,
settle actual controversies involving rights which are it recognizes that the final decision/choice is with
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine the proponent who will provide funding or risk
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion capital. It approved the amendments.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Issue:

Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 2 Should the plant remain in Bataan or be moved to
Batangas? Did BOI commit grave abuse of discretion in
agreeing with the wishes of the investor?
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various Held: BOI committed grave abuse of discretion. The
courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original application is reinstated.
jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it
undermines the security of tenure of its Members. • In this decision, the court asserted that its powers
under Art 8 sec 1(2) of the 1987 Consti provides it
Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 4.2 with the duty to address this controversy. It said
that the position of the BOI to give absolute
Section 4. (2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a freedom to the investors is a repudiation of the
treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which independent policy of the government with regard
shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all to national interest expressed in numerous laws:
other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to a. Sec. 10 of ART XII of the Consti: duty of the state
be heard en banc, including those involving the to regulate and exercise over foreign investments
constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential within its national jurisdiction in accordance with
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, its national goals and priorities
and other regulations, shall be decided with the b. Sec. 19, Art II: The State shall develop a self-
concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually reliant and national economy effectively controlled
took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and by Filipinos.
voted thereon. c. Art 2. Omnibus Investment Code: It is the goal of
the government to have “the sound development of
the national econ in consonance with the
Consti. Art. VIII, sec. 5.2.a principles and objectives of economic nationalism”

Section 5. (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on Dissent: Carino-Aquino and Melencio Herrera: The court
appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may should not delve on matters beyond its competence.
provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:

(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of
any treaty, international or executive agreement, law,
presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.

Oposa vs Factoran
• They have standing
• The judge committed grave abuse of discretion in
Facts: dismissing the suit as the petitioners have a cause
of action
• Minors represented by their parents sued the Ratio:
DENR asking it to repudiate existing TLAs (timber
license agreements) and ceased issuing them. 1. Their standing arise from “intergenerational
• The Complaint is a taxpayers’ suit and the responsibility” in so far a balanced an healthful
complainants stated that they were pursuing it in ecology is concerned.
behalf of all Filipino citizens as well as J. Feliciano (separate concurring) explains/clarifies the
“generations yet unborn”, who all have a right to implication of this point
enjoy the country’s rain forests.
• They cite section 15 and 16 of Art.2 in saying that a. appears to give standing to everyone who maybe
it is the duty of the State to advance the “right of expected to benefit from the petitioner’s actions;
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in hence the court appears to be recognizing a
accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature” “beneficiaries’ cause of action” in the filed if
and promote “the right to health of the people” environmental protection.
(Sec. 15). b. Whether it applies in all situation or whether
• As their cause of action in the case they filed with failure to act on the part of the govt agency must
the Makati RTC Branch 66, petitioners asserted be shown, is subject to future determination of the
the ff: court.
a. The continuing unhampered destruction of rain 2. The lower court is wrong in saying that the
forests will/is caus/causing adverse effects and complaint failed to point out a specific legal right
serious injury and irreparable damage that the violated.
present and future generations will bear. a. sec. 26 of the charter, the right to a healthful,
b. Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to a balanced balanced ecology is a specific fundamental legal
and healthful ecology and are entitled to be right. Even if it is not in the bill of rights, “it does
protected by the State in its capacity as the parens not follow that is less important than any of the
patriae. Based on this, they have a right to civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. “
demand the cancellation of TLAs. Such a right belongs to a different category of
c. They have exhausted all available administrative rights altogether for it concerns nothing less than
remedies but respondents failed to cancel the self-preservation and self-perpetuation..the
TLAs which is contrary to the Philippine advancement of which may even predate all
Environment Policy: government and constitutions”. They nned not
- to develop, maintain and improve conditions even be written in the Constitution for they are
under which man and nature can thrive in assumed to exist from the inception of mankind.
productive harmony with each other b. The right involves a correlative duty to refrain from
- to fulfill the social, economic, and other impairing the environment, which is a clear
requirements of present and future Filipinos mandate of DENR under EO 192 (Reorganizing the
- to ensure the attainment of an environmental DENR) and the Admin Code of 1987).
quality that is conducive to the life and dignity and c. This, this is not a political question but an issue of
well being. enforcing a right vis-à-vis policy formulated.
And which continue to cause serious damage and Nevertheless, political question is no longer
prejudice to the plaintiffs. insurmountable in view of Art. 8 sec. 1(2).

d. Violative of the Consti policy of the State: Feliciano submits that the declaration of the court that the
- effect a more equitable distribution of petitioner cited a “specific legal right” does violence to the
opportunities, income and wealth and make full language of the constitutional provision cited. In fact, they
efficient use of natural resources (Sec. 1, Art. XII) are too broad and too comprehensive (i.e. right to balanced
- protect the nation’s marine wealth (sec. 2) and healthful ecology). What the Court is saying, according
- conserve and promote the nation’s cultural to Feliciano, in granting the petition is that “there may be
heritage and resources (sec. 14, Art. XIV) a more specific legal right in our laws considering that
- sec. 16, Art. II general policy principles are found in the constitution and
e. contrary to the highest laws of man and natural elsewhere, which the petitioners could have pointed out if
law-the right to self-preservation and perpetuation only the lower court gave them an effective opportunity to
• The DENR Sec asked the Makati RTC to dismiss do so rather than aborting the proceedings (Hence, there
for lack of cause which the judge granted; hence was abuse of discretion).
the petition:
Feliciano further suggests that petitioners should therefore
Issue: cite a more specific legal right to serve as basis for their
petition, now that the Court has granted them
1. Procedural Issue: locus standi continuance, for two reasons:
2. WON pet have a cause of action and whether the a. defendants to may very well unable to
judge committed grave abuse of discretion in mount an effective/intelligent defense if
dismissing the suit. the complaint points to a broad right.

b. If no such specific right is cited, policy/principle; requires enabling legislation
petitioners are expected to fall back on 2. Manila Hotel does not fall under the term national
sec. 8(2) of the Constitution. When patrimony; prohibition is against the State, not
substantive standards as general as “the the GSIS as a separate entity
right to a balanced and healthful ecology”, 3. the constitutional provision is inapplicable as since
and the “right to health” are combined what is being sold are outstanding shares, not
with remedial standards as broad ranging the place itself or the land; 50% of equity is not
as “grave abuse of discretion”, the result part of national patrimony.
will be “to propel the court to unchartered 4. the reliance of the petitioners on the bidding rules is
ocean of social and economic policy misplaced; the condition/reason that will deprive
making. the highest bidder of the award of shares has not
yet materialized hence the submission of a
matching bid is premature
Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, 02/03/97] 5. prohibition should fail for respondent GSIS did not
exercise its discretion in a capricious manner, did
Bellosillo, J. not evade duty or refused to d a duty as enjoined
by law. Similarly mandamus should fail since
Facts: respondent GSIS, pursuant to the privatization they have no clear legal right to demand anything
program under Proclamation No. 50 dated December 8,
1986, decided to sell through a public bidding 30-51% of Issue:
the shares of respindent Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). 1. Whether or not the constitutional provision is self-
The winning bidder "is to provide management expertise executory-YES
and/or an international marketing/reservation system, 2. Whether or not the term "national patrimony"
and financial suppport to strengthen the profitability and applies to the Manila Hotel-YES
performance of the Manila Hotel. 3. Whether or not the term "qualified Filipinos"
Sept 18, 1995- two bidders participated in the auction; applies to the MPH-YES
one was petitioner Manila Prince Hotel Corp, who wanted 4. Whether or not the GSIS, being a chartered GOCC,
to buy 51% of the shares at Php41.85 each, and Renong is covered by the constitutional prohibition-YES
Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid for the same number
of shares at Php44 each Held:
*pertinent provisions of bidding rules: 1. admittedly, some constis are merely declarations of
- if for any reason, the Highest Bidder cannot be policies and principles. But a provision which is
awarded the Block of shares, GSIS may offer this complete in itself and becomes operative w/o the aid
to other Qualified bidders of enabling legislation , or that which supplies
- the highest bidder will only be declared the sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants
winner after 1) execution of the necessary may be enjoyed or protected is self-executing.
contracts with GSIS/MHC and 2)securing the Modern constis are drafted upon a different principle
requisite approvals of the GSIS/MHC, Committee and have often become extensive codes of law
on Privatization and Office of the Govt Corporate intended to operate directly. If the consti provisions
Counsel are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-
Sept 28, 1995-pending the declaration of Renong Berhad executing, the legislature would have the power to
as the winning bidder, petitioner matched the bid ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the
price of the Malaysian firm fundamental law, which can be cataclysmic. In case
Oct 10, 1995-petitioner sent a manager's check issued by of doubt, the Consti should be considered self-
Philtrust Bank as bid security executing rather than not. Though this presumption
Oct 17, 1995-petitioner, wishing to stop the alleged is in place, the legislature is not precluded from
"hurried" sale to the foreign firm, filed the case in enacting further laws to enforce the consti provision
the SC so long as the contemplated statute squares with the
Oct 18, 1995-Court issues TRO consti. Also a consti provision may be self executing
on one part and not on the other/s.
Petitioner: (Manila Prince Hotel) Respondents also rely on jurisprudence that are
1. invokes Art12, Sec10, Par.2, and argues that the "simply not in point"-Basco v PAGCOR, Tolentino v
Manila Hotel was covered by the phrase "national Sec of Finance, Kilosbayan v Morato. A reading of
patrimony" and hence cannot be sold to the provisions involved in these cases clearly shows
foreigners; selling 51% would be tantamount to that they are not judicially enforceable constitutional
owning the business of a hotel which is owned by rights but guidelines of laws, manifested in the very
the GSIS, a GOCC, the hotel business of terms of the provisions. Res ipsa loquitur. As
respondent GSIS being a part of the tourism opposed to Art12, Sec10, Par.2 which is a
industry which undoubtedly is part of the mandatory, positive command, complete in itself,
national economy. needing no further guidelines, creating a right where
2. petitioner should be preferred over its Malaysian none existing before, that right being that qualified
counterpart after it has matched the bid, since Filipinos shall be preferred. And where there is a
the bidding rules state 'if for any reason, the right, there is a remedy.
Highest Bidder cannot be awarded the Block of 2. in plain language, patrimony means heritage,
shares, GSIS may offer this to other Qualified referring not only to natural resouces but to the
bidders, namely them cultural heritage of Filipinos as well. Manila Hotel
Respondents:(Govt Service Insurance System, Manila has become a landmark-a living testament of
Hotel Corp, COP, OGCC) Philippine heritage.
1. Art12, Sec10, Par.2: merely a statement of 3. "qualified" according to the Consti commission

the Court invalidated a promotion of their physical. 1. the violation of the PCSO’s charter disregard of which can give rise to a cause of • Hence. moral. Vicente Mendoza : the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the Facts : support of the govt. (the rest is obiter) • Neither are they real parties in interest. There is only a lease contract in the form of the ELA which is not against the PCOS’s • The grant of standing in the 1st case (Kilosbayan charter. which meant that requires a « partial consideration of the merits as they possessed both requirements. rather they should indeed • In this case. Held : Ratio : 1. No Standing. It is a choice is between a "qualified foreigner " and a a question on whether parties « alleged such a "qualified Filipino". Mgt Copr on the ground that it was made in . misspent. strictly speaking. sec. the sale of the 51% of MHC could only be carried to assure the concrete adverseness. A party must show (citing Valmonte vs PCSO) involved in the actor as to make the govt responsible that : for his action 3)when govt has approved or a. the cases are not the stock is wholly owned by citizens of the Phil. 2 of the having the preferential treatment of the state Rules on Civil Procedure. seeking to nullify the ELA in the ground that it is . "in the granting well as broader policy concerns relating to the of economic rights. The Senators did not show « that their prerogatives as legal have been curtailed ». It is however . the court so largly depends for illumination of "state action" refers to 1)when activity engaged in is difficult constitutitonal questions » a public function. constitutional rights but for guidance for • Petitioners in the 1st case again came to Court legislations. By giving preferrence to one that is not likely to be maintained in Phil comapnies or entities it does not mean that they subsequent litigation ». should be pampered. « sec. now. This is actually a case for annulment of a contract substantially the same as the nullified contract. is still covered by the provision. which out with the prior approval of the State through the sharpens the presentation of issues upon which COP. State recognition for the vital role of the youth in nation-building and • In a previous decision. the Consti refers to state it refers not only to the and not only in an indefinite way. 13. . parties which are principally or subsidiarily to one action.In the 1st place. being part of govt. have a right to be part of the public bidding but have been illegally excluded from it. such as the real parties in interest can only be : • PCSO/PGMC questioned the standing of the a. because of credible granting the standing in the 1st case is a « tenous competency and efficiency. 2) the same. MPH was selected • Stading is a constitutional law concept which as one of the qualified bidders. WON petitioners have standing and cause of action 2. A real- party in interest is the party who would be Petition dismissed. in this case. of the parties or whose rights with respect to that party are prejudicial Issue : c. Act of GSIS selling the shares sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining falls under the 2nd and 3rd categories. (The contracts are subtantially different fact that the company can make viable contributions according to the Court). the petitioners suing as Hence. 2)when govt is so significantly . parties to the contract petitioners and argued that they lack cause of b. the parties only cited provisions under Art II of the Kilosbayan vs. refers to 1)companies whose capital or controlling involved the same parties. That is not the law of the case from entering into joint ventures so long as it itself as the petitioners claim because though the cases holds or conducts the lottery.WON the contract of sale should be nullified. Also. contract of lease bet PCSO and the Phil Gaming intellectual and social well-being. the 7-6 ruling to the common good. Guingona) does not bar the SC from looking • Actively. when some direcy injury as a result of its enforcement. benefitted or injured by the judgment or the « party entitled to the avails of the suit ». people but also to govt as elements of the state. Moreover. No cause. the issue is not "qualify" first with the requirements that the law standing but WON the petitioners are real-party- provides before they can even be considered as in-interest as required by Rule 3 sec. spritual. 12 (that the right of the parents in J. 5 (general welfare clause) . privileges and concessions. the PCSO and PGMC entered into a new action. when proper role of the judiciary in certain areas ». vs. the GSIS. 2. . These are not self-executing provisions. accorded to them. not only the law is invalid but also that he has authorized the action. although taxpayers failed to allege that taxes have been chartered. the latter shall be chosen" personal stake in the outcome of the controversy 4. the PCSO is not absolutely prohibited into the issue again. • The features of the 1st contract that made it actually a joint enture agreement are not present Ratio : herein. They do not embody judially enforceable equipment lease agreement (ELA). Morato Constitution such as : sec.

1994. 1996. to give due course collectively referred to as Multilateral Trade Agreements. then Intellectual Secretary of The Department of Trade and Industry.. as it hereby concurs. for brevity) as follows: Bautista. 2 and 3 thereto and Court resolved on December 12. declaring the received a letter dated August 11. 1994. the President of the Philippines Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. 97 which "Resolved.". signed in Marrakesh. notification procedures etc. Property Rights representing the Government of the Republic of the ANNEX 2 Philippines. 1994 from the President Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and of the Philippines. The court also requested the Hon. in the ratification by the President of the Philippines of the The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. the Phytosanitary Measures Court directed the petitioners to submit the (1) Senate Agreement on Textiles and Clothing Committee Report on the matter in controversy and (2) the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade transcript of proceedings/hearings in the Senate. 301 requires public bidding only for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade purchase of supply and not lease agreements. stating among others that "the Uruguay the agreements and associated legal instruments included Round Final Act is hereby submitted to the Senate for its in Annexes one (1). Respondent Rizalino Navarro. and the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services are On the other hand. the Philippine Senate adopted such as measures in favor of least developed Resolution No. the Final Act signed by Secretary hereby submitted to the Senate for its concurrence Navarro embodies not only the WTO Agreement (and pursuant to Section 21. the thereof. The Solicitor General describes these two latter documents 1083.S. the members of the Philippine Senate signed the Instrument of Ratification. Article VII of the confirmed Constitution. and the . prohibited from investing in companies offering Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures the same games. Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of he • E. Agreement on Subsidies and Coordinating Measures Facts Agreement on Safeguards Note: Justice Panganiban provides a brief historical Annex 1B: General Agreement on Trade in Services and background on the development of the WTO (see p28-34) Annexes Annex 1C: Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of On April 15. the members of the Philippine Senate President of the Philippines is composed of the received another letter from the President of the Agreement Proper and "the associated legal Philippines likewise dated August 11. the present petition was filed. two (2) and three (3) ratified and concurrence pursuant to Section 21. 1994. certified the necessity of the immediate adoption of P. 1994 Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General on Tariffs and Trade 1994 Agreement on Pre-Shipment Inspection Agreement on Rules of Origin WIGBERTO E. EDGARDO ANGARA." The Ministerial Decisions and Declarations are twenty-five declarations and decisions on matters On December 14. 1994. among other things. that the Senate concur. vs. 1995. which stated instruments included in Annexes one (1). 1994. Multilateral Trade Negotiations and includes various agreements and associated legal instruments (identified in On December 29. the three (3) of that Agreement which are integral parts Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. TAÑADA et al." Ministerial Declarations and Decisions." Services dwell on. a resolution entitled "Concurring in the Ratification as follows: of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. the President of the Philippines On August 12.O." To emphasize. to submit a paper." its integral annexes aforementioned) but also (1) the Ministerial Declarations and Decisions and (2) the On December 9. (1) providing a Annex 1A: Multilateral Agreement on Trade in Goods historical background of and (2) summarizing the said General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 agreements. as it is hereby countries. 1994. Morocco. national treatment etc. Agreement on Imports Licensing Procedures et al. Lilia R. 1994. ANNEX 1 hereafter referred to as "Bautista Paper. two (2) and among others that "the Uruguay Round Final Act. Agreement on Agriculture Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and During the Oral Argument held on August 27. standstill or limitations and qualifications of commitments The text of the WTO Agreement is written on pages 137 et to existing non-conforming measures. (Note: This ANNEX 3 act makes the Philippines one of the founding members of Trade Policy Review Mechanism the WTO) On December 16. market seq. the Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations stationed in Geneva. the Final Act Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of the Settlement of Disputes Multilateral Negotiations (Final Act. the WTO Agreement ratified by the On August 13. resolved. Switzerland. 1994. for brevity). Article VII of the Constitution. of Volume I of the 36-volume Uruguay Round of access. to the petition. The the said Agreement as Annexes 1.

10 and 12. this Court will not review the wisdom of the intended to be self-executing principles ready for decision of the President and the Senate in enlisting the enforcement through the courts. Sec. 10. we have no hesitation at all in c) In the area of the General Agreement on Trade in holding that this petition should be given due course Services: and the vital questions raised therein ruled upon under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. and other and state policies enumerated in Article II and some import/trade barriers. quantitative restrictions. it will only exercise its sections of Article XII are not "self-executing constitutional duty "to determine whether or not there provisions. as follows: a) In the area of investment measures related to Judicial power includes the duty of the courts trade in goods (TRIMS. article 12 of the Philippine STATE POLICIES Constitution Sec. WON the provision of the WTO agreement and its three annexes contravene sec. Morato. speedy or adequate remedy in the supplied) ordinary course of law. Yes. WON the concurrence of the senate in the WTO that will encourage the formation and operation of agreement and its annexes are sufficient and/or enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by valid. Rather. WTO Agreement and other documents mentioned in the Constitution Final Act. . . . act. 19.Solicitor General. Article XII. of the controversy Constitution. Declaration of Principles Not Self-Executing prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or By its very title. Article II. 1 Article the government. WON The WTO Agreement contravenes the Phil. certiorari. and concessions the understanding on commitments in financial covering the national economy and patrimony. legislative power by congress 4. restrict or impair the exercise of controlled by Filipinos. They are used by the country into the WTO. adherence to the WTO Agreement. Holding: the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. which derogate from Philippine sovereignty and (2) copies of the multi-volume 2. Petitioners aver that these sacred constitutional principles The jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate the matters are desecrated by the following WTO provisions quoted in raised in the petition is clearly set out in the 1987 their memorandum: Constitution. WON said provisions unduly impair or interfere Article XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND with the exercise of judicial power by this court in PATRIMONY promulgating rules on evidence Sec. Neither will it rule on the propriety of the enactment of laws. The Congress shall enact measures 5. to file (1) a or excess of jurisdiction" on the part of the Senate in list of Philippine treaties signed prior to the Philippine ratifying the WTO Agreement and its three annexes." The executive officials. No. for brevity): and enforceable. domestic materials and locally produced goods. for brevity): of justice to settle actual controversies b) In the area of trade related aspects of intellectual involving rights which are legally demandable property rights (TRIPS. On this. Issues: The "flagship" constitutional provisions referred to are Sec 1. 25432 (emphasis there is no other plain. the principles taxes. These principles in Article II are not this petition. 3. we have no equivocation. considering that it did not include the final Filipinos. (par. and to determine whether or Each Member shall accord to the nationals of other not there has been a grave abuse of discretion Members treatment no less favourable than that it amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on accords to its own nationals with regard to the the part of any branch or instrumentality of protection of intellectual property. 19. the disregard of which can give rise to a had been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack cause of action in the courts. 31. and by the legislature in its body. Article II of the Constitution is a prohibit/nullify. As held in the leading case of government's economic policy of reducing/removing tariffs. and Secs. privileges. which are worded as follows: 2. The State shall develop a self-reliant and 3. and adopt measures that 1. Legal Instruments. the services State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. WON the petition presents a justiciable 19. . counterpart of this article in the 1935 Constitution is called the "basic political creed of the nation" by Dean We should stress that. Indeed. The State shall promote the preferential Ratio: use of Filipino labor. and In the grant of rights. 12. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the controversy help make them competitive. Vol. when proper. ministerial declarations and decisions. Incorporated vs. article 2 and Article II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND sec. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect of Intellectual Property rights. or pass upon the merits of trade judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its liberalization as a policy espoused by said international power of judicial review. Uruguay As the petition alleges grave abuse of discretion and as Round. in deciding to take jurisdiction over Vicente Sinco. WON the provisions of said agreement and its independent national economy effectively annexes limit. They do not embody . subsidies. . acts of legislative and "declaration of principles and state policies. Kilosbayan. 10 and 12. p. as counsel for respondents.

and speaks of industries treatment is given to developing countries in terms of "which are competitive in both domestic and foreign the amount of tariff reduction and the period within markets" as well as of the protection of "Filipino which the reduction is to be spread out. It did not shut out foreign investments. Vol. privileges and development. Within the WTO. The Constitution did not intend to pursue an isolationist the available remedy was not judicial but political." In similar language. to defend themselves intelligently and effectively. poor countries can protect their common interests more effectively through the WTO than Economic Nationalism Should Be Read with Other through one-on-one negotiations with developed Constitutional Mandates to Attain Balanced countries." These basic principles are found in the concessions covering the national economy and preamble of the WTO Agreement. as compared to only very words the provision does not require any 13% for developing countries to be effected within ten (10) legislation to put it in operation. 2). otherwise. GATT requires developed complete in itself and which needs no further guidelines or countries to reduce domestic support to agricultural implementing laws or rule for its enforcement. Amendments to MFN provisions and the 2. The policy. principles underlying the WTO Agreement recognize the need of developing countries like the Philippines The Constitution ordains the ideals of economic to "share in the growth in international trade nationalism (1) by expressing preference in favor of commensurate with the needs of their economic qualified Filipinos "in the grant of rights. That unless the legal right claimed to have been WTO decides by consensus whenever possible. Amendments would require two thirds vote in general. there are due process dimensions waiver of the obligation of a member which would require to this matter. (see case for preamble of patrimony" and in the use of "Filipino labor. violated or disregarded is given specification in decisions of the Ministerial Conference and the General operational terms." itself states. unlimited entry of foreign goods. regulation is not alleged or proved. it is enforceable only in regard to "the grants of rights. Where a specific violation of law or applicable Amendments provision will require assent of all members. developing countries can Development of Economy form powerful blocs to push their economic agenda more decisively than outside the Organization. held that "Sec. II. 10 and 12 of Article XII. Thus. executive and to the legislature. 10. domestic WTO) materials and locally-produced goods". It refers to exceptions the courts. giving their domestic industries policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all some protection from the rush of foreign competition. preferential equality ad reciprocity". second par. forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of Thus. (Bernas. (2) by mandating the State to "adopt measures that help make them Specific WTO Provisions Protect Developing Countries competitive. services and investments into the country. operable legal right." for developed countries to be effected within a period of six (6) years while developing countries — including It is true that in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel vs. as the constitutional provision guidelines for legislation. and (3) by requiring the State to "develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively So too. In regard to export subsidy for agricultural .. the Philippines — are required to effect an average Government Service Insurance System.. In fact. From its products by 20% over six (6) years. paragraph of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution Hence. goods and electorate could express their displeasure with the services in the development of the Philippine economy. Specifically. positive command which is In respect to domestic subsidy. defendants may well be unable Council shall be taken by the majority of the votes cast. except in cases of interpretation of the Agreement or in other words. This is Secs. it does not prohibit It seems to me important that the legal right which is them either. p. it allows an exchange on the basis an essential component of a cause of action be a of equality and reciprocity. the Solicitor General points out that pursuant to controlled by Filipinos. If the executive and the legislature failed to heed the directives of the article. three fourths vote.judicially enforceable constitutional rights but enforceable. constitutional or statutory policy. Art. petitioners can Any member may withdraw from the Agreement upon the be expected to fall back on the expanded expiration of six months from the date of notice of conception of judicial power in the second withdrawals. They were rather directives addressed to the rather than the rule." However. the Constitution takes into account the realities of the WTO Agreement grants developing countries a more outside world as it requires the pursuit of "a trade lenient treatment. failure of the executive and the legislature through the While the Constitution does not encourage the language of the ballot. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a mandatory. should be read and not merely a matter of practical alliances but a understood in relation to the other sections in said negotiating strategy rooted in law. et al. with respect to tariffs in general. this Court tariff reduction of only 24% within ten (10) years. the 1935 provisions were not intended to be national economy and patrimony" and not to every self-executing principles ready for enforcement through aspect of trade and commerce. It is per se judicially years. enterprises against unfair foreign competition and GATT requires an average tariff reduction rate of 36% trade practices. for at least two (2) reasons: WTO Recognizes Need toProtect Weak Economies 1. the and consistent with the foregoing basic principles. privileges and concessions covering In general. rather than a competition that is unfair. the basic article. frowning only on foreign specific.

cooperation and amity. Not Industries or Policies. import and rules of equality and reciprocity that apply to all WTO export quotas. petitioners claim that said WTO proviso The WTO reliance on "most favored nation. GATT requires developed countries to reduce anywhere in the world at the most reasonable prices. community. the question boils down to whether export volumes receiving export subsidy by 21% within a WTO/GATT will favor the general welfare of the public at period of six (6) years. 401 of domestic and foreign markets. Filipino While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed managers and Filipino enterprises have shown capability absolute and all-encompassing on the domestic level." thereby demonstrating the Tariff and Customs Code. it means avoiding Constitution is vested in the Congress of the Philippines. For developing countries." As explained by Constitutional The WTO Agreement provides that "(e)ach Member shall Commissioner Bernardo Villegas. with all nations. the WTO Agreement was not yet in existence unfair foreign competition and trade practices including when the Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1987. regulations and constitutional policy: administrative procedures with its obligations as provided in the annexed Agreements. They should be weaker situations of developing nations like the interpreted to cover even future and unknown Philippines have been taken into account. The Constitution has not really shown any unbalanced freedom. WON the WTO Agreement restricts or limits the necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments. and other members. . justice. Legislative Power of Congress goods and services. Filipino entrepreneurs and managers voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines. equality. More specifically." By the bias in favor of any business or enterprise. the have anticipated the advent of a borderless world of Philippines can avail of these measures. Contingencies Moreover. foreign competition. as a member of the family of nations. local industries and enterprises will all It is not difficult to answer this question. which companies should be pampered with a total proscription of are considered to be automatically part of our own laws. nor does it doctrine of incorporation. such limitations and restrictions" as encourages industries that are "competitive in both Congress may provide. anti-dumping measures. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion" nor "mendicancy in the international No. hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world. Where local businesses necessarily flawed in the sense that its framers might not are jeopardized by unfair foreign competition. infidels but at the same time bend with the refreshing winds of change necessitated by unfolding events. mendicancy in the international community. the country is bound by contain any specific pronouncement that Filipino generally accepted principles of international law. expressly or in Hongkong have demonstrated the Filipino capacity to impliedly. . grow and to prosper against the best offered under a policy Unquestionably. the reduction rate is only two-thirds of that prescribed for developed countries and a longer period of ten (10) years Constitution Designed to Meet Future Events and within which to effect such reduction. there circumstances. specifically the legislative power assistance for even its most basic needs. In its Declaration of Principles and State Constitution Favors Consumers." "national derogates from the power to tax. On the other hand. It is to the credit of its drafters that a would be no basis to say that in joining the WTO. GATT itself has provided built-in protection from No doubt. hardly therefore any basis for the statement that under the WTO. and tenacity to compete internationally. as in fact it did under Sec. a clear policy against a sheltered domestic trade environment. As Constitution Does Not Rule Out Foreign Competition one eminent political law writer and respected jurist explains: Furthermore. There is business. and adheres to the policy of peace. thus. large. 2. countervailing measures and That does not mean however that the Charter is safeguards against import surges. sponsor of this ensure the conformity of its laws. the Constitution "adopts the generally accepted Enterprises principles of international law as part of the law of the land. respondents claim One of the oldest and most fundamental rules in that WTO/GATT aims to make available to the Filipino international law is pacta sunt servanda — consumer the best goods and services obtainable international agreements must be performed in good . tonnage and wharfage dues. Aside from envisioning a trade policy based duties or imposts. their budgetary outlays for export subsidy by 36% and Consequently. restricts and impairs country that is keenly aware of overdependence on external Philippine sovereignty. Article VI of the 1987 Philippine autarky or economic seclusion." the fundamental law limits and . the constitutional policy of a "self-reliant and independent national economy" does not 3. the Constitution did not envision a of laissez faire. which is lodged in the treatment. such authority is subject to "specified on "equality and reciprocity. however. It does not mean which under Sec. but one in favor of the gradual Sovereignty Limited by International Law and Treaties development of robust industries that can compete with the best in the foreign markets. And while the Constitution allows Congress to be struck down as unconstitutional as in fact they are authorize the President to fix tariff rates. Quite the contrary. rather." and "trade without discrimination" cannot Congress." Petitioners maintain that this Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a developing undertaking "unduly limits. the vagaries of contemporary events.products. Indeed. the Constitution can withstand the assaults of bigots and respondents have gravely abused their discretion. be wiped out and that Filipinos will be deprived of Constitutions are designed to meet not only the control of the economy. And given a free it is however subject to restrictions and limitations trade environment.

It applies only to those 27 Members with all nations." the Constitution. very nature of membership in the family of nations trademarks and copyrights. temporary entry of personnel. a operation and furthering the objectives of this portion of sovereignty may be waived without violating Agreement. namely. concurrence of the to limit the exercise of its sovereign powers of Senate in the WTO Agreement. Certain restrictions system. clearing systems Provisions and Basic Principles of the Agreement on Trade. and national treatment Petitioners aver that paragraph 1. as the parties ." which "have indicated in their respective schedules of commitments on standstill. legislation and rules of procedure will not be substantial. and generally with a view to facilitating the The point is that. "(a)ll Yes. The same reciprocity characterizes the the members can meet "to give effect to those Philippine commitments under WTO-GATT. the Philippines has effectively agreed from its signatories. elimination of monopoly. the adjustment in and (2) limitations imposed by treaty stipulations. They contracting states in granting the same privilege and were approved by the ministers by virtue of Article immunities to the Philippines. it consented to restrict its binding sovereign rights under the "concept of sovereignty as auto- limitation. . They contend that the second letter of the many other international pacts — both bilateral and President to the Senate which enumerated what multilateral — that involve limitations on Philippine constitutes the Final Act should have been the subject of sovereignty. in his Compliance dated October WON WTO Agreement impairs Judicial Power expansion of operation of existing financial service suppliers. Besides. Republic Act No. nations may surrender some aspects of their state power Suffice it to say that the reciprocity clause more than in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from justifies such intrusion. UN Charter and Other Treaties Limit Sovereignty 5. Agreement and its annexes — but not in the other and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state documents referred to in the Final Act. since the Philippine is a signatory to enter into the picture: (1) limitations imposed by the most international conventions on patents. 1996 (see case for list of bilateral treaties) The assailed Senate Resolution No. (See (Note: Justice Panganiban ends with an epilogue that acts case for scope and meaning of Article 34. consistent as it is with due process and the concept of The sovereignty of a state therefore cannot in fact and adversarial dispute settlement inherent in our judicial in reality be considered absolute. eminent domain and police power.” intrudes on the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading. and refinancing available in the normal course of Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) business. Process Patents as a summary. Article 34 of the General with respect to access to payment. cooperation and amity the Philippines. By their voluntary act. TRIPS) There exists a similar burden of proof required in the current patent law. free transfer No. legislative power — will apply to this fourth issue also. ." Under Article 2 of the UN Charter.) and Burden of Proof. . its officials and its XXV: 1 of GATT which provides that representatives of citizens. 4. otherwise known as the Patent Law. members shall give the United Nations every assistance in Petitioners allege that the Senate concurrence in the WTO any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter. namely the against which the United Nations is taking preventive or Ministerial Declaration and Decisions and the enforcement action. It is about 2 pages in length. taxation. The underlying consideration in this partial surrender of The Ministerial Declarations and Decisions were sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment of the other deemed adopted without need for ratification. So too. "A treaty engagement is not a mere moral no problem in changing the rules of evidence as the obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on present law on the subject. The foregoing should really present . based on the rationale that the Philippines "adopts the generally accepted principles The Understanding on Commitments in Financial of international law as part of the law of the land and Services also approved in Marrakesh does not apply to adheres to the policy of . the arguments adduced in connection By their inherent nature. Article 34 does not contain an unreasonable burden." By and large. a convention or pact. These are enumerated by the Solicitor General concurrence of the Senate. and processing of information. practice and procedures. provides international obligations is bound to make in its a similar presumption in cases of infringement of legislations such modifications as may be necessary to patented design or utility model. treaties really limit or restrict the with our disposition of the third issue — derogation of absoluteness of sovereignty. ensure the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken. 97 expressed concurrence in exactly what the Final Act required In such treaties. as shown by the foregoing treaties. provisions of this Agreement which invoke joint action. 165. A state which has contracted valid amended. . if any actually exists. the Philippines has entered into discretion. WON Senate concurrence in the WTO Agreement and When the Philippines joined the United Nations as one of Not in Other Documents Contained in the Final Act are its 51 charter members." Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services — is defective and insufficient and thus constitutes abuse of Apart from the UN Treaty.

same controversy is brought before a body of security and preservation of democracy. and respondent was submitted for correction so overbroad. a denial of equal protection of laws. since it could be • Following such definition. Respondents judicial or quasi-judicial acts to be exercised. petitioner cannot claim a right that has been violated. a subversive group. it is valid if it is indicative in broad but clear terms * Based on that definition. 1970. Bautista « winners » (citing a decision regarding an oratorical contest). • Generally. 1 rule 65 of the Rules of Court. scope. sought the leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Facts : PEOPLE vs. adjudication of rights ». a law that gives rise to some specific rights of violent means. represented by his parents. the statute is not overbroad and vague. there disregarded the terms “knowingly. instead of activities. it shall Held : not be a bill of attainder – not unless specific individuals were named. Issues: . In short. willingly. in invalidation of the results thru a writ of certiorari violation of RA 1700 (Anti-Subversion Law). vague. There is no right to a prize until it is awarded. with public health. a bill of attainder. On July 21. as well as their committee can be a proper subject of certiorari cognizance as shown by overt acts. moot and academic since graudation was over • Court agreed with respondents pointing out that On September 15. WON RA 17700 is overbroad and vague (due that the comm being impleaded is not a « tribunal process) board or officer exercising judicial function » agains which an action for certiorari apply under Held: sec. the court had to first define states that the act will be applied prospectively to « judicial power ». Committed grave abuse of discretion by chaning 1. No. The guilt of CPP The Court thought it is most important to settle WON the members must first be established. A bill of attainder Ratio : must also reach past conduct and applied retroactively. The determine WON there was a discharge of judicial respondents’ assertion that the term “overthrow” is or quasi-judicial functions. 1970 a criminal complaint was filed against as Comm). . No. 1970. There was abuse of discretion only errors 1. Even if acts specified individuals. 1. vague. and consequences of proposed is neither a judicial or quasi-judicial body. There is only a privilege to compete that did not ripen into a . FERRER • Teodoro Santiago Hr. it is not a bill of attainder. adverse claims are made resulting in a controversy enough to outweigh considerations of national c. the court said that for achieved by peaceful means. demandable right unless and until they were proclaimed Santiago vs. arguing that RA 1700 is: . The court has Certiorari cannot apply consistently upheld the CPP’s activities as inimical to public safety and welfare. The act does not specify which CPP members are to be punished. the grades of the 1st/2nd honors recipients. The respondents further raised 2. certitori cannot issue. no written or formal judgment made by the on the grounds that it is a bill of attainder. the Court ruled that the comm the nature. Whatever interest in free persons or property. the statute was declared void . overbroad is likewise untenable. and safety – and the respect to a matter in controversy. Section 4 of RA 1700 expressly • To answer this case. respondent FELICIANO CO charging him as a ranking • He. (Hereon referred On May 5. It is not the office that matters but the nature of the action taken to 2. give members time to renounce their affiliations. The title officer clothed with authority to make a of the bill need not be a catalogue of its contents – determination of law and adjudication of rights. and must be : by overt acts.” overthrow is understood to be by a. certiorari was improper and the issue became 4. Issue : The focus is not on individuals but on conduct relating to subversive purposes. WON RA 1700 is a bill of attainder • Santiago appealed. and tried to comm should be made up of grede 5 and grade 6 invite others to revolt against the government. • Respondents moved for dismissal because 3. violated the Service Manual for Teachers of the filed for subversion – respondent was a member of the Bureau of Public Schools which states that the Kabataang Makabayan. speech/associations that is infringed is not b. Notable. TAYAG moved to quash. with more than one subject expressed in title. it government is with right to protect itself against implies the « construction of laws and the subversion. the law and operation. Admin remedies not exhausted. Was awarded 3rd honors in their grade Six graduating class by the Comm on Facts: the Rating of Students for Honor. morals. On May 25. 2. teachers not just the latter. claiming that the teachers : 1970 a criminal case against NILO TAYAG and others was . is the authority to determine what the The legislature is with reasonable relation to law is and what legal rights of parties are.

accused joined organization. Zaballero. Other means could an infringement on the separation of powers have been taken to stem the issue and spread of the concept but it would also grossly endanger the CPP. thus come to the was filed by SG Felix Antonio SC to ask that the recommendation be deleted June 15. 1970 . day extension of his stay. The stopover in Manila was about 72 hours (3 Ponente: Justice Fernando days). • J. Rizal return. vs. By authority of the For petitioner-appellee: Araneta. pursuit of objectives decried by the Ratio: government. establish purposes to overthrow and Issue: establish totalitarian regime under foreign domination. Mendoza & Papa President. knowledge. which they said was aptly a prerogative of the RA 1700 must be appraised in light of meaning Pres. While staying at a hotel he contacted 2 friend s who convinced him to stay longer. 2. In the case of any subversive group a. However his identity was Solicitor General & Auditor General discovered. court a quo for trial on merits. movements in the country. in recommitting Facts: him to prison exercised his prerogatives under the Revised Penal Code. Gen. The right to dissent is constitutionally protected. A taint of invalidity is seen • It is better practice for courts to keep their even in the title of the Act. b. Held: Yes. 1. • Ang Cho Kio had been previously convicted of various crimes and sentenced to more than 45 JM TUASON & CO. Solicitor Rosalio de Leon & • Ang Chio Kio filed a petition for a write of habeas Special Attorney Magno Pablo corpus but was denied by both trial court and CA on the ground that the president. Exec. which state the specific opinions to those relevant to the questions name of an organization and create presumption of presented before them. *the statute prohibits suit for .Court rendered judgment reversing the that the Pres by himself can determine if the lower court’s decision that RA 2616 is conditions of a pardon were violated. It is political in character. The Sol. Resolution set aside. will and overt action. Asst. He was released and left for Taipei in 1959. • In 1966. LAND TENURE years of jail time. cases remanded to penalizing acts etc. 1970 Ming Huy arrived at the MIA en route Honolulu. A line is drawn when words amount to adviser to the President”. however March 30. WON the decision of the CA should be modified. c. Aguilar & Garcia. “duty of the courts to assure compliance with constitutional mandates”. no majority vote was acquired to Director of Prisons vs. • He was then arrested. To do so well not only be incitement to sedition or rebellion. 5 on the commutation of sentence. a prerogative unconstitutional. knowledge. 1970. guilt. the CA decision contained a protection of laws recommendation that Ang Chio Kho be allowed to May 27. Petitioner saying that it was beyond the issue raised by the contends that the expropriation of Tatalon Estate petition of Ang Chio Kho and that it is not in Quezon City is unconstitutional (by virtue of its inherent or incidental to the exercise of judicial denial of due process for landowners) pursuant to RA 2616 sec 4. in CPP case a. However while serving his ADMINISTRATION sentence he was given pardon on the condition that he’ll voluntarily leave the Phil and never to -an appeal from COFI. accused joined organization. Ang Chio Kho under the name of Ang June 30.a rejoinder of petition was filed. b. Respondent (appellant): Land tenure Administration. The court should “ignore the limits of its own authority”. courts should not interefere. Sec. Ang Chio Kho overturn the CA recommendation. hence it stands. It would thus amount to political prescribed to increasing complexity of subversive interference. dissenting: act. Inc went to the Bureau of Immigration to ask for a 14. appellee invoking his rights to due process & equal • However. WHEREFORE. Dissent is not any occupant of any court to play the role of disloyalty. • However. SG Frime to serve his unexpired prison term. It is settled in jurisprudence Feb 18. • It is improper for the CA to make a recommendation suggesting a modification of an Fernando. these expressly provided by law such as that in the RPC sec. him to be recommitted to the National Penitentiary Solicitor General Felix Makasiar. then ordered For respondent-appellant: Besa. • Recommendatory powers of judges are limited to c. will. 1970 – motion for reconsideration was filed by erroneous the findings may be. 1970 – detailed opposition to the reconsideration leave the country. Rafael Salas. Fernando (concurring) said that “it is not for even if it contains a subversive tinge. which the Courts may not interfere with. and overt action. They Petioner (appellee): JM Tuason & Co.Guidelines Set Forth by the Supreme Court: functions.

given the opportunity and protection it affords to land owners in recognizing their right to evict Ratio: subject to expropriation proceedings and just compensation. of • The Congress brought to this Court with an appeal Public Instructions. sec. WON procedural mistakes invalidate the statute Held: HELD: It is not within the authority of the Court to take 1. the US is made defendant but it has fears are without legal basis. US factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof. the sufficiency of the Muskrat vs. 22 (The parties have not cited a right violated by the Act of Congress. Thus Wherefore. hence the grant of Ratio: The statute is held to be constitutional jurisdiction is invalid. RA 3453 amended sec4 of RA 2616 • Although in the beginning of the govt. Conferring advise to the leg was never contemplated in the constitution as a function of the court. further examination has led Cuatico vs. acts. Appellee’s • In this action. Consti. Dominical rights cannot be conferred case between opposing parties is submitted. by allowing them to sue the govt. No. 3 B. were allowed to proceed will be nothing more than an expression of opinion upon the validity of the Ex Post Facto Laws acts in question. ISSUES: Issue: 1. Congress. VII. the right of in order to address this precise problem (sec4 of Congress to give original jurisdiction in cases not RA 3453 previously held to be unconstitutional. . tenants’ invocation of as-yet-to-be instituted • That exercise of that power is limited to cases and expropriation proceedings. III.) enumerated in the Constitution have been The amendment was drafted in light of entertained. the decision that court will render if the actions Judgement AFFIRMED.) be enacted. sec. Facts: whose parents had theretofore been enrolled as members of the Cherokee tribe or had applications • PACU assails the constitutionality of Act 2706 “An pending for that purpose. The court cant determining who owns the land does not invalidate declare an act unconstitutional unless a proper the statute. • An act of Congress that provide for the allotment of lands of Cherokee Nation. act making the inspection obligatory for the Sec. No. Art. par. beyond those enrolled in Sept. 18. of Colleges and University vs. to test the constitutionality of prior acts of Congress. cognizance of the claims of Muskrat. Art. The objective is only compensate rightful owners. of Educ. However. submitted to the court for adjudication. and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. 2. ejectment proceedings & continuance of proceedings after expropriation proceedings have been initiated. Case or Controversy Requirement: Elements STANDING The Supreme Court may review. The court Ratio: Inaccuracies committed by Congress in has no veto power over leg. The government will not adverse interest against them. WON sec4 RA2616 is unconstitutional by virtue of WON conferring such jurisdiction is within the power of its denial of due process & equal protection Congress. Consti. not to assert a property right as against the govt or demand compensation for alleged wrongs. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall character of the leg in question not actual conflicts. only allowed the Court to settle the doubtful Section 22. which increased the number of persons entitled to share in the final distribution of lands and funds of the Cherokees Philippine Assoc. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. It had the effect of permitting the enrollment of children who were minors living in March 1906. 1902 in accordance with the act of Congress passed in July 1902. Sec. controversies which imply the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are 2. Court of Appeals where the this Court to consistently decline powers that are landowner’s right to due process was impaired by strictly judicial in their nature. on those obviously not entitled to them.

he can only Exhaustion of administrative remedies: exceptions rely upon his own independent powers. The power of the Sec.e. Gonzales vs. the Court decided to look which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. administering public property. Sawyer funds. –Under the Constitution. secretary. Main function of Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. the then Congress could as taxpayer. of Education to require prior previous exhaustion of administrative remedies is not permit before they operate deprive them of liberty applicable: and property without due process. but there is a zone applicable to case at bar: The principle requiring the of twilight in which he and Congress may have a . unless actually d. purchase of basic foods directly from tenants. the gov’t can state that the act is not unconstitutional. not into the merits. 1. –While to the Presidency under the 1935 amounting to an actual injury to petitioner. This. • Govt asserts that the petitioners have not brought The case at bar falls under each one of the foregoing a justiciable controversy and should be dismissed. “When the president acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority =. The act does not provide guidelines for jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction. Issue: the main function of the Executive is to enforce laws enacted by Congress. which is to engage in the public funds. Petitioner assails an EO creating a trust for the construction of the CCP on the ground that it is an Petitioner assails respondent’s authorization of the impermissible encroachment by the President on the importation of rice by the govt from private sources on the legislative prerogative. vs. whose acts as alter-ego of the c. or this. to operate President bear the implied or assumed schools) approval of the latter. Hechanova ** no digest for this case so I copied the digest from another reviewer. fundamental personal rights of liberty and property. The SC absence of the requisite pecuniary or monetary interest. It was not invalidated by our courts in the affirmative. Moreover. of Educ. by providing in shown either that the Sec. otherwise it might be alleged that the only when it conflicts with the fundamental law. Nevertheless. Resp contends President came from donations and contributions not from that the status of petitioner as a rice planter does not give public funds raised through taxation. powers legal one. exceptions to the general rule. of Education has threatened to Section 2 of Article VIII thereof that the Supreme Court revoke their permits. there is no justiciable controversy bec question of whether an international agreement may be none of them have been closed down in fact. or writ or Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions. Ratio: Jurisdiction. where the question in dispute is purely a b. Marcos Gonzales vs. There has been abuse on the part of the 3. where there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention. Constitution was entrusted the responsibility for public funds will be used to effect the purchase. Relevant in this judicial assistance with a view to restraining what he connection is the excerpt from an opinion of Justice believes to be an attempt to unlawfully disburse said Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Power to invalidate treaties:--The Constitution of the Philippines has clearly settled the In the 1st place. Congress. The act involved undue delegation of leg. growers in the Phil. but also Court failed to act in the face of a clear violation of when it runs counter to an act of Congress. Accordingly. The former may not interfere in the WON there is a justiciable controversy with regard to performance of the legislative powers of the latter. ** no digest for this case so I copied the digest from another reviewer. Unlimited 2. has sufficient interest and personality to seek provide guidelines for such a task. or when it allowed the Sec. Regulation of books of instruction amounts to disapproved by him or censorship. as the law or the rules of court may provide. The act imposes a tax on a right (i. not to defeat the same. He may not defeat legislative enactments that have acquired the status of Held: law. revise. final Nevertheless. except permits. there is him sufficient interest to file the instant petition. farmers. 4. modify. prohibited by said laws. where the respondent is a department school inspectors “bullying”. petitioner is entitled to a chance to sell Creation of rules governing the administration of a trust to the govt the rice it now seeks to import. by indirectly repealing the same through an executive agreement providing for the performance of the very act No there is none. in view of decisions of US SC quoted judgments and decrees of inferior courts in (1) all cases in apparently outlawing censorship. Said act of may be concurrently exercised by the President and the respondent thus deprives petitioner of this opportunity. error. Petitioner. may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review. A held that petitioner has standing since in light of the polict taxpayer’s suit will only prosper if involves the use of of the govt underlying the Act. certiorari. in the exercise of the veto power. a. where the controverted act is patently powers and discretion to prescribe rules and illegal or was performed without standards. or affirm on appeal. reverse. The SC held here that petitioner has ground that said act is violative of an Act prohibiting such no sufficient standing as the funds administered by the importation by the RCA or any govt agency.

In accused of constitutional infirmities. bec the latter implement Act 4221 as long as it is not declared asked for a recon and a group of lawyers asked to void by the Court. It removes the penalties and disabilities. ordinarily it may not be raised to put a stop on the hearing and execute the at the trial. if Congress would continue to keep its peace action in the lower courts. denied the just because it is already implemented. It releases punishment and blots out of existence the guilt so that in the eye of 1. to constitutionality if raised in the appropriate .. the issue can be • Respondents argue: considered any time by an appellate court. it may be raised at any stage of the pardon and reprieves proceedings b. defense of want of jurisdiction bec “there is an c. While the Sol Gen is estopped discussion on justiciability. measures on independent presidential responsibility. at least as practical matter. A. enable. However. is department. question of constitutionality must be later joined by Sol. 4221. can be maintained (separability). strong reasons of public policy and that the issue be resolved”. • Liberality Doctrine (of Judicial Review): b. HSBC. requisites for judicial review are present) uncertain. Gen. Probation is not pardon. a. The private petitioner may not intervene in a However the Court said that despite the foregoing probation case. Constitutional Issues Raised • Constitutionality: Act 4221 is unconstitutional C. the offender is as innocent as if he had in a proper case never committed an offense. when the constitutionality of the jurisdiction of the c. Gen. Vera the govt is the party bec it’s a probation proceeding). However. indifference or and the issue of constitutionality is the very lis quiescence may sometimes. to recall Thomas unconstitutionality are usually raised in ordinary Reed Powell. congressional inertia. any actual test of power is Ratio: likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract • Right remedy sought. the court can still overrule the from questioning a law which govt promulgated. The people is not estopped from impinging the law respondent Vera granted a hearing. • Cu Unjieng was found guilty and sentenced to then the state has a substantial interest to set it imprisonment aside. which referred it ti inflicts “a mortal wound upon the fundamental the probation which in turn denied it. if not invite. • However. rule: only parties to the suit can question the validity of a law (in this case only People vs. Although question of theories of law”.gen. rep by Sol.concurrent authority. considered on appeal.e. The SC should not impair the law. case is premature since the same issues being • Lis Mota: There is no doubt that the raised by petitioners are still pending before the constitutionality is the issue here bec Cu Unjien trial court. WON it a usurpation of pardon powers. Private party. Considering the… “importance of the case”. a writ of plainer language. Justiciability B. The petitioners raised an issue of constitutionality the law. Therefore. It is not a application. the Probation Law is However. crim cases. held by herein c. is constitutional but even it is not. the extraordinary situation which calls for the relaxation of the assailed parts can be excluded while the others general rule” on justiciability. another branch. They have also a pending appeal before draws his purported privilege from the assailed the said court. Public party-the people. violates equal protection clause lower court is assailed. in will not be sentence of CU. Not only does its implementation result in • C. or in which its distribution is cases (i. In this area. NO a. and if not in the trial courts. Act. To vary the phraseology. If act 4221 indeed violates the constitution. A pardon removes both Held: guild and punishment. law”. if the very notwithstanding the action taken by the executive basis for the jurisdiction of the lower court. the judge failed to rule on valid ground because fiscals etc will naturally the execution of the sentence of C. applied for probation under Act 4221 in the illegal expenditure of public funds. “to prevent the multiplicity of Issues: suits”. infringed on the executive prerogative to grant a. courts can grant exception through the unconstitutional on 3 grounds: exercise of its sound discretion such as in: a. • Public Party have standing. meaning consent. • Mootness: not moot • But before Judge Vera could rule on this. mota of the case which is the case here. Separability . undue delegation of leg power b.U. a. it also Manila CFI (Tuason presiding). latter’s jurisdiction. b. As a general rule. it may be considered as silently vocal. Indeed the proper party-to bring the action.U. it could be an instance of silence prohibition is issued. is a Facts: proper party. • They argued that the judge lack jurisdiction in as much as his basis. filed an action for raised at the earliest opportunity so that if it is not certiorari and prohibition before the SC asking it raised in the pleading. and restores him to all • Courts willonly make a determination with regard his civil rights. intervene in his favor.

Y. district court rearrested if he violates the conditions of his seeking to invalidate secs of the Elementary and probation and it rearrested. only if provincial boards appropriate. in sectarian/religious schools. the whole law is congressional power under the taxing and invalid. Hence the direct injury test was not met Exceptions: (Frothingham case). It must be subjected to a test: was the • Govt is wrong in saying that standing should not statute complete in itself when it left the hands of be granted bec this taxpayers’ suit involves mere the legislative so that nothing was left to judgment disagreement with the uses of the tax and the of any other delegate of the leg. Hence. a party may be granted standing but the law. Quoting Judge issue should belong to other branches of govt. under the control of the probation of the officer and the Court. unlike pardon. The main question is WON the party discretion as to its execution.b. A probation. 11). it is not relevant quite different to give discretion as to what it (the whether or not the substantive issues are law) shall be and conferring an authority or justiciable. the status) and denial of equal protection which is not different the type of legislative enactment attacked. • The act allegedly vitiates the establishment and c. The Act becomes applicable for instance. citing the leg did not overstep its bounds when it passed Frothingham vs Mellon. Congress is the branch where in the power to the exercise clause of the 1st amendment of the US define crimes and their penalties is reposed. Said sec. It permits the a. it is in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that valid for Congress. (Baker vs Carr) the provinces to implement or not implement the • Hence. The salary • In the case of a taxpayer’s suit. expenditures for the assailed maternity Act of • General Rule: A delegated power cannot be 1921 was “remote. delegation of leg power to the LGUs to prescribe local ordinances Issue: WON appellants have locus standi b. During the probation period. Sec. the latter must involve the exercise of • Separability. substitution of imprisonment and tire”. which is to . fluctuating and uncertain”.) Ratio: • The case at hand does not fall within the exception. a logical link bet a taxpater (i. Cohen penalty. Enough must remain (in the essentially regulatory statute. at the substantive issues to decide on the issue of • Act violates equality clause. a. Frothingham. It is in fact a penalty of lesser degree. does not relieve Flast vs. to be exercised seeking reliefe has “alleged such a personal stake under and in pursuance of the law. impugned statute) to make a complete. the convict is still Facts: under legal custody. standing. the court will look for the probation officer of the province. person X in province A may benefit from the Act establish the “logical nexus” between the status bec province A provided for the salary of the asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated. Emergency powers of the pres to leg. may be committed to Secondary Education Act of 1965. 11 of the Act 4221. Since consti as it provides funding for probation is a “new mode of penalty. it was stated that the int of a federal taxpayer in the funds of the Treasury BUT was “comparatively minute and indeterminable” and the “effect on future taxation” of the • It is an undue delegation of leg powers. 11 gives the provincial board court won’t pass on the subs issues bec they are.e. did not grant them Act 4221. standing for another purpose. Thus. therefore. it is • In deciding question of standing. redelegated. This constitutional amendment was put there exactly to prevent taxation in favor of any religious establishment. largely depends for illumination of difficult consti • But Sec. probation officer whereas person Y may not in • Establishing that “logical nexus” involves 2 things: province B that did not do the same. How can the law be implemented without spending clause and not merely an incidental probation officers (which is the subject matter of expenditure of tax funds in the admin of said sec. • The petitioners herein alleged that their tax money is being used in violation of a specific constitutional protection against abuses of leg powers. allows discretion to issues”. • They sued as taxpayers but the NY Court. This is not the case here. . intelligible. 11 is invalid. upon presence of which a presentation of issues upon which the court so law becomes executable. political questions. delegation of leg power directly to the people (eg. prison to serve out his original sentence. b. A nexus bet status and the nature of and valid statute which carries out the leg constitutional infringement alleged. delegation of leg power by the Consti itself (eg. Ranney. This met the logical nexus. Referendum) Held: Yes c. he may be • Appellants filed a suit in a N. interest. arbitrary discretion. to let the delegate make a concrete adverseness which sharpens the determination of facts. it is quite different to give discretion. from a direct denial of equal protection. The Educ Act involves the spending power of Congress (direct spending) and they alleged that the Act violates the establishment and free exercise clauses.

Mineral King area. and other resources in the nature) may be considered injury-in-fact and Washington Metropolitan area. • However. Jurisdiction of the court to issue the injunction Ratio: Held: • Rule: Where no specific statue authorizaing the 1. petitioners herein alleged • The change in aesthetics and ecology of the that their members used the forests. It is correct that pleadings must be more than adverseness requisites of judicial review. However. SCRAP has standing. Hence. Standing Held: None. provided they because there was never such an intention. An org may indeed represent its members in a suit b. were the effect of the assailed provided that it can show that said members are project is limited to a special geographic area. petitioner with regard to the merits and issued an • District Court granted them standing but CA injunction. (even though non-economic in mountains.e. if there is that statute. It said that the NEPA implicitly confers reversed saying that the Sierra Club had not made authority to federal courts to enjoin any federal an adequate showing of inseparable injury to merit action taken in violation of NEPAs procedural a judgment of the court. Unlike Sierra Club. SCRAP judgment in the lower courts so that they cam assail the claims of SCRAP. Hence. Except that the party invoking said sec recyclable material which had become more must still show that he is among the injured party. Their activities. sufficient to merit judicial review under Sec. It is also found in favor of restraining order against it. . failing to assert injury in fact as set aggrieved by the same within the meaning or a in Sierra Club vs Morton. Procedure Act gournd that the standing of the petitioner was which states that any person suffering legal wrong based on “vague unsubstantial and insufficiend bec of agency action or adversely affected or pleadings” i. Within the in passing the NEPA. the railroads still have having repealed that exclusive grant by Congress the initiative to increase their fees. resort at Mineral King Area of Sequoia National Park. they sought a that the law is enforced. the recyclables. public federal action complained here is applicable to all interest as the issue is not enough otherwise. Unlike in Sierra Club. streams. a. • The petitioner sought to have it dismissed on the • The Sierra Club invoked the Admin. expensive as a result of the increase rates of • In this case. the Sierra Club has failed to allege transportation. a long standing org advocating environmental impact statement with its order preservation/conservation of environment sued which allegedly have a significant impact on the the Forest Service to prevent the dev.t of a ski environment. • A group of 4 law students • The suspension of rates is an exclusive prerogative of the ICC so the court had no authority to issue • Under the Interstate Commerce Act. 10 of they claim will be disturbed by the use of non- the APA. pending review of the legality of the raise. the Interstate the injunction. 2. The NEPA cannot be construed as Commerce Commission. academic exercise. the recourse is not an appeal to the SC but a motion for summary US vs. Congress instructs that the 30-day period. Morton the ICC to suspend a surcharge while investigating its legality violated the National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) since it failed to attach an • Sierra Club. issue can be given standing which may undermine c. invocation of judicial review. more timber and other that any of its members may be affected in their natural resources will be used/destroyed in lieu of past times or recreation if the ski resort is built. The court refused to reconsider. the injured parties. relevant statute is entitled to judicial review. personal stake in the outcome of the controversy must be asserted to Ratio: ensure adverseness. requirements. the question is • Their petition is distinguishable from the failed does the case at hand fall within the purview of petition of the Sierra Club. hence this appeal. The harm claimed by SCRAP should indeed be perceptible rather than merely conceivable. • SCRAP alleged in a district court that the failure of Sierra Club vs. any railroads in the country and therefore its alleged group or individual with special interest in the environmental impact is nationwide. In fact give 30 days prior notice to the ICC. Issue: Issue: WON Sierra has standing to sue 1. the Comm may suspend the Act shall not in any way affect the specific operation of the proposed rate within 7 months statutory obligation of any federal agency. They argue that the Forest Service violated fed • The district court granted standing since the laws/regulations re: preservation in approving the petition alleged more than a “gen interest in seeing Mineral King Devt. In claiming standing. said law.

Insofar as Philippine Bar Association taxpayers’ suit are concerned. proceedings are initiated war handbills and further threatened with future arrest if o As professors of law. the Chief Justice. 2003) other departments. WON the essential prerequisites for the exercise of the Although a declaratory relief will not make an power of judicial review have been fulfilled unconstitutional law disappear. Guingona (1st impeachment complaint) against the Chief Justice and 7 Associate Justices for culpable violation of the Consti. In declaratory relief. 10. Rather. conflict. scope and extent of the powers of government. This is a petition for declaratory issue “which they are trying to inculcate in the relief. with an interest in the her returned and such being stipulated as unlawful in the subject matter as it pertains to a constitutional Criminal Trespass Law. in the exercise of its discretion. Art that a party’s standing is a procedural technicality which XI of the Consti. The Consti itself has provided for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way to determine the FRANCISCO V HOUSE OF REPS nature. In case of the Committee on Justice to conduct an investigation. on the manner of disbursements determine the proper allocation of powers between the and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Judiciary several departments and among the integral or Development Fund (JDF) constituent units thereof. he is violating the law. taxpayers. with the duty of ensuring that only constitutional impeachment Petioner was threatened with arrest for distributing anti. WON the power of judicial review extends to those be more available when an injunction is not in order to arising from impeachment proceedings – YES test the constitutionality of state criminal statutes. betrayal of public trust and other high crimes. Carpio-Morales sacred obligation to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Consti and to establish for the Facts: parties in an actual controversy the rights which that • July 22. he is depriving himself of a constitutional right. The SC ruled complaint is unconstitutional bec it violates Sec 5. o As taxpayers. When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries. insufficient in substance • Oct 23: 2nd impeachment complaint was filed with the Petitioner corporation composed of citizens suing in their Sec Gen of the House on the basis of the alleged capacities as senators. with a right to be protected against all forms of senseless spending of taxpayers’ Steffel vs. Issues/Held: Further. Integrated Bar of the Philippines or of the brushing aside the technicalities of procedure. in behalf of all citizens. 2. irreparable injurt is not 3. citing Oposa v Factoran. 2002: House adopted a Resolution directing instrument secures and guarantees to them. unconstitutional – YES Declaratory relief has been assigned by Congress to protect constitutional rights where an injunction is not Ratio: available. . it only asserts its solemn and Ponente: J. 2003: Erap filed an impeachment complaint Kilosbayan vs. Thompson money o As a class suit. o As members of the House of Reps. The court brushed aside this technicality because • Petitioners’ allegations of Legal Standing: the transcendental importance to the public of these cases o Duty as members of the legal profession or of the demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. with an obligation to it is not devoid of discretion as to whether or not it should protect the SC. it is nevertheless useful • WON petitioners have legal standing – YES since a declaration of full unconstitutionality will result in • WON the issue is ripe for adjudication – YES the reversal of previous convictions and a declaration of • WON the issue is justiciable – YES partial unconstitutionality will limit the statute’s • WON the issue is the lis mota of the case – YES applicability. • June 2. stating that “no impeachment the courts may. and the integrity be entertained or that it enjoys an open discretion to of the Judiciary entertain the suit or not. results of the legislative inquiry of the abovementioned opposed the Contract of Lease between PCSo and PGMC Resolution which sets up an on-line lottery system on the basis or • Petitioners’ main argument: 2nd impeachment serious moral and ethical considerations. set aside proceedings shall be initiated against the same official in view of the importance of the issues raised in this more than once within a period of one year” petition. WON the 2nd impeachment complaint is a prerequisite since what is required is an injunction. federal o Legal standing should be brushed aside for intervention will not result in the disruption of the state consideration of issues of national and criminal justice system. 1. The SC held that the court incorrectly dismissed the minds of their students” pet when no state criminal proceeding is pending. ** no digest for this case so I copied the digest from another which was sufficient in form but dismissed for being reviewer. non-action would result in transcendental importance and of public the individual’s not knowing that by continuing his interest activities. it does not assert superiority over the (Nov. which was filed in behalf of ** no digest for this case so I copied the digest from another succeeding generations of Filipinos reviewer. and concerned citizens. or that by desisting from the same. which is when no case has been filed. only the judicial arm can be called upon to in aid of legislation. the Court has declared that o As citizens of the Philippines. Congress clearly intended that a declaratory relief 1.

as a vehicle the rules on standing bec of advanced to publicly ventilate their grievances and legitimate constitutional issues raised in the petitions. 435. The question re: itself. acting pursuant to involved in the case such proclamation or general order. and welfare of the people. EXEC SEC right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens (02/03/2004) or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. cannot with the House of Reps and the 2001 Rules have himself invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. rights by seeking the same remedies. or impeachment complaint the party entitled to the avails of the suit. assert that S18. Sec 5. whether favorable or not. or that -Pres GMA issued Proclamation no 47 declaring a there is a waste of public funds through the "state of rebellion" & General Order No. something should have been exceeded the constitutional limits of their powers accomplished or performed by either branch before a Dean Pangalangan: rule exception that when the court may come into the picture (Tan v Macapagal) real party in interest is unable to vindicate his The questioned acts having been carried out. AFP & PNP to supress the rebellion. protect. a party is allowed to sue. only doing so on As a legislator: he is allowed to sue to question August 1. Art XI of the Consti – y’all know the When suing as a citizen: interest of the discussion here  petitioners must be direct and personal. 3. Difference bet rule on real-party-interest and Dean’s persuasion that wasn’t taken: even if the rule on standing: former is a concept of civil petitions are premature (since Articles of procedure while the latter has constitutional Impeachment haven’t been transmitted to the underpinnings. standing as "petitioners committed to personality to represent its members. declaration of a state of rebellion. Standing restrictions require a Senate). standing as "Filipino citizens. 2003-Oakwood mutiny is being deflected to any improper purpose. not require the declaration of the state of rebellion. cure the House Impeachment Rules of real party in interest is WON he is the party who infirmity and it would not obliterate the 2nd would be benefited or injured by the judgment. 4 directing enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. assert that S18. & bar reviewers". of the to clothe it with legal standing bec its interest is citizens freedom of speech and of expression under too general. Art7 of the Consti does In the case of transcendental importance: J. the Court chooses to relax Section 4. including political and civil rights.2. Sanlakas & PM. He should prove that he -by evening. The lack of any other party with a more direct act that is being challenged and specific interest in raising the questions SolGen: petitioners have standing bec procedural being raised matters are subordinate to the need to determine Ripeness: for a case to be considered ripe for WON the other branches of gov’t have not adjudication. the mere assert. Art7. and promote the rights. soldiers agreed to return to barracks. taxpayers. does not suffice human rights. J. Petitioners: As an association: while an association has legal 1.e. Locus standi: a personal and substantial interest in public respondent agency or instrumentality of the case such that the party has sustained or will the gov’t sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental c. party should appear to have been or is about to be denied some SANLAKAS vs. Tinga. did not immediately lift the direct injury as a result. has sufficient interest and that he would sustain GMA. are liable to violate b. Feliciano’s instructive determinants: declaration a "constitutional anomaly" that misleads a.assert interests of all concerned to enable the court to further that there exists no factual basis for the deal properly with all interests involved in the suit declaration. invocation by the IBP or any member of the legal interests. by of the judiciary in certain areas. 2003 thru Proc NO. as in the the 2nd impeachment complaint had been filed case of the CJ who. defend. Art7 of the Consti does not require must be sufficiently numerous to fully protect the the declaration of state of rebellion to call out AFP. the validity of any official action which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. As a taxpayer: where there is a claim that public Facts: funds are illegally disbursed. the already been promulgated and enforced. Petitioners are committed to defend and assert and nothing more. proclamation is constitutional or statutory prohibition by the a circumvention of the report requirement under the same S18. although true. is binding on all members of the class WON 2. however. law profs they were before the court. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a the constitutional right of private citizens". Article III of the 1987 Constitution. uphold. he must show that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the enforcement of any gov’tal act. as well as constitutional infirmity through a Motion to broader policy concerns relating to the proper role Dismiss  withdrawal of signatories would not. i. the CJ can still raise issue of partial consideration of the merits. commanding the President to submit a report to . However. The character of the funds or other assets because "overzealous public officers. especially the poor profession of the duty to preserve the rule of law and marginalized classes and sectors of Philippine society. for ethical reasons. or that public money July 27. bec a judgment in a class suit . SJS. mutiny having ceased. demands and to mobilize public opinion to support the In the case of class suits: persons intervening same. the courts will grant petitioners’ standing prerequisite above has been complied with.

Even the operation of the Constitution or automatically suspend assuming that Sanlakas & PM are "people's organizations" the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. whether or not petitioners have standing teh 'war powers'. the Court maintains that claim to be threatened by a warrantless arrest.Congress within 48 hours from the proclamation of martial controversies. has attempted to exercise or has exercised martial law powers. Finally. with Executive powers. Lincoln and 1. argue towards the validity of the proclamation. the declaration constitute an indirect exercise of judicial power being limited to the determination of "actual emergency powers. is impaired. they are more reason that a simple declaration of a state of still not endowed with standing for as in Kilosbayan v rebellion could not bring about these conditions. and the power to declare martial law. Perez. Bk3 on the executive power of the juridical person not subject to arrest. if a state of martial law does not suspend relief." and is actually an exercise of power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas emergency powers.No such illegal disbursement is a warrantless arrest for the crime of rebellion whether or alleged. the mere declaration of a state of being threatened with warrantless arrest and detention for rebellion cannot diminish or violate constitutionally the crime of rebellion. law. is limited by the "case may only resort to warrantless arrests of persons and controversy" requirement of S5. whether or not case has been rendered moot by effort to show that "the Commander-in-Chief powers are the lifting of the proclamation broad enough as it is and become more so when taken 3. PImentel. 3. standing of petitioners first and foremost. as we observed in presidential issuances as "an unwarranted. Nor is it the declaration is devoid of any legal significance for being alleged that its leaders. supra. giving the Pres emergency powers are allegedly being therefore. is not endowed with standing warrant. a "sequence" of "graduated power[s]. the declaration of a state to the least benign. if it is "capable of repetition yet evading exercise of emergency powers as Congress has not review. the plenitude of the powers of the presidency equips the occupant with the Held: 1. standing as Senator.'"Nevertheless. as Commander-in- powers and functions were allegedly affected by the Chief.In standing. S18. In the amounts to a usurpation of the power of Congress granted exercise of the latter two powers. Ch2. Note that the Constitution vests the by the lifitng of the proclamation. The only criterion is that 'whenever it becomes declaration of a state of rebellion "opens the door to the necessary. questions President not only with Commander-in-Chief powers but. can question the legality of the proclamation of a leap of logic. "[t]hese abusive exercise of a martial law power that has no basis conditions are not required in the exercise of the calling under the Constitution. is a circumvention of the report requirement. since prior delegated any such power to the President events (the May 1. the Constitution requires by S23 (2). these are: the calling out power." From the most declaration of a state of rebellion. 3. illegal and Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. members. courts do not adjudicate moot cases. and supporters are superflous.' the President may call the armed forces 'to unconstitutional implementation of warrantless arrests" prevent or suppress lawless violence. even in cases "[i]n quelling or suppressing the rebellion. though 113 of the Rules of Court. the Rev which would justify the resort to the Court. which exercise depends upon a grant . the of rebellion is a "superfluity.'"64 In other words. such exercise. Art6 of the Constitution the concurrence of two conditions. The ponencia then traced the evolution of executive power in the US Issues: (Jackson and the South Carolina situation. the authorities involving constitutional questions. it is contended. which is not in the original jurisdiction of SC." This. and that public safety requires the 4. Thus." Nevertheless. as the case may be. members of House.The argument that the declaration of a state of Congress. As a rule. Rule lies at the very heart of the judicial function. Nor by any stretch of the imagination can 2. Art13 of the Consti. courts will decide a question.Art8. Thus. may invoke the judicial Lacson vs. only members of the means to House and Sen Pimentel have standing. who's (?) powers as provided in the Consti on rebellion amounts to a declaration of martial law and. Morato "These provisions have not changed the traditional Apprehensions that the military and police authorities may rule that only real parties in interest or those with resort to warrantless arrests are likewise unfounded. Petitioner is a Admin Code S4. petitions have been rendered moot state of rebellion. petitioner fears that the out power.63 if the circumstances so alleging to be taxpayers. The warrantless arrest feared by petitioners is. as provided under Section 5." Court has ruled out the doctrine of not the President has declared a state of rebellion. 2001 incident when the Pres also declared a state of rebellion) prove that it can be repeated." SJS. standing as citizens and as Members of the House of Representatives whose rights. YES. it is equally true that S18. an actual invasion or rebellion." At best they seek for declaratory protected rights. Sanlakas & PM address exigencies or threats which undermine the very have no standing by analogy with LDP in Lacson v Perez existence of government or the integrity of the State."19 The case at bar is one such case. corpus. Only members of present. "… petitioner has not demonstrated any injury to itself plus Marcos v Manglapus on residual powers. Art7 does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a Respondents: SolGen. assails the subject exercise of such power. namely. not based on the declaration of a 'state of of directly involves the illegal disbursement of public funds rebellion. However. whether or not the proclamation calling the together with the provision on executive power and the state of rebellion is proper presidential oath of office. it cannot Pres to declare a certain status. invasion or for the crime of rebellion rebellion. The jurisdiction of this Court. so long "transcendental importance" regarding constitutional as the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest are questions in this particular case. YES. This requirement suspected of rebellion. Art 7 grants the President.61 then it is with in the language of Ss15-16. since "A taxpayer may bring suit where the act complained thus. Zamora. NOT EVERY PETITIONER. Cleveland in In re: Eugene Debs) in an 2. a person may be subjected to derived from taxation. Also. presidential issuances cannot be construed as an otherwise moot. majority of the Court held that power. However. There is no illustration that the President the state of rebellion.

as distinguished from mere interest in This is a petition for mandamus filed by petitioners to the question involved. assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends It is the theory of the petitioners that ratification of a for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[8] compel the o ffice of the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs to transmit the signed copy of The petition at bar was filed by Senator Aquilino the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to the Pimentel.[10] treaty. that they have sustained or will under treaty law and customary international law. Jr. On the substantive issue raised by petitioners. 2000 at the purpose of promoting the cause of families and victims of United Nations Headquarters in New York.[5] courts. The Philippines human rights violations in the country. The Rome to ratification unless they have made their intention clear not Statute is intended to complement national criminal laws and to become parties to the treaty. Bianca Hacintha Roque signed the Statute on December 28.[4] year working law students from the University of the Philippines College of Law who are suing as taxpayers. petitioners submit that the defenders of human rights. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the respectively.[3] Its provisions. aged two (2) and one (1). the Families of Victims of aggression as defined in the Statute. Affairs Enrique A. questioned the standing of the petitioners to file domestic courts. Sufficient remedies are available under our national laws to protect our citizens against human rights violations and The Office of the Solicitor General. acceptance or approval of the signatory in the case of Oposa vs. Congresswoman Loretta Ann Rosales. The the Senate to allow it to exercise its discretion with respect to other petitioners maintain their standing as advocates and ratification of treaties. board or person which unlawfully by Section 23 (2). The petitioner in every case must therefore be an aggrieved party in the sense that he possesses a clear legal right to be enforced and a direct interest in the duty or act to be performed. Factoran. however. the Philippine Coalition for the The Rome Statute established the International Criminal Establishment of the International Criminal Court which is Court which “shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction composed of individuals and corporate entities dedicated to the over persons for the most serious crimes of international Philippine ratification of the Rome Statute.. officer or person unlawfully neglects the rebellion and in calling out the armed forces. Exec. commenting for the petitioners can always seek redress for any abuse in our respondents. or a mere incidental interest. war crimes and the crime of rights victims in the country. Petitioners sustain a direct injury from the non-transmittal of the signed invoke the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties enjoining text of the Rome Statute to the Senate. at the time of filing of the instant petition.: “interest” is material interest. a juridical entity duly organized for signature by all states in Rome on July 17. in declaring a state of corporation. Their contention that the states to refrain from acts which would defeat the object they will be deprived of their remedies for the protection and and purpose of a treaty when they have signed the treaty prior enforcement of their rights does not persuade. and United Nations. It also contended that the petition at bar violates the rule on hierarchy of courts. or station. corporation. These are purely executive that to be given due course. however. under both domestic law and international law. 2000 through Charge d’ and Harrison Jacob Roque. crimes against humanity. respondents argue that the . as been instituted by a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated any tribunal. board. Art7. means a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the government act that is being challenged. a juridical entity with the avowed criminal jurisdictions. member of the House of Representatives and Chairperson of its Committee on Human Rights. “Legal standing” since this is Prof.The petitions do not cite a specific instance to the Senate for concurrence. is a function of the Senate. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. Moreover. trust. Commander-in-Chief. vested on the President by S1 & 18. The President. Jr.of Congress pursuant to S23 (2). Roque’s case which is of course a favorite. Article VI. the instant suit.[7] Pimentel vs. and as citizens of the country.[2] The Statute was opened Involuntary Disappearances. Art6 of the executive department has no duty to transmit the Rome Statute Constitution. only Senator department to transmit the signed copy of the Rome Statute to Pimentel has the legal standing to file the instant suit. Hence. Sec. a Section 21. a petition for mandamus must have powers. The term PUNO J.[9] and a group of fifth states.”[1] Its jurisdiction covers the crime of purpose of promoting the cause of human rights and human genocide. who asserts his legal standing to file the suit as Senate of the Philippines for its concurrence in accordance with member of the Senate. was merely performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and duty resulting from an office. where the President has attempted to or has exercised powers beyond her powers as Chief Executive or as A petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal. The Court will exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it by a party who has the legal standing ** no digest for this case so I just copied the whole case to raise the constitutional or legal question. 1998 and had and existing pursuant to Philippine Laws with the avowed remained open for signature until December 31.[6] We have held Commander-in-Chief powers. it is the duty of the executive We find that among the petitioners. require that it be suing under the doctrine of inter-generational rights enunciated subject to ratification. the Task Force concern xxx and shall be complementary to the national Detainees of the Philippines. Petitioners filed the instant petition to compel the respondents — the Office of the Executive Secretary and the The question in standing is whether a party has alleged Department of Foreign Affairs — to transmit the signed text of such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to the treaty to the Senate of the Philippines for ratification. They Philippines has a ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute have not shown. an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree. excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right.

The petition at bar invokes the power of the Senate to grant or withhold its concurrence to We disagree. Article VII of the 1935 Constitution provided: states to examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it inimical to their interests. different date has been agreed upon by the parties. It is standard practice for one of the We rule in the negative. no treaty shall be valid and effective unless exchange of the instruments of ratification. that is. the same is opened for signature. purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting Section 10 (7). significantly. enter terms of the treaty. the Rome Statute. The negotiations may be head of state. the Executive Secretary and the Department of Foreign Affairs have a ministerial duty to transmit to the Senate the copy of Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the the Rome Statute signed by a member of the Philippine Mission head of state but he now usually assigns this task to his to the United Nations even without the signature of the authorized representatives. powers and privileges vested by the 21. government other than that which negotiated them. Section 14 (1) Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution stated: xxx Sec. to make treaties xxx. symbolizing the good faith of the parties. The petition seeks to order the executive Justice Isagani Cruz. the petitioners interpret Section inviolate the prerogatives. negotiation. Senator Pimentel. becomes the basis In our system of government. Constitution provides that “no treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at Ratification. Where ratification is dispensed with and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty. Article VII of the 1987 will bring home to his own state. together with the counter-proposals. 10. Section 21. while the President has the sole authority the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is to negotiate and enter into treaties. the President has authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of the sole authority to negotiate with other states. as member of the institution. which is the next step. a treaty entered into by the executive branch. in his book on International Law. although this step is not essential to the validity The core issue in this petition for mandamus is whether of the agreement as between the parties. into treaties. it has been held that “to the President. but. is the formal least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. which concurred in by a majority of all the Members of the usually also signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a Batasang Pambansa.[14] By requiring the concurrence of the legislature in the treaties entered into by . The legislature to the treaties entered into by the executive. It is for this Sec. submitted for registration and publication under the U. the Constitution provides a required.”[11] Thus. parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which. 14. Article VII of the 1987 Constitution to mean that the power Constitution in their office and are allowed to sue to question to ratify treaties belongs to the Senate. in this case. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this The last step in the treaty-making process is the Constitution. the President. external relations and is the country’s sole representative with and may even “collapse” in case the parties are unable foreign nations. provided with credentials known as full powers.[12] As the chief architect of foreign policy. it does not indicate the final consent of Nonetheless. and otherwise transact the business of foreign This step is primarily intended as a means of relations. international affairs. ratification. the validity of any official action which they claim infringes their prerogatives as legislators. the to come to an agreement on the points under President acts as the country’s mouthpiece with respect to consideration. Charter. signature. deemed effective upon its signature. the Constitution ensures a healthy system of the extent the powers of Congress are impaired.[13] In the realm of treaty-making. and exchange of the instruments of ratification. is regarded as the sole organ and authority in brief or protracted. branch to transmit the copy of the treaty to the Senate to allow describes the treaty-making process in this wise: it to exercise such authority. since his office confers a right to maturity and growth. certainly has the legal standing to assert such The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: authority of the Senate. These representatives are President. depending on the issues involved.” The 1935 act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions and the 1973 Constitution also required the concurrence by the of a treaty concluded by its representatives. each of the several all the members of the Senate for the validity of the treaty negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he entered into by him. The treaty may then be We now go to the substantive issue. (7) The President shall have the power.[16] [emphasis making process was deemed essential to provide a check on the supplied] executive in the field of foreign relations. reason that most treaties are made subject to the with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of scrutiny and consent of a department of the the Senate. The document is ordinarily signed in limitation to his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of accordance with the alternat. extend If and when the negotiators finally decide on the or withhold recognition.N. the instrument is The participation of the legislative branch in the treaty.[15] participate in the exercise of the powers of that institution. so is the power checks and balance necessary in the nation’s pursuit of political of each member thereof. Hence. being the of the subsequent negotiations. As regards Senator Pimentel. legislators have the standing to maintain In filing this petition. maintain diplomatic relations. the President is vested with the authority to deal with foreign states and governments. which they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions.

the petition is DISMISSED.[21] Although the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty the preparation of the ratification papers. subject to the amendment thereto. the Department of Foreign Affairs shall submit the ratification of treaties would be pointless and futile. All treaties. All executive agreements shall be transmitted Senate or. together with a certified true copy of the ratification instrument. IN VIEW WHEREOF. is the formal act by the act by which the provisions of a treaty are formally which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of a treaty confirmed and approved by a State. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ratification papers and forward the signed copy of the treaty to does not contemplate to defeat or even restrain this power of the President for ratification. in this case. Section 7 of Executive Order No. to the ratification. having secured its consent for its ratification. After the President has ratified the head of states.[17] Thus. 1997 provides the people. Sec. In addition. shall comply with the requirements provided in sub. the President has the discretion even after the signing of transmitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs. The role of the Senate. As earlier discussed. Court via a writ of mandamus. two couples and their . A certified true copy of the treaties. The original signed instrument of ratification government to transmit the signed text of Rome Statute to the shall then be returned to the Department of Foreign Affairs Senate. The signature does not are two separate and distinct steps in the treaty-making signify the final consent of the state to the treaty. The transmittal which has been signed in its behalf is a serious step that should shall include the highlights of the agreements and the not be taken lightly. This case deals with the statute as in Griswold vs. This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the performance ii. the treaty or an executive agreement. The Department of Foreign Affairs.[19] Executive Agreement. the Rome Statute itself requires that the signature of the symbol of the good faith of the parties. the Department of Foreign Affairs shall comply with the POE VS. Executive Order No.[23] The Court. The the treaty by the Philippine representative whether or not to Department of Foreign Affairs shall then prepare the ratify the same. Ratification. the signature is primarily ratification that binds the state to the provisions thereof. It is usually performed representatives of the states be subject to ratification. however. i. therefore. undertaken by the head of the state or of the the provisions of such treaty.[20] Hence. it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty to the i. the requirement of the treaty. item A (Executive Agreements) of this Section. shall transmit the writ of mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond agreements to the President of the Philippines for his its jurisdiction to compel the executive branch of the ratification. If that were so. shall be as follows: concurrence of the Senate. Connecticut where. 459 reads: without saying that the refusal must be based on substantial grounds and not on superficial or whimsical reasons. by the state’s authorized representative in the diplomatic acceptance or approval of the signatory states. refuse to the Department of Foreign Affairs after their signing for to ratify it. in such numbers as may be required by the Senate. pursuant to of his official duties. ii. the Department of Foreign Affairs shall TAN vs. the President. By ratifying a treaty signed concluded by its representative. It is the process. for appropriate action. the other state would be justified in taking the Entry into Force of a Treaty or an offense. After the treaty is signed by the government. Domestic Requirements for Otherwise. or any power to ratify is vested in the President. the Department of Foreign Affairs a treaty which has been signed by its plenipotentiaries. ULLMAN provision of the treaties in effecting their entry into force. Ramos on November 25. Ratification is mission. being accountable to the President Fidel V. the same shall be Thus. is burdened with the responsibility and the duty to guidelines in the negotiation of international agreements and carefully study the contents of the treaty and ensure that they its ratification. cannot issue the the endorsement by the concerned agency. or A. which cannot be encroached by this them. is limited only to giving or withholding its consent. but it goes effective. In intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and as a fact. Executive Agreements. Upon receipt of the been held that a state has no legal or even moral duty to ratify concurrence of the Senate. 459 issued by state’s representative. signed by the Philippine representative. on the other hand. It has same to the Senate for concurrence. RIPENESS paragraph[s] 1 and 2. regardless of their designation. shall accompany the submission of the treaties to the Senate. Upon receipt of the concurrence by the Senate. It should be under treaty law and international law to ratify the treaty underscored that the signing of the treaty and the ratification which it has signed is without basis. B. 7.[18] shall comply with the provisions of the treaty to render it There is no legal obligation to ratify a treaty. It is generally held to be an in its behalf. MACAPAGAL submit the treaties to the Senate of the Philippines for concurrence in the ratification by the President. Treaties. It mandates that after the treaty has been are not inimical to the interest of the state and its people. concurrence. Petitioners’ arguments equate the signing of the treaty Petitioners’ submission that the Philippines is bound by the Philippine representative with ratification.[22] such decision is within the competence benefits which will accrue to the Philippines arising from of the President alone. a state expresses its willingness to be bound by executive act. — The domestic requirements for the entry into force of a It should be emphasized that under our Constitution.

Judicial notice was also taken of the fact that contraceptives are readily The CA en banc with three judges dissenting. the circumstances of the case do concluded that the CIA statute challenged by the not justify the exercise of judicial power as it lacks the respondent was "integrally related. Doe recently underwent a pregnancy which caused her critical physical illness such that another pregnancy would The Fiscal Service of the Bureau of Accounts of the be exceedingly perilous to her life. Because of the great emotional and Law. and its two-tier test. available in drug stores which invite more the attention of holding that the respondent had standing. dissenting.. counsel nor the researchers of the Court. CA seemed to rest its holding on an assumption that this case was a prelude to a later case challenging. challenge the appropriations since he could not question an appropriation about which he had no knowledge. In failing to answer the party to invoke federal judicial power with respect to the question of the constitutionality of the statute. Mellon. 4 dissented examination of respondent's claim to prosecute this suit as a taxpayer. and Balances of the US Gov’t. on the basis Public clinics dispensing birth-control information has of information obtained in this suit. some particular been closed down by the State as well as others following appropriation for or expenditure of the CIA. Cohen is a starting point in an BURGER. the CA by the challenged action." treatment is to prescribe contraceptives in order to insofar as that clause requires a regular statement preserve the health of petitioner. Respondent also the constitutionality of the Connecticut statute raise a inquired as to how he could receive further information on justiciable question before the Court. J. Held: No. Mrs. the expenditures of the CIA. Petitioners do not allege that appellee. RICHARDSON Flast v. statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives He wrote to the Government Printing Office and requested unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bureau of Accounts replied stating that it had no other available information. congenital abnormalities resulting in their death shortly but in Consequence of Appropriations made by after birth. The majority enforcement officials. C. only at the instance of one who is himself While noting that the respondent did not directly attack an immediately harmed or immediately threatened with harm. Ullman threatens to prosecute them for their use of or for giving Respondent asked the federal court to declare advice regarding contraceptives. their doctor. also joined them in saying that the statute published the document known as the Combined deprived them of liberty and property without due process. The Mr. Department of the Treasury replied. and a regular Statement and Account of psychological stress resulting from these deaths.S vs. statute seems never to have been initiated according to District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing. . He then goes on to repeat the arguments in Griswold regarding the application of the statute reaching into the HELD: NO. Frothingham v. in effect the issues raised. The Court failed to take notice of the fact that several prosecutions for violations of this statute had ISSUES: WON respondent is a proper and appropriate been initiated in the minor courts. Given the fact that federal judicial relied on Flast v. Statement of Receipts. court is asking the people to violate the law and hope that it is not enforced. the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Buxton’s opinion that the best and safest medical Money shall be published from time to time. cl (7) of the Facts: Paul and Pauline Poe had three consecutive US Constitution: pregnancies terminating in infants with multiple "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury. it is Dr. On the other hand. sec 9. whether state or federal. and account of public funds. Expenditures. There is thus certificate of the Director ". Dr. that case must be read with reference to its FACTS: principal predecessor. asking the Court to declare the Connecticut information concerning detailed expenditures of the CIA. +4 concurring. as did the plaintiff in Flast. Also. for the statute. The allegations merely unconstitutional a provision of the CIA Act which permits state that in the course of his public duty he intends to the CIA to account for its expenditures "solely on the prosecute any violation of Connecticut law. Cohen." to his ability to requisites for “case” and “controversy”. appropriations act. Standing Issue: Precedents: U. that he be provided with the documents published by the Government in compliance with Art I. (case is not ripe for intimacies of the marriage relationship forcing search adjudication) warrants for private bedrooms for its enforcement since what it prohibits is not the sale or manufacture but the RATIO: use of contraceptives. he has no standing. Respondent attempted to obtain from the Gov’t Ullman. The only injury alleged by no imminent or impending threat of arrest on the respondent was that he cannot obtain a document that petitioners. respondent the Nelson case which the ponente cited as the test case stated no such an intention in his complaint. Justice Douglas. power is to be exercised to strike down legislation. explaining that it Buxton. that they don’t get caught which is not a proper choice under the present constitutional system.physician sued the State and its Attorney-General. reversed. prosecutions for violation of the the contrary was asked to accept a fraudulent document. Several copies of the monthly and daily reports Issue: W/N the allegations raised by petitioners regarding of the office were sent with the letter. The Court goes on to say that in the over 75 sets out the expenditures and receipts of the CIA but on years of its existence..

to the taxing or spending power. matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem.' no issues involved. Rationale: A USSC deision would no longer be necessary to compel SC says: This is surely the kind of a generalized grievance the result nor prevent it. fluctuating and uncertain" impact on the taxpayer. In the 1st term of his final year. as a interests". of himself alone and not as a representative of any class. Thus there is no Issue: Is the case moot? "logical nexus" between the asserted status of taxpayer and the claimed failure of the Congress to require the Ratio: Executive to supply a more detailed report. The WSC's decision was stayed until final on is that he is a taxpayer. with Art III to invoke judicial power when he alleges that congressional action under the taxing and spending clause The Constitution created a representative Government. power. the case is moot. DeFunis will no longer be affected. he be admitted. as is also done with respect to other governmental for him to enroll therefore the question was not moot. On appeal. taxpayer. It does not matter that there admission policy Sierra Club v. nor can he properly fulfill his Therefore." it made equally commenced with this suit contending that the procedures clear that in ruling on taxpayer standing. He was in his 2nd year. He already had that remedy and is in his final term. The case was finally heard during DeFunis' final term. but to the statutes the USSC considered his petition and requested both regulating the CIA. Counsel for Respondent made it clear Respondent makes no claim that funds are being spent in that the petitioners registration will not be abrogated violation of a specific constitutional limitation upon the regardless of USSC determination.Claim Sought: commanding the Univ to allow to enroll him. the Washington SC reversed of the statute under attack demonstrate how far he falls the trial courts decision. He asked and the trial court gave a mandatory injunction Status Asserted -(nexus). it is necessary to and criteria will be employed by the admissions committee look to the substantive issues to determine if there is a discriminated against him because of race in violation of logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim the Equal Protection clause. That section provides different parties to make a brief on the question of mootness. litigate these claims gives support to the argument that the subject matter is committed to the surveillance of Flast: held that a "taxpayer will have standing consistent Congress. his challenge is not addressed dispostion by the USSC. Rather. DeFunis short of the standing criteria of Flast and how neatly he then petitioned the United States SC for a writ of falls within the Frothingham. DeFunis was denied admission. obligations as a member of the electorate in voting for candidates seeking national office. He has not alleged that. He then issues he wishes to have adjudicated. is . his only remedy was that concrete injury as a result of the operation of this statute. he is in danger of suffering any particular Defunis suit is not a class action. accounting and reporting requirements and procedures for Respondent claimed that the petitioner had another term the CIA. USSC granted petition. and the failure to allege the kind of direct injury In the absence of any particular individual or class to required for standing. taxing and spending power. The controvrsy between the described in both Frothingham and Flast since the impact parties is no longer "definite and concrete" and "no longer on him is plainly undifferentiated and common to all touches the legal relations of parties having adverse members of the public. Although the status he rests certiorari. agencies dealing in confidential areas. not is in derogation of those constitutional provisions which an Athenian Democracy. "Federal courts are w/o power to decide questions that cannot affect the right of litigants before them" (this Ripeness Issue: doctrine stems from Consti that judicial power can only be exercised when there exists an actual case or controversy) Respondent's claim: without detailed information on CIA All parties agree that DeFunis will be allowed to complete expenditures. and ultimately to the political process. he cannot intelligently follow the actions of his term and graduate. remote." DEFUNIS vs. He brought the suit on behalf sought to be adjudicated. with the representatives directly operate to restrict the exercise of the taxing and spending responsible to their constituents during election periods. not sufficient by itself to render the organization `adversely Frothingham: Denied standing on the "comparatively affected' or `aggrieved' within the meaning of the APA. he asks the courts to compel the Government to give him information on precisely how the CIA spends its funds. Morton: "A mere `interest in a problem. He began The recital of the respondent's claims and an examination studies in 1971.” minute. ODEGAARD Application of Doctrines: FACTS: It is held in Flast that a "fundamental aspect of standing" Marco Defunis applied for admission at University of is that it focuses primarily on the party seeking to get his Washington Law School of w/c Charles Odegaard is complaint before the federal court rather than "on the president. Congress or the Executive." Court made clear it in Flast that it was reaffirming the principle of Frothingham precluding a taxpayer's use of "a MOOTNESS S federal court as a forum in which to air his generalized grievances about the conduct of government or the allocation of power in the Federal System.

actual controversy must exist at stages of appelate or necessary for the bank in the foreclosure proceeding to certiorari review. thus he will have to enter in the post-office. II. J +4 concurred. Many people are by the bank. ISSUES: Assume that the clerk of court failed to mail the papers which he was directed to send to the defendant in Amoy A. Vicente Palanca. If admissions procedures are left After the execution of this instrument by Tanquinyeng. or The motion was denied. The court also directed the clerk DISPOSITION: WSC decision vacated. Procedural Due Process 1) WON the court acquired the necessary jurisdiction to enable it to proceed with the foreclosure of the BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO vs. he unchanged. 1908. yet evading review" also defendant herein. capable of judicial resolution. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. judgment was taken against him by free to return to their old ways (the challenged policy). motion was made by Avoidance of repetitious litigation serves public interest. Engracio Palanca Tanquinyeng. PALANCA mortgage. there is no reason to suppose that a returned to China and he there died. YES STREET. Art. No person shall be deprived of life. and this case's inevitability counsels that SC should requesting the court to set aside the order of default and decide the judgment rendered upon July 3. postage prepaid. affirmatively appear. liberty. Section 1. not the unilateral change in admissions procedure. July 3. 1908. affected and are involved with 26 amicus curiae briefs. to assure that the constitutional mortgage property should be exposed to public sale. respondent did not demonstrate that there was not even a mere possibility that the petitioner would once again be The case proceeded in the CFI. The challenge will be made in a form traditionally thought to be payment contmeplated in said order was never made. issues will be contested amount owed to the clerk of the court. the judge must direct a copy of the summons and Brennan: case is not moot bec something might happen to complaint to be forthwith deposited by the clerk cause Defunis to miss final term. and not simply at the date the action is give notice to Tanquinyeng by publication pursuant to sec initiated.Doctrine of "mere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot case" is irrelevant because FACTS: (note: not in Bernas) mootness arose from the fact that Defunis is in his final This action was instituted by "El Banco Espanol-Filipino" term. DUE PROCESS CLAUSE Basis of motion: that the order of default and the judgment rendered thereon were void because the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the Consti. the city of Amoy. 399. and it was declared with necessary adverseness. subsequent case will not come to court. This issue will be raised again and again until SC decides.Code of Civil Procedure: to determine if LSAT exam should be eliminated for racial minorities because of it's inherent discriminatory white In case of publication. property without due process of law. 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 subject of the action. case remanded for of court to deposit in the post office a copy of the such poceedings necessary summons and complaint directed to Tanquinyeng at his last place of residence. all the proceedings subsequent thereto. university allowed only that Whether the clerk complied with this order does not petitioner will be allowed to complete this term. Argues for remanding of case Sec. "Voluntary cessation" doctrine the person to be served. The issue will never be raised again in review. 1 dissent . Requirements for ripeness present because of case's history (procedural facts). respondent having appeared. and the defendant not subject to the challenged admissions policy. as irrelevant because Defunis will never again be required to security for a debt owing by him to the bank. directed to admission processes again. enter admission processes. litigation will be pursued with that in case of failure to satisfy the judgment. sec. and to vacate on it now. Discusses admissions policy. The mortgage was executed by the original Doctrine of "capable of repetition. to foreclose a mortgage upon property situated in the city of Manila. Publication was made in a newspaper of Manila. as administrator of Tanquinyeng. Court ordered the sale of the property which was bought in Mooting the case disserve public interest. III. YES 2) WON those proceedings were conducted in such manner as to constitute due process of law. China pursuant DISSENTS: to the same provision. Reqirements are "questions are It was ordered that the Tnaquinyeng should deliver framed with necessary specificity. at his place of residence relevant bec university implied no concession that admission policy is unlawful. 7 years after confirmation of sale. Douglas: does not address issue of mootness directly. This is not exception to doctrine in Southern Pacific Terminal Co v As Tanquinyeng was a nonresident at the time. the necessary vigor. default. where the residence of a man viewpoint nonresident or absent defendant is known. decision was rendered in favor of the bank. it was ICC.

and he may be safely held. under the In this Case: law. claim was Opportunity to be heard: unsupported by records of the Bureau of Customs In a foreclosure case some notification of the proceedings & the accounts of native dealers of leather. or it is acquired by the coercive power of legal • This mode of notification does not involve any absolute process exerted over the person. (note: not in Bernas) known "jurisdiction. legal proceedings wherein the power of the court over the property is recognized and made effective. (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be • they alleged that Toribio Teodoro. however. (2) that the purpose of the litigation is to subject the Procedural crap na ito…) property by sale to an obligation fixed upon it by the mortgage. prescribing the time within was just a scheme adopted to systematically which appearance must be made is essential. (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which The National Labor Union’s case: is the subject of the proceeding. however. but Bernas no longer includes. from work. the relief granted by the court must be limited to such as can be A motion for reconsideration was filed by the Sol-Gen in enforced against the property itself. This.. made a false claim that there was a shortage of (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Ang Tibay has filed an opposition for both the judicial power to hear and determine the matter motion for reconsideration of CIR and the motion for a before it. is not essential." may have reference (1) to the authority of the court to entertain a Personal Notice particular kind of action or to administer a (aka constructive or substituted service) particular kind of relief. to be affected with knowledge is the responsible object which is the subject of the that proceedings have been instituted for its condemnation exercise of judicial power. praying that their 2. The jurisdiction over the property based upon the (further discussion on the irregularity of the non- following: performance of the clerk of court of delivering the notice is (1) that the property is located within the district. discussed in the case. if his residence is 1. leather soles in ANg Tibay that made it necessary for him to lay off workers. the court is based exclusively on the power which it possesses over the property. behalf of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations on the case of National Labor Union Inc. Such to the nonresident owner. refuses to come Assumption in recognizing the effectiveness of a means of in voluntarily. and ANG TIBAY vs. Jurisdiction over the property which is the subject of the • The provision of our law relative to the mailing of litigation may result either from a seizure of the property notice does not absolutely require the mailing of notice under legal process. or it may result from the institution of case where the defendant's residence is known. discharge all the members of the NLU. COURT of INDUSTRIAL expose it to sale for the purpose of satisfying the RELATIONS mortgage debt. new trial by the National Labor Union. and the National Workers’ Brotherhood of Ang Tibay. and (3) that the court at a proper stage of the proceedings takes the property into custody. or it may refer to the • Such notification does not constitute a service of power of the court over the parties. In the light of all these facts. in person or by agent. Property is always assumed to be in the possession of its owner. Justice Laurel: Given that jurisdiction is exlusively over property. the court never acquires jurisdiction over notification which may fall short of actual notice is: the person at all. to be considered absolutely necessary. Issue in this case concerns (3). but only in the custody of the law. whereby it is brought into the actual unconditionally and in every event. assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice. To answer this necessity the statutes generally provide for: RATIO: 1) publication 2) personal notice thru mail. . Tanquinyeng is a nonresident and. or process in any true sense. owner may be admonished that his property is the subject of judicial proceedings and that it is Jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the voluntary incumbent upon him to take such steps as he sees fit appearance of a party in court and his submission to its to protect it. (1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with Petitioner. remaining beyond the range of the personal process of the court. (2) over the property which is the subject to the • It is merely a means provided by law whereby the litigation. The property itself is the sole thing which is impleaded and under certain conditions. if necessary. it is evident that actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind is not. Requirement of due process is satisfied if. inc. It follows that the jurisdiction of and sale. authority. who dominated heard. Right to due process has not been infringed. (this is the only issue included in Bernas) labor case be remanded to the CIR for a new trial.

) Therefore.exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions in investigating and determining the facts in any given case. motion for new disclosed to the parties. in a national way. Court of Industrial Relations – an administrative court Boards of inquiry may be appointed for the purpose of . the determination of disputes between employers and but their report and decision are only advisory. such employees delegation shall not affect the exercise of the Court itself of . however. record and disclosed to the parties affected. investigate. The performance of this duty is inseparable from by technical rules of procedure. construct. It should not. must act on its or his own independent accordance with. 5514. the record is barren and does not rules of legal evidence but may inform its mind in such satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to manner as it may deem just and equitable. to any of its powers. or at least contained in the rendered herein. render its decision in such a In the case of Goseco vs." . and in therefore. consider. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges. The decision must be rendered on the evidence modification and reversal of the judgment presented at the hearing." The statute provides that "the likewise granted the authority to "construct and rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity operate such ground facilities as needed to deliver shall not be controlling. and 103 (section 1). a new trial should commence giving the movant the opportunity to present requirements of due process in trials and investigations of new evidence. detract from their duty actively to see that the law is enforced. and for that purpose. incompetent inn judicial proceedings would not • That the exhibits hereto attached are so invalidate the administrative order. 1. which includes the right of the PHILCOMSAT vs. a conclusion of law. controversy. at such places the grantee may select.has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence HELD: motion for reconsideration denied. decide. and settle any question. their right to know and meet the case against them. to "act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case. Commonwealth Act No. 8. in the interest of justice. Facts: 2. which is a departure from the rigid doctrine of the separation of governmental powers. • By virtue of R. But this assurance inaccessible to the respondents that even with the of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does exercise of due diligence they could not be not go far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence expected to have obtained them and offered as having rational probative force. functions. station or stations and or 4. subject to. right to a hearing. maintain and 3. tribunal must consider the evidence presented. not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. it was support a conclusion. predicate. hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial • That the attached documents and exhibits are of evidence such far-reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily mean the 5. Court of Industrial manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved.' The obvious purpose of this and telecommunications services from the similar provisions is to free administrative boards from . the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. matter controversy or dispute arising between. and/or affecting employers and employees or laborers. 103.. evidence must be "substantial. Inc. except as to the alleged legal forms and shall not be bound by any technicalities agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National or legal forms and shall not be bound by any technical Worker's Brotherhood. have something to support the decision operate in the Philippines." (Section 20. in all controversial questions. • unfair labor practice for discriminating against the the compulsion of technical rules so that the mere National Labor Union. to use Discussion of the Nature of the CIR to emphasize certain the authorized legal methods of securing evidence and guiding principles which should be observed in the trial of informing itself of facts material and relevant to the cases brought before it. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to decide all There is in reality here a mingling of executive and judicial controversies coming before them. consideration of the law and facts of the controversy. under this franchise. without regard to technicalities or The court observed that.The Court of Industrial Relations should. regulate the relations between them. and the reasons for the decision Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained rendered. and 6. Mere uncorroborated evidence in the Court of Industrial Relations. and the Act requires it the authority conferred upon it. and unjustly favoring admission of matter which would be deemed the National Workers' Brotherhood.A No. can the latter be protected in trial granted. an administrative character. ALCUAZ party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. philcomsat was granted a franchise to establish.such relevant associated equipment and international satellite evidence as a reasonable mind accepts as adequate to communications.

thus hearings are necessary and the abscence terminals. whether the order the be charge modified reduced rates through a temporary or permanent. manner of the execise of the delegated power. Therefore. reasonamle feasibility and reasonable rates. this standard much as make an attempt to elaborate on how it arrived at may be implied. foster. legislature in making the delegation has prescribed tha then of the utility and its patrons. a summary ivestigation. or clothed with the general power of management opeartions and eventual closure of business? YES incident to ownership. jurisdiction and control and regulation of the administrative. the prescribed rates. as well as the corresponding authority to hearing" charge rates • September 9. in the due process and equal protection of the laws. the delegation of power becomes unconstitutional. absence of a fixed standard. preserve. of the public. reflected in the financial statements influenced its decision which conjointly more than satisfy the requirements of a to impose rate reduction. any regulation. particularly on the rates 2. reduction without any elucidation on what implifications Respondent NTC. not quasi is void and should be nullified. it is still mot exempt from the statutory procedural services and the charges it was then charging requirements of notice and hearing as well as the • September 16. thereof results in the violation of due process. now respondent NTC the validity of administrative action where the • Pursuant EO 196 petitioner was placed under the administrative body acts in the excercise of executive. it may be stated as a from the jurisdiction of the then Public Service general rule that the notice and hearing are not essential to commission. communications satellite system and the ground legislative. . petitioner c)Even if respondents insist that notice of hearing are filed with the NTC an application to continue not necessary since the assailed order is merely incidental operating and maintaining its facilities including a to the entire proceedings and therefore temporary in provisional authority to continue to provide the nature. 16 thereof. • Respondent NTC ordered the petitoner to apply for and its acts are particular and immediate rather than the requisite certificate of public convenience and general and prospective. respondent has no authority to make such order without • However the NTC directed the petitioner to first giving petitioner a hearing. Nor did it deign to explain how the data interest. a. • The satellite service thus provided by petitioner enable international carriers to serve the public b)The Centrak Bank of the Philippines vs. it was d. c. the only standard which the legislature is that the rate reduction is solely and primarily based on the required to prescribe for the guidance of the administrative initial evaluation made on the financial statements of authority is that the rate be reasonable and just . The power to regulate is not the power to 1. there is merit for a rate b) under Sec.) The challenged order.) it is thus clear that with regard to rate-fixing. Issues: 3. provisional authority and was valid for 6 months. WON the questioned order violates Due process because of the opeartion of said utility is required by common good. being violative of the due process clause NTC is adjudicatory and hence quasi-judicial. 1987. since the private right of ownership to such property remains and is not to be destroyed by the Held: regulatory power. which operates as an effective confiscation of when the administrative agency concerned. otherwise . non-confiscatory and must have been established in the because it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of manner prescribed by the legislature. b. respondent private property or constitutes an arbitrary or NTC in this case. WON EO 546 and EO 196 are unconstitutional on the granted by the State and may revoke it at will there is no ground that the same do not fix a standard for the question in that. In case of a delegation of rate. a)The function involved in the rate fixing power of the proprovide therin. it has been held that even in the absence of an has several other sources. or upon the comissions own motion. and control with due standard for its exercise is provided and that the regard for the interest. establishes a rarte. contrary to respondent NTC's allegation that it However. pending hearing.) A cursory persual of the assailed order reveals fixing power. its act must be both unreasonable infringerement of property rights is void. but is the power power may be sustained only upon the ground that some to protect. It just perfunctorily declared that based on the financial statements. Further more. WON the rate reduction is confiscatory in that its consideration that it is not the owner of the property of the implementation would virtually result in a cessation of its utility. 1988 the petitioner was granted a requirement o reasonableness. therefore. in the exercise of its rate-fixing power. promote. valid delegation of legislative power. is and conclutions were necessariy inferred by it from said limited by the requirements of public safety. first and foremost.) What the petitioner has is a grant or privelege 1. Cloribal "In with indespensible communications service so far sa generalization is possible in view of the great • Under sec. when the provisional authority expired. it did not as express requirement as to reasonableness. the person whoe rights or property ncessity covering its facilities and the services it may be affected by the action is entitiled to notice and renders. public staements. and it is immaterial wheter the reduction of 15% on the authorized rates same is made upon a complaint. or legislative functions. however such grant cannot be excercise of the power therein conferred? NO unilaterally revoked absent a showing that the termination 2. petitioner was exempt variety of administrative proceedings. extended for another 6 months. a) Fundamental is the rule that delegationof legislative destroy useful and harmless enterprises. petitioner. but where public respondent NTC adminitartive body acts in a judicial or quasi-judicial matter. it was issued without notice to petitioner and without the The rule is that the power of the State to regulate the benefit of a hearing? YES conduct and business of public utilities is limited by the 3. 15 EO 546 and Sec. 5 of RA 5514.

his fellow boarders held him and Dr. The motion for reconsideration had to be referred to a special division of five in view of the failure to ATENEO vs. 1. COURT of APPEALS reach unanimity on the resolution of the motion. Danny Go. Juan Ramon on the ground that his unbecoming behavior is contrary to good morals. and conjectures. in the hearing presence of other boarders. or impossible. Then Mr. I tried to avoid this. proper decorum.00 (moral damages).00 (attorney's fees) and to pay the costs of the suit. a waitress inside the university charged resolution of the division of five Juan Ramon Guanzon. it aside through a special division of five. Before he could strike again. However. the vote of the regular division having become 2 to 1. collusion. This triggered the filing of a complaint for damages by his parents against the The court does not agree. But then he actually Ratio struck me in my left temple. and started to curse again. the appellate court reversed its decision and set with the admission. He retorted No. the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations. and (5) the court. Guanzon. In the resolution issued by the appellate court. upon motion for reconsideration filed by the her on the face. it is subject to well established exceptions. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals by the university. went In its answer. I could not The appellate court resolution invoked the rule that tell him myself as I had gone into the kitchen crying findings of facts by administrative officers in matters because I was hurt. a boarder and first year student of the university with unbecoming conduct committed on Issues: December 12.000. imposition. a boarder at Cervini … was asking for damages was premature because administrative 'siopao. When the letter-complaint was read to Juan Ramon. the lower court's decision was reinstated. and he told me that was none No. we university's disciplinary regulations' action and sanction ordinarily accord respect if not finality to factual findings and that the university has the sole prerogative and of administrative tribunals. WON Juan Ramon Guanzon was not accorded due Cervini Hall's cafeteria process of law 2. Juan Ramon should not be disturbed on appeal. I Holding: asked him to stop cursing. and civility. there are exceptions authority at any time to drop from the school a student to this rule and judicial power asserts itself whenever (1) found to be undesirable in order to preserve and maintain the factual findings are not supported by evidence. Then he threatened to strike me with his fist. 1967 at about 5:15 in the evening at the 1.(1) are prominent and well known residents of Bacolod City.00 arbitrariness. I got hold of a bottle so I could dodge trial courts and administrative agencies him.000. . WON respondent’s complaint for recovery of "Mr. moral. Why he is deemed to have been accorded due process (note: for 9 steps taken by school are enumerated in p. (4) there is a misapprehension of facts. Since he seemed impatient. P5. and exemplary damages as well as manifestly mistaken. Based on the investigation results. It was then that Fr. He interviewed Eric Tagle. in arriving at its findings. (3) there is a attorney's fees. Facts The petitioner now asks to review and reverse the Carmelita Mateo. The complaint was dismissed. he admitted the altercation with the waitress and his slapping However. CA ruling reversed. By that such behavior subjected him as a student to the reason of their special knowledge and expertise. A similar rule applies to administrative agencies. complaint was not premature give back his money without any contempt. The complaint states that Juan administrative tribunals is correct as a general principle.' I was at the counter and I told him that the remedies have not yet been exhausted 'siopao' had still to be heated and asked him to wait for a 3. Welsh (Dean of men) did not stop Guanzons. Campbell arrived. or when a grave abuse of discretion. grave abuse of discretion. P50. (2) its integrity and discipline so indispensable for its where the findings are vitiated by fraud. The statement regarding the university in the then Court of First Instance of Negros finality given to factual findings of trial courts and Occidental at Bacolod City. with the unceremonious expulsion of their son causing surmises. Ramon was expelled from school without giving him a fair However. (2) the inferences made are them actual. Bella and Leyes Exceptions to the rule on finality of factual findings of coaxed him to stop. (4) when palpable errors are After due trial. Guanzon started mumbling bad words directed to me. there is no basis for recovery of damages that he did not like to accept the money. WON private respondents are entitled to damages while. absurd. the university denied the material beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to allegations of the complaint and justified the dismissal of the admissions of the parties or the evidence presented. and the principle that findings of The university conducted an investigation of the slapping facts of the trial court are entitled to great weight and incident. (3) where the procedure which led to the factual findings is irregular. trial in violation of his right to due process and that they Factual findings of trial courts are disregarded when . the 106-107) trial court's decision was initially reversed and set aside. was dismissed from the university. He got madder Petition granted in favor of Ateneo. or existence as an institution of learning. I was going to No. he was accorded due process of my business. the lower court ruled in favor of the committed. or capriciousness is manifest (actual damages). Campbell by the boarders. Guanzons and ordered the university to pay them P92. The incident was hidden from Fr." falling within their competence will not generally be reviewed by the courts. Rev.

Roberto Beriber. PSBA Ramon. 136 SCRA 112). fraud. private respondents. Dr. therefore. The jurisdiction to try the case belongs to the civil to seek advice and assistance from his guardian and or courts. existence of evidence to support the decision (Halili v. friends of Juan Ramon Before Juan Ramon was admitted to enroll. The fact that he chose to 3. was given notice of the 2. It argues that the private respondents' The claim that there was no due process because the complaint for recovery of damages filed in the lower court private respondents. Welsh during the investigation of the case that Juan Ramon made threatening gestures at Mateo prompting her to pick up a cardboard box top which she threw at Juan ALCUAZ vs. who at the time was 18 years of age. The action of the petitioner is sanctioned by admin to hear their grievances with regards to “not law. Juan Ramon who was present during the incident told Rev. Juan Ramon. Amando Capawan. to be excused so he could catch the boat for Bacolod City. despite the regulations set by the valid ground for refusing re-enrollment of a student admin with regards to protest actions (Tangonan v. Court his full and complete tuition fees for the second semester of Industrial Relations. were refunded through the representation of Mr. He incident. and all administrative remedies" in view of its pending appeal from requisites of administrative due process were met. Juan Ramon. the college authorities deferred any undue action not justify Juan Ramon's slapping her in the face. Juan Ramon undertook a fair and objective investigation of the slapping asked for an honorable dismissal which was granted. The until a definitive decision had been rendered. There is absolutely no bay. the parents of Juan Ramon were not was premature. Juan Ramon not the fault of the petitioner university. the College of Arts and Sciences Handbook containing the general regulations of the school and the 1967-1969 catalog The Board of Discipline was made up of distinguished of the College of Arts and Sciences containing the members of the faculty -Fr. remain silent and did not inform them about his case was There is no basis for the recovery of damages. and Jose Reyes." Miss Mateo impartiality insofar as this disciplinary investigation is was employed as a waitress and precisely because of her concerned.Roberto Beriber. Juan Ramon is assumed to have reported this serious matter to his parents. a friend of in this case. In fact. Francisco Perez. was afforded due process of law. dismissal of their son from the petitioner university. in the interview with Rev. In and tried to hit him with a cardboard box top. There was "unbecoming Justice Paras: conduct" and pursuant to the Rules of Discipline and Code of Ethics of the university. The incident was in public thus adding to the humiliation of Carmelita Mateo. he even asked if he would be expelled because of is a purely legal question and nothing of an administrative the incident. service to boarders. Due process in administrative proceedings also then enrolled at the De la Salle University of Bacolod City requires consideration of the evidence presented and the and later transferred to another Jesuit school. Romeo Guanzon. petitioners and other students similarly situated were . proceedings. He admitted the slapping incident. the The petitioner raises the issue of "exhaustion of investigating board acted fairly and objectively. Section 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private being able to participate in the policy-making of Schools recognizes violation of disciplinary regulations as the school”. Moreover. Juan Ramon's father. He was fully cognizant of the gravity of the nature is to or can be done. The whole evidence clearly shows that the altercation started with procedure of the disciplinary process was get up to protect Juan Ramon's utterance of the offensive language "bilat ni the privacy of the student involved. Carmelita Mateo was not entirely blameless for what happened to her because she also shouted at Juan Ramon There was no bad faith on the part of the university. and improper or wilful motives woman. He never was out of school. this offense constituted a ground for dismissal barricaded the school because they wanted to from the college. • During the regular enrollment period. was The issue raised in court was whether or not the private already a college student. not to mention her sex. a of the Rules and Regulations of the Cervini-Elizo Halls of the Chemistry professor. she deserved more respect and gracious treatment. he received (1) who were present during the incident. Paño. There is nothing in the follows: under the title "Dining Room" -"The kitchen help and records to cast any doubt on their competence and server should always be treated with civility. he was asked Code. The penalty is based on reasonable rules and regulations applicable to all students Moreover." an Ilongo phrase which means sex organ of a indication of malice. It was but normal on the part of Mateo to react to or conduct on the part of the Ateneo de Manila University the nasty remark. intelligent and mature enough to respondents can recover damages as a result of the know his responsibilities. Juan Ramon himself appeared before the Board of The petitioner is correct in stating that there was a serious Discipline. 1967 meeting of the Board of Discipline. notwithstanding the non-participation of the guilty of the same offense. When informed about the December pursuant to the law on damages provided in the Civil 19. the university. he actually appeared to present his side. 137 SCRA 245). specifically under the 1967-1969 Facts: Catalog containing the rules and academic regulation • Students and some teachers of PSBA rallied and (Exhibit 19). petitioner university one of the provisions of which is as and Dr. The case was brought offense he committed. parents. Assistant Dean Piccio of the College. Biology disciplinary rules and academic regulations and (2) a copy Department Chairman. given any notice of the proceedings will also not stand. Reyes of the same College. then begged error of law in the appellate court's ruling on due process. as stated earlier. This Welsh. but this did fact. the decision of the Ministry of Education to the President of the Philippines. Moreover. Before the decision could be implemented.

have findings of administrative tribunals. or 5. allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the e. open." 1. process ? B. Whether or not there has been deprivation of due school authorities. the Student is due process when they were barred from re- deemed to have agreed to bind himself to all enrollment and for intervenors teachers whose rules/regulations promulgated by the Ministry of services have been terminated as faculty members. ISSUE: 4. the students must be informed in writing of the nature investigation conducted was fair. constitutional rights of expression and assembly. The school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract with said students and teachers.B. a. the PSBA- delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations vs as QC no longer has any existing contract either with the valid grounds for refusing re-enrollment of students. irregular. who made recommendations which 3. when a grave abuse of discretion. The right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of Par 137 of Manual of Regulations for Private Schools students for academic delinquency and violation of states that when a college student registers in a school. ordered an investigation to be conducted by the A. Culture and Sports. were the school adopted distributed at the beginning of each school • a lot of procedural crap. with the assistance of counsel. . that the "written refusal is sanctioned by law. that due process in 2. sem & the creation of an investigating body. committed various acts of misconduct. Printed Rules and Regulations of the PSBA-Q. investigating committee or official designated by the school • court ordered the school authorities to create a authorities to hear and decide the case. The urgent motion of petitioners and intervenors to d. Education. and a violation of their serious by the School Administration. there was no deprivation of due process. where the findings are vitiated by fraud. petitioners and respondents filing and answering the complaints Enrollment in the PSBA is contractual in nature • petitioners claim that they have been deprived of and upon admission to the School. 107 of the Manual of contracts" required for college teachers are for 'one Regulations for Private Schools considers academic semester. The students or with the intervening teachers. it is provided in the Manual. "The courts. unless : no power to make contracts for the parties. special investigating committee to conduct an investigation. proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed 3. 1986. adequate. after the close of the first semester. in the resolution of November 12. The Court has stressed. the Court has ruled that the school's Likewise. 1. . Sec. when palpable errors are committed. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them. It is a time- opposite view would do violence to the academic freedom honored principle that contracts are respected as the law enjoyed by the school and enshrined under the between the contracting parties The contract having been Constitution. • Petitioners allege that they have been deprived of procedural due process which requires that there Petitioners clearly violated the rules set out by the school be due notice and hear hearing and of substantive with regard to the protest actions. NO. imposition or disciplinary cases involving students does not entail collusion. they shall be informed of the evidence against them. to insure that full justice is done both to the students and teachers on the one hand and the school on the other. arbitrariness.C. b. Necessary action was due process which requires that the person or taken by the school when the court issued a temporary body to conduct the investigation be competent to mandatory injunction to accept the petitioners for the first act and decide free from bias or prejudice. he on account of their participation in the agrees that he may be required to withdraw from the demonstration or protest charged by respondents School at any time for reasons deemed sufficiently as "anarchic" rallies. the factual findings are not supported by evidence. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their cite respondents in contempt of court is likewise own behalf and untenable. No. exhaustive and and cause of any accusation against them. or Standards of procedural due process are: capriciousness is manifest. petitioners involved were found to be academically deficient & the teachers are found to have A. Court ordinarily accords respect if not finality to factual be they the original trial court or the appellate court. where the procedure which led to the factual findings is for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. 4. 5. WON there was contempt of Court by the respondents Findings of the investigating committee: HELD: 1. there is no more contract to speak of. Furthermore. if desired: c. The Court. students disrupted classes 2. it disciplinary regulations has always been recognized by is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. terminated. 2. this Court Thus. There is no existing contract between the two parties.the evidence must be duly considered by the second semester of school year 1986-1987.

offer oral presentation of evidence. SC affirmed the decision of the District Court. Malabanan case: School authorities can apply Issue: sanctions in cases wherein students permitted to hold • Whether the due process clause requires that the a rally violated the terms of the permit by holding the recipient be afforded an evidentiary hearing before demonstration in a place other than that specified & the termination of benefits. If they win. evidence must be duly considered by the • Due process requires an adequate hearing before investigating committee/official designated by the termination of welfare benefits school authorities to hear & decide case 4. KELLY one may be condemned to suffer grievous loss and depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental Jack Goldberg. they shall have the rt to adduce evidence in their denying a hearing meeting the ordinary standards own behalf of due process. the Commissioner of Social Services appealed 2. Relief Program. no prior notice or manifested that while the investigation was going on. Held: 3. e. Guzman case: imposition of disciplinary sanctions • Yes. students shall be informed of the evidence against • The need to protect tax revenues is not them “overwhelming consideration”. Appelant • Consideration of what procedures due process V may require under any given set of circumstances John Kelly et al must begin with a determination of the precise nature of government function involved as well as Facts: of the private interest that has been affected by • The question for decision is whether a State that governmental action. no defiance of authority by mere filing of MOR coz • Complainants (appellees): NY residents receiving respondent school explained that the intervenors were financial aid under the program Aid to Families actually reinstated as such faculty members after the with Dependent Children (AFDC) under NY’s Home issuance of the temporary mandatory injunction. inform the students in writing of the nature & • Suffice it to say that to cut off a welfare recipient cause of accusation vs them in the face of a brutal need without prior hearing b. • Appellee’s challenge to this procedure emphasizes the absence of any provisions for the personal appearance of the recipient before the reviewing Holding: official. JUDGE DAMES whether or not aid should be stopped. must undergo procedural due process: Ratio: a. c. Their complaint: NYC officials terminated aid without prior notice and hearing 2. The exercise of these adverse witnesses. and School authorities may limit students’ exercise of for confrontation and cross-examination of constitutional rights w/in the school.1. they are afforded rights does not make school authorities virtually powerless post-termination “fair hearing” for redress when to discipline students. Commissioner of Social Services of the City interest in summary adjudication of New York. 68-18: a caseworker sees the recipient and then reports to the unit supervisor to make an official review abt ineligibility and NON vs. if desired overwhelming consideration justify it. It does not justify d. entitlement. invades the rights of others. • Due process is influenced by the extent to which GOLDBERG vs. the hearing of any kind was required before intervenors-faculty members were teaching and it was only termination. respondent school has fully complied with its duties thereby denying them due process of law. he/she is not immunized • District Court found for the complainants and only by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. 1. student’s conduct materially disrupts classwork or they can avail of judicial review. unless w/the assistance of a counsel. The state however adopted after the investigation. Tinker v Des Moines Community School District: If a they get what was withheld from them and if not. that the recommendations of the procedures for notice and hearing after suits were Committee were adopted by the school and the latter brought and the plaintiffs challenged the moved for the dismissal of the case for having become constitutional adequacy of said procedures moot and academic • Procedure No. Penalty must be proportionate to the offense • Such benefits are a matter of statutory committed lest there be arbitrariness. under the temporary mandatory injunction The school • Prior to the filing of complaints. terminates public assistance payments to a • What will serve due process in this case is pre- particular recipient without affording him the termination evidentiary hearing opportunity for an evidentiary hearing prior to • Crucial factor: is that the termination of aid termination denies the recipient procedural due pending resolution may deprive an eligible process in violation of the Due Process Clause of recipient of the very means by which to live while the 14th Ammendment . and for confrontation and cross- Ratio: examination of adverse witnesses. However. The constitutional challenge cannot be answered by an argument that public assistance benefits are a privilege and not a right. students should have the rt to answer the charges of some sort is unconscionable. for oral presentation of evidence. longer than the period allowed. the can appear personally.

In such cases the license are not to be legislative purposes taken witout that procedural due process required by the • I do not think that the 14th amendment should be Fourth Amendment. Iskolar ng Bayan program. 1993) swallow up all other parts of the constitution Ponente: J. Also. it must afford "notice and opportunity for the majority of the court believes unfair DOES hearing appropriate to the nature of the case. If that view of due process is correct. he waits (immediately desperate) Safety.a. b) It is fundamental that except in emergency Court in effect is saying that failure to pay an situations (and this is not one) due process requires that individual deprives him of his own property. Upon him to travel by car to cover three rural Georgia such visitation. the due process clause could easily (Oct 21. the letter. mayaman pala bicycle into the side of his automobile siya).k. just a full suffer the suspension of his drivers license. Suspension of issued licenses thus Dissent of J. Accordingly. which found him not guilty for . Romero Facts: • Ramon Nadal (isang malaking kupal). and the personal was later reversed by the Court of appeals. and violation of the 14th Amendment for the suspension of his reasonableness of the action depends on fact license wothout a hearing? YES findings. 1968 petitioner was involved in an Corolla and that his mom worked in the US to support accident when 5 year old Sherry Capes rode her his brothers’ schooling (in other words. QC was visited. If they did. due process does not require a particular order of Issue: proof or mode of offering evidence WON the Georgia Motor Vehicle Safety • Jurisprudence says: where governmental action Responsibilty Act deny the petitioner due process in seriously injures an individual. Superir court on the other hand upheld in a meaningful manner the constitutional contention by the petioner but • The seven-day notice. LIGOT-TELANN they should conclude on their own to be unfair or shocking to them. the director • The fundamental requisite of due process of law is rejected the petitoner proffer of evidence on the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time liability. insufficiency is in not permitting welfare before suspending the license to afford him a recipients to appear personally before the official hearing on the question of his fault or liability. indicating that their daughter had suffered substantial injuries for which they claim damages • Appellant’s argument: these are outweighed by amounting to $5000 countervailing governmental interests in • Petitioner was informed by the director that conserving fiscal and administrative resources unless he was covered by a liability insurance • SC: these governmental interests are not policy in effect at the time of the accident. conference with a caseworker (of above mentioned • the Georgia CA rejected petitioners contention procedure) are not constitutionally sufficient per that the states statutory scheme. plus • Pre-termination hearing need not take the form of proof of future financial responsibilities or a judicial or quasi-judicial trial. in failing se. when a state seeks to terminate an interest such as here • That due process clause forbids any conduct that involved. a fact-finding team in an accident shall be suspended unless he posts was created to visit the applicants’ homes and verify security to cover the amount of damages claimed the truth of the info provided in their bby aggrieved parties in reports of accident. Ramon • petitioner is a clergyman whose ministry requires Nadal’s home in BLUE RIDGE. BURSON the College of Law. they would leave the majority of justices free to hold any conduct unconstitutional that UP vs. 24. • the childs parents filed an accident report withthe • The UP charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary director of the Georgia Department of Public Tribunal (SDT). administrative review • after an administrative hearing. application/sworn statement. evidence used to prove govt’s case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an Held: opportunity to show that it is untrue. a student from BELL vs. Black: involvels state action that adjudicates important interests • Federal judges uses this judicial power for of the licensees. given such an unnecessarily broad construction. not only in crim proceedings but also for admin their continued possession may become essential in the actions pursuit of livelihood. This is true a) once licenses are issued. or overriding in the welfare context present a notarized release from liabiltity. applied for a scholarship under the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP) a. the team found out that he withheld communities information about his ownership of a 1977 Toyota • Nov. HON. In this context. as in petitioners case." NOT appear anywhere in the due process clause. who determines eligibility • the Clergymans license remained suspended • Informal procedures will suffice. A precautionary Facts: measure to ensure the integrity of the program included the falsification or suppression of any • Georgias Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Act material information as a punishable act under Sec provides that motor vehicle registration and 2(a) of the Rules and Regulations on Student Council drivers license of an uninsured motorist invovlved Discipline of the University.

” Besides. and opportunity TRO against the BOR and other UP officers. peremptorily curtailed. and Dr. the instant petition. by issuing the writ of need not be proved in order to convict person. it unconstitutional for being vague and is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. all of which were quashed. tantamount to acts of dishonesty. “series”. witness such. hence injunction was granted. and Plunder Law (RA 7080. that they would stay the decision upon learning that Nadal was also a recipient of a scholarship grant in Ateneo HS. preliminary injunction. The preliminary filed against him. J. mandamus with preliminary injunction and prayer for reconsideration/reinvestigation of offense. the “process that is 4. On March 28.) on April 4 reimbursement of STFAP benefits. by virtue of the Held: 1. the BOR found Nadal “guilty”. par. withholding info about the car. This charge was (unlike him). Every intendment of the law must be adjudged by the courts in favor of . 2001. 1993. dispenses with due process since the S4 UP’s rules do not necessitate “the attendance in BOR thereof sets a lower standard for the meetings of individuals whose cases are included as modicum of evidence required to convict items on the agenda of the Board. he was not denied due process. the BOR ruled ** Unfortunately. Whether or not the Anti-Plunder Law lowers the regarding the matter. WON Nadal was denied due process in the the “void for vagueness” doctrine which administrative disciplinary proceedings against him  states that a statute establishing a criminal NO offense must define the offense with 2. not being the broadly and thereby invade the area of “Board of Regents” nor the “Univ of the Phils” – hence. And so. Kupal talaga ‘tong hayup 3. the UP’s exercise of academic freedom was the SC used. Whether or not Plunder as defined is malum showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the prohibitum. Issue/Held: Petitioner: 1. whereupon Nadal appealed to the Board of Regents (BOR). non-issuance of Facts: Estrada was charged of the violation of the Anti- certificate of good moral character. Petitioner filed Omnibus Motion initially alleging the • April 22: Nadal filed with the RTC of QC a petition for lack of a preliminary investigation. petitioner moved to quash the Informations present during the March 29 meeting. it would a. in the person than that which is required for March29 meeting. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. the SDT’s decision DBP vs. Thus. Upon automatic review of the UPDil Exec Comm. school’s academic freedom. Admission to the UP falls under the ambit of the the accusation against him. • March 29: ADMU issued a certification that Nadal was indeed a recipient of a scholarship grant before. Abueva (UP Pres). For. NLRC was affirmed. in a special meeting and without Nadal to Bellosillo. As a result. SANDIGANBAYAN new info was affirmed.basic principle that a legislative its students who violate its rules and regulations. That (11/19/2001) night. but finding him guilty financial assistance to poor but deserving students regarding his mom’s income. they constitutionally protected freedoms are not real parties in interest. named them as respondents in his petition in the RTC. Anti-Plunder act is unconstitutional for it due” is that which is governed under the UP’s rules. government purpose may not be achieved not having been authorized by the BOR as a collegial body with means which sweep unnecessarily to file the petition. threshold for evidence in violation of due process 2. with a penalty of a 1-year suspension. Anti-plunder Act is unconstitutional under 1. since Issues: 1. They would rule on a decision once this ESTRADA vs. Whether or not the Anti-Plunder Law is the issue falls within the school’s academic freedom. D and S2 (“combination”. the SC said that Nadal was estopped from dispenses with due process since the terms questioning the petitioners’ personality bec he already in S1. amended by RA 7659. Moreover. which is proof beyond reconsider their previous decision. Anti-Plunder act is unconstitutional for it na ‘to. “pattern”) are precisely vague & Tanga talaga. Anti-Plunder act in unconstitutional for I would like to mention that Nadal actually had the gall to being overbroad. stating to prove lack of probable cause. Sandiganbayan denied motion. If Nadal had his way. we don’t have a digest for this case. which had the penalty of expulsion from the Univ. hence. Anyway… overbroad. so Nadal’s reasonable doubt. Mwehehehehe. presumption of constitutionality of a not only undermine the authority of UP to discipline statute. attendance was indeed unnecessary. that he was denied due process since he was not On June 14. which denies the petitioner of the right to be informed of the nature & cause of 1. NO. which states that a question the standing of private petitioner Dr. Ratio: 2. they were only supposed to criminal cases. Hence. the lower court dared to tread upon legally forbidden grounds. a 3. Caoili who. which means that criminal intent petitioner being required. overbroad they won’t be able to give him any legal remedy 2. WON respondent judge gravely abused her discretion sufficient definiteness that persons of in issuing the preliminary injunction  YES ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the statute. but enactment is presumed to be in harmony would subvert the very concept and lofty intent to give with the Consti. appeal to SC. Hence. There are several levels of reasoning which writ.

the Plunder Law contains held to be constitutional. (remember: the new hearing by the Bill of Rights. Further. & void merely because general Chase. But punish. that there were no errors. J terms are used. affirmed the decree of the Court of Probate. as in divest the right that accrued to Calder and wife all other crimes. prohibited by the unfounded. The court then had power beyond reasonable doubt that the acts constituting to declare such law void. c. by law. • Since it was more than 18 months since the decree of Therefore. As it is written. his grandparents. or because it Facts employed terms that were not • 1779 Normand Morrison executed a will in favor of defined. description of the acts. NO. least. Again. approved the will those laws which in the face are and ordered its recording(July) . the Anti-Plunder law does not violate due the Court of Probate. for testing the validity of penal statutes. P question. which is distinctly resolution or law(May) setting aside the first negative expressed in the Plunder Law. In a criminal prosecution for plunder. invalidity being a measure of last resort. challenge of a statute for being new hearing and appeal within 6 months. and in 1796. granting a new hearing. S4 on “for correct. The new “vague” can only be applied for hearing in the Court of Probate now. dispenses with the contended that the resolution made by Connecticut requirement of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is was an ex post facto law. the overbroad and vagueness doctrines. and these predicate acts form a pattern. Plunder is mala in se which requires proof of criminal intent. utterly vague and cannot be clarified • 1795 (Aug) An appeal was had in the Superior Court of by a saving clause or by Hartford. ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his violation. Inability to so define the • Calder and Wife claim their rights as the wife is words employed in a statute will not heiress to N. except in cases where it is evident that the legislature intended a technical & special legal meaning Doctrine: prohibition on ex post facto laws applies only to 2. There is no statutory or Bull and wife. and can effectively interpose a • But the plaintiffs Calder and wife had a reason to defense on his behalf. • And still in 1796. The prosecution still has to prove constitution. NO. “Old” Substantive Due Process: Protection for prescribes the elements of the crime with Property Interests reasonable certainty and particularity. Hence it does not The court will answer the contention of the plaintiffs but lower the level of evidence from “beyond reasonable whether the Legislature of any of the States can revise and doubt” to “mere preponderance”. a decision of any of its Courts of Justice the purposes of establishing the crime of plunder”. the accused always has in his favor when the court of Probate denied the will of the presumption of innocence which is guaranteed Norman Morrison. By existing laws of or ambiguity of the law so long as Connecticut. but only • The plaintiffs Calder and wife petitioned the SC and a pattern or series of acts. giving the accused fair warning of the their will was indeed affirmed so why bother? charges against him. procedural & does not define a substantive right in This is only important if the state’s constitution does not favor of the accused but only operates in furtherance prohibit the correction or revision. have a special errors of Connecticut who in June of that year. its constitutionality. it uses. Morrison as a physician after the necessarily result in the vagueness disapproval of the will. constitutional command that the • 1793 The Court of Probate of Hartford disapproved of Congress needs to define every word the will and refused its recording. The superior court of Hartford construction. Bull in the natural. or at heiress(not explained how). application for free-speech cases & are inapt adjudged. appeal because the effect of the resolution was 2. decree of the court of Probate for Hartford. Caleb Bull and Wife were barred process since it defines the act which it purports to of all right of appeal by a statute of Connecticut. Plaintiffs argue that the Legislature of Connecticut had no this only means that the Anti-Plunder Law does not constitutional power to make the resolution (or law) in establish a lower level of evidence. can be gathered from the • 1795 The Legislature of Connecticut passed a whole act. **We don’t have digests for the Hamdy and Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its Velasquez Rodriguez cases. conduct and conditions required or forbidden. The petitioner’s contention that approved the will affirmed by the superior court and the language of the law which states that not every SC of Errors) act of amassing wealth needs to be proven. granting a 3. RA 7080 b. Petition dismissed for lack of merit. wife is said to have the rights as the legislative will is clear. 3. a statute is not rendered uncertain penal/criminal statues not civil. But the ponente gave of a remedy. therefore. Mens rea must be proven. plain & ordinary acceptation. words of a statute will be interpreted Calder vs. etc . a will not be answered now as the case doesn’t go that far. his opinion. 1. and B. plunder (though not all) occurred. void. An appeal was gained in the SC of according to the SC.

of either property. But when subject. SECs 9 and 10 need specific prohibition? of the US Consti provided this prohibition(see • Anyway. and receives jurisdiction to determine that any law of any state less. permit. only to recover property cannot be called a contracts which are retrospective. The imparting didn’t annihilate their power. which was innocent when done. (I think the will was more superfluous?) excl and perfect as it was valid) • The restriction against ex post facto law was to secure the person of the subject from injury from such law. that person has punishment by legislative acts.(I think was. He is fully satisfied that this court has no 4. and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future this right. but no one can have such included personal rights then why the need for other right before he has acquired a better right to the prohibitions in making only gold and silver the legal property. And the decree was the only fact laws was introduced for greater caution because when that which the resolution affected. in violation of the social compact is not a rightful • In the present case there is no fact done by the exercise of legislative authority. permit. when he debunked it anyway) could be seen both ways. Gov’t are indefinite(trivia:except in Masachusetts). or different. So the resolution this. and shall punish him for having done it. in virtue of it. ex post facto not expressly said. and it has no constructive making it a crime. BUT NOT to secure the according to the law of the land. or impairs. to protect his person from Because a vested right means that. than the law annexed to the any law made by Congress contrary to the constitution crime. Gov’t are defined.(I don’t know why the ponente said instead it only shred the jurisdiction. Judgment affirmed. 2. Issue • Every law that takes away. possess things retrospective operation. establishment of the courts of justice and justices) forms of Government same as one or two of the • But the Constitution was established for justice. If the prohibition of ex post facto laws perfect and exclusive right. having a the power to do certain actions. but they can’t change innocence to punishable guilt or violate the rights in contracts and private property. the resolution (or law) alone had no manner patterson below for text). all for the “safety of the kingdom”).• The ponente said that without giving opinion at this 3. Although calling stat. of effect on any right whatever vested in Calder and • The prohibition is not to pass any law concerning. So. than any other person in the world: a right. testimony. forbid. or citizen. nor to refrain from acts which the laws was given before the resolution and in that’s sense. they may declare new crimes. but every retrospective law is not an ex post facto law. J. alters the legal rules of evidence. Calder and wife. and wife. they still retained 1 The Legislature may enjoin. when committed this means ancient and uniform practice) He recognizes that eversince the Connecticut Legislature had been able to do judicial acts(like granting of new trials. because the 1st decree against the will • This is an additional bulwark in favour of the personal did not vest in or transfer any property to them. changes the punishment. after the fact. The Resolution combined with the new hearing. NO but not all. WON the resolution of the Connecticut Legislature is agreeably to existing laws. 1. stat. treason when they aren’t in other property should not be taken for public use without times and one witness even when the law required just compensation” is superfluous/unnecessary. or makes it greater than it The Connecticut Consti is made up of usages. Blackstone. when committed is void. this is not they were under Great Britain. gen. (Wouldn’t it be perfect and exclusive right. it is within • Every ex post facto law must necessarily be the state court’s jurisdiction. These purposes and affected by subsequent law. Why two. citizen in his private rights. makes an action. Even though in 1762 they imparted this to the courts. Massachusetts’. than the law legislature contrary to the consti is void. liberty and protection of their persons and • The prohibition contemplated the fact not to be property from violence. whether the court had jurisdiction to decide that punishment. or else the provision “that private judicial power. There is a • It is accepted that all the people-delegated powers of difference in making an unlawful act lawful and one the Fed. . shall not pass laws. Maryland’s and North Carolina’s Constitutions. aggravates a crime. that is affected by the resolution of the • That no man should be compelled to do what the laws Connecticut. but that the Legislatures of the several and the decision. retrospective(this is the prohibited). an ex post facto law. criminal. These acts were legislative and vested rights. tender and not to pass laws impairing obligations in therefore. (ex. The 1st decree of the court of probate do not require. and punish. security of the subject. enumerated) welfare. they restrain the absolute power of because it affected contracts for South Sea Stock made the legislature(nature of free Republican gov’t). 1st. either a judicial or legislative act. Then Justice Chase is of the opinion that the petition is enumerated to be laws that: void. laws under the within the intention of the law to be prohibited. all the powers that remain in the State ponente from Wooddeson. after a fact done by a to recover the property in question. rights vested. 7 Geo. took away their right states. which shall have relation to such combined they took away no right of property vested in fact. in order to convict the offender laws contrary to State charters or consti. denomination of bills of attainder or bills of pains and • The framers of the prohibition didn’t intend to include penalties were passed. 2 par 8. and punishes it Patterson. cases.(before required at the time of the commission of the Marbury cguro to!) And if they had problems with the offence. Any act before the statute. or (ex. and inflicts a greater time. ( ex post facto meaning taken by powers. Citing Justice Raymond why the people enter into the social compact. 1 they lost what they were entitled to were it not for • The prohibition against their making any ex post facto the resolution. or • If any one has a right to property such right is a contracts. was some fact to be done determinants of the nature and terms are the reasons by a Citizen. or Subject. take for example a pardon. plaintiffs. is retrospective and unjust.

he had. North required/permitted to work more than 10hrs. we see that the prohibition of Such is equated to “no employee shall contract/agree ex post facto laws applies only in penal statutes. are oppressive. says he. J.” The framers couldn’t have intended it to include the laws Issue: WON the statute is unconstitutional. should be afterwards converted to guilt output would be unreasonable & arbitrary considering by a subsequent law. almost all  Plaintiff in error is charged for violating Sec. He concurs in the result. wherefore no ex post facto law ought to be made. It must have a more direct relation as a means to an end & the end itself must be appropriate & legitimate before it can be Lochner vs.Delaware 4 . to work more than 10hrs. But for the purpose of answering the petition of the unlawfully requiring & permitting an employee plaintiffs. it’s never been regarded as an unhealthy one. Because. declares it to have been a crime. To say that a man who’s not overworked 2 'There is. health of the individual as a baker. The question asked to test if the act of the Legislature of Connecticut was a the validity of the exercise: “Is this a fair. free contract between employer & employees by determining the hours of labor in the occupation of a Iredell. that the party could foresee that an action. when after an action. Chapter 415.  This law does not in any way affect any other portion they didn’t commit any wrong. employee involved is a baker. which is entirely void. in whichever way. therefore. it still  However. even if it was a legislative act. the Legislator. unjust. which is called making of laws. for the first time. Using Judge Blackstone’s description 2 and the  Statute provides that “no employee shall be constitutions of Masachussets 3 .” Carolina 5 and Maryland 6. ex post facto. wherefore no ex post facto law ought to be made.” It’s mandatory in all The 1st Art. WON the resolution was an ex post facto law. But clean & it is within the ancient and uniform practice of the wholesome bread does not depend on the length of state of Connecticut. the court won’t act on instances. and which have not been declared crimes by preceding laws. working for him to work more than 60hrs. New York [1905] held to be valid w/c interferes w/a personal liberty. and inconsistent with the fundamental principles of a free government. Statute prohibits such even if an employee shall pass any bill of attainder. He dissents only to the  Gen. is committed. no cause to abstain from it. oppressive. baker without any reasonable ground for doing so.  But then. of consequence./day.' quality of the bread made by the baker. unnecessary. the time prescribed by law. be cruel and that it’s quite impossible to discover the connection unjust. welfare of the public. of working hours & the healthful unjust. because they can claim that This power enables the states to regulate both they acted within their constitutional power contrary property & liberty and to prevent the individual from to natural justice. and ought not to be made. But supposing it is legislative. per day. and all punishment for not abstaining. As a matter of fact. is it an unreasonable. He argues that the act of the resolution business is a liberty protected by the 14th amendment 7 granting a new hearing couldn’t be legislative. or wants to do so to earn extra money. If the resolution is of the public so it can’t be said that it’s done in the taken to be a judicial act then it is not touched by the interest of the public. There must 8. reasonable & judicial act. Plaintiff in error runs a bakery business & legislative).  Mere assertion that a law slightly relates to public health can’t make it valid automatically. Laws of 1897 otherwise known as the be more than the mere possibility of some small Labor Law of the State of New York in wrongfully & amount of unhealthiness to justify legislative interference. occupations more or less affect the health. 110. a still more unreasonable method than this. innocent when it was done.' 6 'That retrospective laws. punishing facts committed before the existence of such laws. Limiting their working hours does not come w/in the police power of the state. are oppressive. there is a limit to the valid exercise of the Still he also finds that there is no case. Because of individual to work at the time of his choice or rt of apparently the framers of the constitution intended for state to prevent the individual from laboring beyond Private civil rights to succumb to Public use. health. liberty or property w/o due process of law.' 7 No state can deprive any person of life. and incompatible with liberty. or to enter into those contracts in relation to Cushing. punishing facts committed before the existence of such laws. Art. . and incompatible with liberty. 4 'That retrospective laws punishing offences committed before the existence of such laws. it’s impt to determine w/c shall prevail – rt only applies to criminal/penal statues. power enacts a statute such as the one challenged in He also subscribes to the belief that the prohibition this case. Besides. are between the no. are oppressive and unjust. 3 'Laws made to punish for actions done before the existence of such laws. IF it seen as a legislative act. unjust. And such a delicate and awful nature until it is clearly and when the state’s legislature in its exercise of its police urgently needed. must. 1st. adjudged it to be void. Here it is impossible. Judgment Affirmed. & arbitrary it is not within the meaning of the prohibition. then.  The trade of a baker is not an alarmingly unhealthy one that would warrant the state’s interference w/rts Facts: to labor & contract. in Sec 9 of the US Consti says “No state instances. definitely judicial. police power of the state. – YES on obligation of contracts since they had needed to Ratio: It interferes w/the liberty of person or the right of specify it too. and by them only declared criminal. law impairing the obligations of contracts. ex post facto law. It’s a law pertaining to the FEDERAL constitution. And even if they acted out of their making certain kinds of contracts and in these authority. and 2nd. and by them only declared criminal. interference w/the rt of the individual to his personal liberty. It is w/c also protects the rt to purchase or to sell labor. hours a baker spends at work. in one We will look at this as a judicial act(remember ex post are week. it is not within the words of the appropriate exercise of the police power of the state or Constitution. labor w/c may seem to him appropriate/necessary for the support of himself & his family?” There is no problem in the case. J. indifferent in is more likely to be clean and thus producing clean itself. the 14th amendment cannot interfere. And even if the court can’t safety.' 5 'That retrospective laws. morals & gen. states have police power w/c relates to the falls in the prohibition. and inflicts a punishment upon the person who has committed it. right to make a contract in relation to one’s reasons used.

workers in bakery & confectionery establishments. The court can only inquire whether the  Pomar demurred the complaint alleging that the facts means devised by the state have a real/substantial therein complained did not constitute an offense. (see p. which at times justify a limitation novel or shocking. Decisions of lower courts  My take: he thinks the statute is reasonable & he reversed. The case at bar and the SC so holds. The statute creates a mandatory term in any contract . he answered and Justice believes that the means used is related to the admitted all the allegations trial but contended that end it seeks to accomplish. which are as varied as they are numerous. the the demurrer was overruled. He  NO. invade constitutionally mandated rights. A reasonable man might think that the statute subsistence. 3071 of the proof is upon those who assert the statute to be Philippine Legislature which essentially orders employers unconstitutional. Pomar disregarded/held invalid if it plainly. conflicting with the US Consti. legislative enactments unless clearly inconsistent  Definitions of police power are generally limited to w/the US Constitution. Every opinion contracts and to terminate contracts. He believes it does not the provisions of Act No. In this case. we can already conclude that it’s upon one’s right to contract for his own sevices. in connection of sec. legislation. The air they Issue: WON said Act was adopted in the reasonable constantly breathe is not as pure & healthful as that and lawful exercise of the police power of the state to be found in other establishments or outdoors. Post office. fundamental principles as we traditionally understand  The statute prescribes a sum of money to insure them. But from all the definitions. Ergo.  The Court in this case has to choose between police Ex. usury laws. It takes  “Liberty” in the 14th amendment is perverted if we use into account only the welfare of the employee but fails it to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant to consider periods of distress in the business.” and insuring one. unreasonable yung majority. 15 of Act. prohibition of lotteries. violates liberty of contract w/o due process. be history. dissenting (White & Day join him): one of the most important dissenting opinions in US  Liberty of contract may. or prescribe limits to  State constitutions & laws may regulate life in many its exercise by the legislative department of the ways w/c some may find as injudicious (unwise). his belief that the trade of a baker is an unhealthy shop or place of labor of any description. And not because we find an opinion circumstances.  A Federal/state legislative enactment can only People v. to exactly mark its boundaries. The burden of sec. morals or safety. Hehe…please read the dissent since Dean Pangalangan mentioned that it’s Harlan. Case remanded to the County Court for further believes any reasonable man would see that. The statute tends to become a law.  The lower court convicted him of crime as charged  Remember that statute is limited to workers in bakery & confectionery establishments. dissenting: SC concluded that it is much easier to perceive and  Case is decided upon an economic theory w/c a large realize the existence and sources of police power than part of the country does not entertain. Sunday laws. opinion (the statute in this case) unless a rational &  It further fails to consider the fact that payment for fair man would admit that the statute would infringe labor depends upon the type of labor. any doubt as to its validity must be resolved in favor of its validity & the courts must keep The Prosecuting attorney of the City of Manila filed a their hands off. the Holmes.Holding: Petition dismissed. 13. As relation to the protection of health. The court cannot inquire on the wisdom of the Fajardo. the court held that the interfered w/by school laws. Children’s Hospital of the District of does not interfere w/liberty of others to do the same is Columbia. Said section 13 was enacted in the exercise of its cites Prof. w/in certain limits. leaving the legislature to meet the complaint against defendant Julio Pomar for violation of responsibility for unwise legislation. In that case. decision will depend on a judgment/intuition subtler  The right to liberty includes the right to enter into than any articulate major premise. It’s made for people of fundamentally great variety of restraints. proceedings not inconsistent w/this opinion. Macaria health. to give pregnant women employees 30 days vacation with  This statute aims to protect the physical well-being of pay before & after confinement. is a proper measure on the score of health. and it was necessarily subject to a laissez faire. Hirt’s treatise on the “Diseases of the supposed police power for the purpose of safeguarding Workers” and the paper of another writer w/c support the health of pregnant women laborers in “factory. power and the liberty to contract. Otherwise. whether he likes it or not. subjected to regulations to promote gen. applied in the particular case. 100-101 for text) to them reasonable support for 1 month before and 1  State is not amenable to the judiciary in respect of its month after their delivery. much like in the The liberty of a citizen to do as he likes so long as he case of Adkins v. P80. Such may be said in the  General propositions don’t decide concrete cases. health and morals of pregnant employee. government. 3071 were illegal. particular cases and examples.  Defendant was found guilty of violating said statute by Working beyond 60hrs/week may endanger their refusing to pay his pregnant employee. tyrannical & w/c interfere w/the liberty to contract.  But a Constitution is not intended to embody a and while there was no such thing as absolute particular economic theory such as paternalism or freedom of contract. welfare or to guard the public health. No. Court goes unconstitutional and void beyond its functions in annulling this statute. palpably & beyond question in excess of legislative power. every Minimum Wage Act was void on the ground that the state/municipal institution w/c takes his money for right to contract about one’s own affairs was a part of purposes thought desirable. the liberty of the individual under the constitution. yet none of the exceptional differing views.

♦ The contract of loan and mortgage executed by the Agrux are purely private transactions and have ♦ PVB took steps to extrajudicially foreclose the not been shown to be affected with public interest. which unsecured creditors and places them on the same ordered the rehabilitation of the Agrix Group of level in the prosecution of their respective claims. ♦ The decree is oppressive. firm or corporation to warrant the interference of the government with owning or managing a factory. ♦ Section 4(1) of PD 1717 provides that all both in the privileges conferred and the obligations mortgages and other liens presently attaching to imposed. the other creditors of Agrix with vested property  The state. not foreclosure. even is based on  The court further explained that the state. the taking of the property right. when providing by legislation for the rights. The right to property in all mortgages. Phil. police power requires the concurrence of a lawful and safety of the people. ♦ In this case the public are not sufficiently involved  Sec. It has not the public safety. where the contract is so related to the public welfare that it will be considered congenitally ♦ PVB filed a claim with the Agrix Claims Committee susceptible to change by the legislature in the for the payment of itts loan credit. New Agrix and interest of the greater number. protection of the public health. is subject to and is controlled by the been shown that by the creation of the New Agrix paramount authority of the constitution of the state. interests. Companies to be administered mainly by the ♦ Under the equal protection clause. and right to enter into contracts of employment upon such who they are. Agrix the interests of the public as a guaranteed by that instrument or interfere w/ the whole. mortgage. of his state how many here are of such investors. the principle will apply only Agrix went bankrupt. safety. people under the Constitution. individuals. persons differently situated any of the assets of the dissolved corporations are are similarly treated. is done with due process of law. WON PD 1717 violates the due process and equal protection clause of the constitution? ♦ Petitioner argues that property rights are subject to regulation under the police power for the promotion of the common welfare. 2. in disregard of the principle hereby extinguished. police power. liens. 4(10) of PD 1717. Means employed are reasonably necessary prevent positive wrong and oppression. 13 has deprived every person. and why they are being preferred to terms as he and the employee may agree upon. shop or place of labor of the private contracts of Agrix. entered into by employer. that there should be equality among equals. the record does not any description w/in the Philippine Islands. NDC v. It violates right to enter into exercised at any time for this purpose as long as contract upon terms which parties may agree to. The interest of the public should justify and providing that such power is not exercised in such the interference of the state a manner as to justify the interference of the courts to b. lawful subject and a lawful method. all persons of National Development Company. The extinction of the o Exercise of legislative power was a mortgage and other liens constitutes taking without due violation of the principle of separation of process of law and violation of the equal protection clause. comfort. They contend that the inherent power of the state may be . is possessed with plenary power to deal ♦ The court held that a legislative act based on the with all matters relating to the general health. 1978 – Agrix execute in favour of private rights? YES respondent Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB) a real estate mortgage over 3 parcels of land situated in ♦ It is true that the police power is superior to the Los Banos. as distinguished from those of a particular execution of the powers and rights guaranteed to the class. would be promoted or protected. Veterans ♦ The right to property is dissolved by legislative fiat without regard to the private interest violated ♦ In extinguishing the mortgage and other lien. In this case. contravene any positive inhibition of the organic law a. powers o Impaired the obligation of contracts o Violated the equal protection clause Issues: 1. so long as it does not subject and a lawful method. the public morals or ♦ Public interest has not been shown. things similarly situated must be treated alike. WON PD 1717 violates section 10 of the bill of ♦ July 7. the Facts: decree lumps the secured creditors with the ♦ Involves the constitutionality of PD 1717. morals. penalties and charges owing to the creditors of Agrix is arbitrarily destroyed. The legislature for the accomplishment of the purpose has no authority to pronounce the performance of an and not unduly oppressive upon innocent act criminal when the public health. under the contract. being in conformity with the traditional requirements of a ♦ Trial court – annulled the entire PD 17171. During the existence of the mortgage impairment clause. and the extinction of the property rights of the and will not be permitted to violate rights secured or creditors of. National Development Company invoked Sec. or welfare is not interfered with. prompting the petitioners to file a second case with the same court to stop the PD 1717 is an invalid exercise of the police power.

violates the consti or a legislation.) The assailed . intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. if the are attractive nuisance. fails to accord persons fair notice of the conduct to avoid. certain types of activities (ex. have the right to 1) A statute or act may be said to be vague if it lacks dispose of it at a price it wants and to whom he comprehensible standards that men “of common pleases. Ordinance # 15 (1965) and Ordinance # 12 (12 (1966) provides as follows: Is Ordinance 460 a valid exercise of police power? Ord. He refuses to pay taxes restraint of trade and violative of the right of persons on the operation of the fishponds he leased from the gov’t. • An ordinance was passed by the municipal board of Accused-appellant: Eusebio Nazario Butuan ordering that the price of the admission of children in movie houses and other places of Appeal from the decision of the CFI of Quezon amusements should be half that of adults. J. which can still be saved by proper construction a. and amounts to a ordinances in Pagbilao. a public good. So this appeal. It may also be considered a license. “Any owner or manager of fishponds … Held: It is not. which may appear to be ambiguous.” encouraging it. 1. is not ambiguous because there are already military interpretations and practices in place that provide enough standards on what is permissible conduct. discriminating or in derogation Justice prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer and of common rights. Sarmiento. How can the The trial court held that the appellant violated the assailed theater operators distinguish bet a 13-year old an ordinances. but is b. the date of payment • The ordinance is not justified by any necessity of of municipal tax … shall begin after the lapse of three (3) public interest.” Not lawful subject/ no lawful purpose Ord. Quezon. against public policy or is unreasonable. # 4: Sec. the ticket is a species of property. so why are they fishpond started operating before the year 1964. But the theater is 2) it gives law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying it not of the same nature—it is not a public utility or out. The evidence purpose of it is to years starting from the date said fishpond is approved by reduce the loss in savings of parents. US Uniform Code of Military oppressive. The city said that the movie operators can ask the children to bring their birth Issue: certificates but that is impractical. an 11-year old child. said the court 1) WON the Pagbilao municipal ordinances are (why?) unconstitutional (vague or ex post facto)? No • A theater ticket is an evidence of a contract bet the 2) WON the ordinances apply to the accused? Yes movie house and its patrons. Balacuit vs. such a phrase. CFI People vs. 1(a) “For … owners or managers of fishponds within … this municipality. shall pay a municipal tax in the amount of Php 3 per hectare of fishpond on part Ratio: thereof per annum. taken in a military context. The contention of the city that they are preventing the Ord. • Owners of 4 theaters (petitioners) maintain that Facts: Ordinance 640 violates the due process clause for it is Petitioner is charged with violation of municipal unfair. to enter into contracts. operators. violates the act of Congress of the leg applicable if taken in the proper context or applied to c. within … Pagbilao.” passing the buck to the theater owners. gentleman”. 2) unconstitutional for being ex post facto laws • Municipality: a valid exercise of policy under the gen and 3) applies only to owners or overseers of fishponds of welfare clause in their charter. as the owners thereof. allowing the purchases to Ratio: enjoy the entertainment being provided. private ownership and not to lessees of public land. confiscatory. Nazario • Movie tickets for children Plaintiff: People of the Phils. the city said that movies beginning and taking effect from the year 1964. Issue: Said ordinances.” It is repugnant to the • The courts have declared valid laws regulating the Constitution because 1) it violates due process because it prices of food and drugs during emergency. unjust. asserting that said tax measures are 1) ambiguous and uncertain. In either The Court finds that Eusebio Nazario violated Pagbilao’s case. Quezon. # 12: Sec 1: “Any owner or manager of fishponds … movie houses from exploiting children is not within … Pagbilao shall pay a municipal tax in the amount tenable (they are given the same quality of of Php 3 per hectare or any fraction thereof per annum entertainment). The tax ordinances. Ordinance # 4 (1955). But the act must be utterly vague on its face and not • Note 3 instances when the exercise of police power just an imprecisely phrased by local govt are invalid: legislation. in turn the Bureau of Fisheries. • The means are clearly unreasonable. limiting the act profit of utilities. # 15: Sec. Besides.

The The contention that the ordinances were ex post facto laws statute is a valid exercise of police power in so far because Ord # 12 was passed on Sept 19. violates the provision against delegation of police power As evident from the provisions themselves.” As held in Golden Ribbon Lumber Co. the fishpond started operating before 1964”).” Though the gov’t owns Petitioner prays for a declaration of nullity and a the land. prevents car owners from finding alternatives comes within the term “manager. Edu 1. Inc but on occupation. 229 which 5. PD 207 ratified the Vienna Convention’s But the tax in question is not on property. Respondents are merely enforcing this privilege taxes on the business of fishpond maintenance. “public forest land. this amendment (Ord # 12) 2. 2. no real effort shown to illustrate less burdensome Facts: alternative to early warning device Petitioner assails Letter of Instruction No. As explained in the previous paragraph. He alleges because it clearly provides what activity is to be avoided that the statute: and to whom the law applies. 1. whereas petitioner’s conjectural assertions are without merit. # 4 & 15). Petitioner owns a -people still drive dilapidated vehicle Volkswagen Beetle equipped with blinking lights that -need for sustained education campaign to instill safe driving . No. Yes. law. Teehankee. the appellant 2. big financial burden on motorists 4. by factual data & statistics. which is allowed under RA 2264. as far as implementation is concerned delinquent fishpond operators and it did not repeal the mother ordinances (Ords. already in effect since May 14. As to the appellants claim that the imposition of the tax has to depend upon an uncertain date yet to be On the other hand. 1955 and as the act of non. For fishponds not yet in operation on Jan. the law. 1964. dissenting: Held: Appeal is DISMISSED. Judgment immediately fishponds are not forest lands although they are executory. it never had a share in the profits so it is only logical t hat he shoulders the burden of the tax. respondents’ answers are determined (“3 years after the approval of the fishpond” by based on case law and other authoritative decisions of the the Bureau of Fisheries) and upon an uncertain event (“if tribunal issues. public necessity for LOI not yet shown Action: Action for prohibition 3. they are actually devices. decision in Golden Ribbon Lumber Co. Issues: The liability for the tax accrues on Jan. the equal protection under the laws They are not charged against sales. Also Wherefore: Petition is dismissed. Moreover. a clear emergency meaning. merely enforcing the law forms part of Philippine law. the tax accrues 3 1. imperative need to impose blanket requirement on provides for the mandatory use of early warning all vehicles devices for all motor vehicles. and petitioner failed takes effect and penalizes acts done from the year 1964 to present factual evidence to rebut the presumed has no merit. 1964 for 1. restraining order in the meantime. Respondents assert that LOI 229 is backed years after their approval by the Bureau of Fisheries. The petitioner’s contention that the devices’ payment of the tax was already penalized since 1955 it is manufacturers may be abusive does not invalidate clear that Ord # 12 does not impose a retroactive penalty. 1. considered by jurisprudence as agricultural lands so necessarily do not produce the forest products referred to in the prohibition of RA 2264. Inc v City of Butuan local gov’ts taxing power do not extend to forest products or concessions under RA 2264 (Local 2. which also prohibits municipalities from is not legislative in nature. Respondent Edu was imposing percentage taxes on sales. WON LOI 229 is an invalid delegation of legislative to the earlier ordinances served only as an amnesty to power. which goes against the contention was not elaborated upon. Early warning devices have # 12 merely served as an amnesty to delinquent taxpayers. whereas blinking it did not repeal the mother ordinance (Ord # 4) which was lights are equivocal and would increase accidents.ordinances cannot be said to be tainted by vagueness could well serve as an early warning device. Petitioner’s objection is based on a negative view of the statute’s wisdom-something Appellant also assails the power of municipal gov’ts to tax the court can’t decide on. Ord # 15 applies. though it is recommendation of enacting road safety signs and based on the area of the fishponds. it is merely a problem in computation. The authority delegated in the implementation Autonomy Act). Ord validity of the statute. Effectivity and utility of statute not yet demonstrated. Agustin vs. and it Held: provides that for new fishpond operators. 1. WON LOI 229 is constitutional (due process) fishponds already in operation. The rules and regulations outlined by the LTO Commission does not reflect the real intent of LOI229. 1966 and yet it as it promotes public safety. As the operator and financier of the devices at the car owner’s expense the fishponds and employer of the laborers therein he 3. immoral – will only enrich the manufacturer of falls within its coverage.

right of property tangible o What is the basis of this right to prevent o Regard for human emotion extended the scope the publication of manuscripts and works of personal protection beyond the body of the of art? Right of Property individual – reputation and his standing  But where the value of the production is among his fellow-men were considered. it is viewed that the common law right to intellectual and artistic A. decide whether that which is his  Right to life = the right to enjoy life  the shall be given to the public. arising from publication. however. but modern to be protected in his exclusive use and enterprise and invention have. The right is only lost when the  Right to liberty = the right to the exercise author himself communicates extensive civil privileges his production to the public  Right to property – encompasses every form of possession. not been from the world.” to mental pain and distressl far greater  “but if privacy is once recognized as a than could be inflicted by mere bodily right entitled to legal protection. but in the peace of mind or the relief afforded by II. not property entitled to protection…” have rendered necessary some retreat o These decisions have. what the nature and extent of such sentiments and emotions as far as it consists in protection is. PURPOSE: whether existing laws afford a principle injuries resulting” which can be properly invoked to protect the privacy of the • conclusion that protection afforded to thoughts.The exercise of police power affecting the life . liberty. and. power to fix the limits of the publicity o Law gave a remedy only for physical which shall be given them interference with life and property in early • Existence of the right does not depend times upon the particular method of o Recognition of man’s spiritual nature. ground that “letters not possessing the  “The intensity and complexity of life attributes of literary compositions are attendant upon advancing civilization. subject him to ridicule. o The law does not recognize any principle upon which compensation can be granted WARREN & BRANDEIS: THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY for mere injury to the feelings. under the followed and it may not be considered that refining influence of culture.  “a man is entitled essential to the individual. so that is independent of its pecuniary value or solitude and privacy have become more intrinsic merits. one can never be redefine the exact nature and extent of such compelled to express his thoughts. o The wrongs and correlative rights recognized by the law of slander and liver are in their nature material rather than C. “New” Substantive Due Process: Protection for spiritual  injure him in his intercourse “Liberty” Interests in Privacy with others. has become the protection afforded by the common law more sensitive to publicity. etc. subjected him his. is merely an instance of . interposition of the courts cannot depend on the particular nature of the B. and I. hatred. and man. if it does. Law on Slander and Libel property of any person is till subject to judicial inquiry. he generally retains the society. EVOLUTION OF THE COMMON LAW property are but instances of a general I. through enjoyment of that which is exclusively invasions upon his privacy. protection and even as far as to recognize new sentiments and emotions and even if rights in order to meet the demands of the he has chosen to give them political. The right “to be let alone” the ability to prevent any publication at o Recent inventions and business methods all. the injury. Full protection in person and in property is a right to privacy principle as old as the common law  Under the American system of o From time to time it has been necessary to government. intangible and II. on the decency. found not in the right to take the profits  the law on slander and libel. person. etc. preventing publication.  However. in several press is overstepping in every direction the cases injunctions against the obvious bounds of propriety and of publication of private letters. it is difficult to regard the right as entail taking the necessary steps for the one of property protection of the person and the individual of  The belief that the idea of property in its their “right to be let alone” narrow sense was the basis of the  Desirability and even necessity of such protection of unpublished manuscripts protection can be seen in the way the led an able court to refuse. of his expressions adopted but rather each feelings and his intellect led to protection even individual is given the right to of mere attempts to do injury  assault. social and economic changes in expression. right to be let alone .

so protected. • Useful only for cases where there is 6. 3. before the publication in any form. to that extent the protection is to be that of an inviolate personality. but made. The Law would probably not grant any redress for the invasion of privacy by oral publication in the III. The right to privacy does not prohibit the individual communication of any matter. implied contract or of a trust or confidence. • amount of labor – we will find that it is much etc. o therefore. and to personal is an assertion by the individual of his inviolate relation. Even 1. The truth of the matter published does not afford  Court has also seen in some instances to grant a defense. is in reality not publication under consideration has been the principle of private property. whose affairs the community has no legitimate . Limitations of Right to Privacy privacy which at the center is the “core self”. (distinguishing attribute of property) in varying degrees. An action of tort for damages in all cases pictures. surreptitiously and therefore the 2. Religion has stories regarding Adam . The principle which protects personal  General object is to protect the privacy of writings and all other personal private life. misuse by the photographer of photograph taken of you with your consent. casual correspondence now given protection o Right to privacy not invaded by any publication will be excluded made in a court of justice. sayings. personality. Remedies for an invasion of the right of privacy o Advance of technology has made it possible to take 1. as a part of the more the facts by the individual or with his consent. o No basis is discerned upon which the right to restrain publication and reproduction can be rested 4. Westin in his book entitled “Privacy and Freedom” illustrates an individual as he creates zones of IV. in legislative bodies. 5. In each of these rights there is a quality concern of being owned or possessed and o Others such as those in public positions have. protection against wrongful publication not on the o It is not for injury to the individual’s character ground or not wholly on the ground of property that redress or prevention is sought. and the law has no new principle to formulate when it This article by Cortes starts off by introducing concepts extends this protection to the personal regarding privacy such as “the right to be let alone” which appearance. renounced their right to there may be some propriety in speaking live their lives screened from public of those rights as property. and to whatever degree an in productions. in perhaps a very limited class of doctrine of contract and of trust are inadequate to cases support the required protection and therefore the o Legislation is required to give added protection law of tort must be resorted to. The right to privacy ceases upon the publication of except the right to privacy. V. domestic or otherwise. general right to the immunity of the person – the right to one’s personality. The right to privacy does not prohibit any anthropologists deal with the notion of privacy and say publication of matter which is of public or general that even animals seek periods of individual seclusion or interest. when the publication is made under emotions and the casual and involuntary circumstances which would render it a privileged expression cannot be made because: communication according to the law of slander • test of deliberateness of the act – a lot of the and libel.g  Protection of society must the right to an inviolate personality) affords come mainly through a alone that broad basiss upon which the recognition of the right of protection which the individual demands can be the individual. are not rights arising from contract or from special trust. to the privacy of the individual in criminal law. The Right to Privacy absence of special damage. the enforcement of the more general right of the o Design of the law is to protect those persons individual to be let alone. The absence of malice in the publisher does not participation by the injured party such as a afford a defense. but are rights as against the world… The principle which protects personal writings and any CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF PRIVACY: CORTES other productions of the intellect or of the emotions. is the right to privacy.  Right of property embracing all possession (e. but for but upon the ground of an alleged breach of an injury to the right of privacy. the existing law affords a principle which can be invoked to protect the privacy of the 2. not against theft and whatever connection a man’s life has physical appropriation. whatever their exact nature. easier to express lofty sentiments in a diary than in the conduct of a noble life. An injunction. though in its nature  distinction between deliberate thoughts and private. observation. small group intimacy. rested.  We there conclude that the rights. but against ceased to be private. acts. withdrawn. . etc.

the against self-incrimination. even in the Philippines.and Eve’s shyness and the story of Noah’s son which publication should be repressed are those which concern reveal moral nature is linked with privacy. of Immigration to issue warrants of arrest (since a judge was In the Phil. where it was recognized as a “probable cause” does not extend in deportation constitutional right. constitutional limitations on the acts of government encroaching upon zones of privacy. there are In our local setting privacy issues are lax: the more gaps about the notion of privacy: Filipino culture is prominent a person. the freedom of the press against the right to privacy. he relinquishes a part of his privacy. the concept developed first in private law where information about himself. he seldom realizes how much residential picketing where high regard is accorded to the more the test discloses then he may intend. privacy of an individual’s home. Courts usually deal graft situation in all levels of the government. how much. As in The SC while distinguishing between warrants in criminal Arnault v.. to whom and when info about himself figure.the right to be let forestalled problems caused by its omission in the US alone”. the more unrelenting the publicity. This “communication and correspondence” can be private cases where it was seen to be derived from natural relaxed if public safety and order requires it bit this too law (characterized as immutable since no authority can can be restricted by legislation such as the Anti-Wire change or abolish it). specific constitutional guarantee was rarely invoked. shall be disclosed. This is where Science and Technology may play a role. proceedings. output and storage of the light of cases and administrative warrants. time the right of privacy as an independent constitutional right (Bill of Rights have penumbras which create zones of Privacy as a Legal Concept privacy). privacy as privacy independent of any other the additional safeguard) was challenged in several cases. Miller says the it was later used in public law in relation to other specific psychological impact on the citizenry is that many may constitutional guarantees. It was not until Griswold v. Mutuc where inquiry into private person in custody so that he may be made to answer individuals spending chores would violate privacy which is charges against him and a warrant to carry out a final implicit in unreasonable searches and seizures and right order based on a finding of guilt. In Europe. Thus the decisions that creditors are inspections can be made. Other cases were mentioned where differences Privacy has been equated with phrase “right to be let were not attributed to differences in consti provisions but alone” but it is in Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis “The to ideas of privacy particularly individual beliefs. its gathering and dissemination hopes and fears. In the Right to Privacy” that it was described as “the right to life Phil. the author says that it is infringing upon the privacy of their debtors if the make it intriguing if the doctrines are invoked here given the petty public just to compel them to fulfill. begin to base their personal decisions on what is to be Connecticut (anti-contraceptive statute) that for the 1st reflected on the databases. probable cause According to Prosser violations of privacy create 4 different to be supported by oath 2. habits. The guarantee for the defendant’s advantage of the plaintiff’s name or against unreasonable search and seizure require both likeness. suggested a distinction the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. When a person becomes a public what. Because of this. particular description of the kinds of tort. accustomed to public life but still keeps to himself certain Regarding news matters. Another aspect is that privacy is a personal right where an Regarding the decisions of the US SC that in regulating injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the parties business enterprises a warrant is required before involved is the basis. This was overturned in Vivo v. With respect to public figures. the privacy of communication and correspondence has come to mean the right to enjoy life. 1) intrusion upon plaintiff’s seclusion or place to be searched and persons to be seized) and that a solitude 2) public disclosure of private embarrassing facts judge should determine them and must examine under 3) publicity that places one in a bad light 4) appropriation. it provides for tapping Act. Warren and Brandeis comment “matters of which . would be completely hampered if individuals claim invasion of privacy and would want to recover damages for The right of privacy gives a person the right to determine some inaccuracies. Searches and Seizure The constitutional convention added safeguards to the Privacy as a Tort requisites in the issuance of warrants (1. Interesting is the privacy of letters in the physical intrusion and seizure of tangible property and it Philippines where it the recipients which are considered extends to both citizens and aliens. Also it makes no the owners and have the right. oath the complainant and other witnesses . the right of privacy was asserted in consti. Computerization. Since privacy the private life. The constitutionality of the grant of power to the Comm. Originally. without adequate regulation of the input. either positively or negatively. varies with every culture. Montesa that the Court said it is unconstitutional (issuing is for Privacy and Mass Media purposes of investigation and before a final order of The public law inquiry is to determine whether there are deportation). One Privacy and residential picketing example given is polygraph tests: that while it is true that It was recommended that some legislation be done about a person gives his consent. Nazareno where there is privacy. In the Philippines. In addition. can also cause harms since it CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS can deprive individuals the right to control the flow of In the US. between warrants issued for the purpose of taking a Only in Morfe v. acts and relations of an individual”. with this problem involving the reconciliation of constitutionally protected rights. the property right over an unpublished manuscript. “privacy of correspondence and communication” where it is recognized by the Civil Code and other special laws.the right of the public to Administrative Arrest know. writing verses or distinction in criminal or administrative proceedings (as dabbling in painting where privacy is asserted is based on mentioned in the cases).

therefore the only issue was with than originally intended by the convention back in 1934. require the application of intelligence and criminal case. however. they all 2) because of computerization. houses.000. property of any of the defendants as the taps came the streets near the houses. the court said that there is no communication and correspondence affords less protection compulsion evident. the conviction of an accused on a voluntary extra-judicial confession in no way violates the In deciding this case. even dealings with the Seattle police. Here.. warrantless arrests and seizures. It is not violated by introducing in evidence the and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. to submit to a pregnancy test or put on a describing the place to be searched and the persons or pair of pants to see if it fits. whether of documents. evidence. employees. the court brought up the common-law rule that OLMSTEAD vs. or even of the persons convicted (warrantless 3) legislation for the protection of the home against arrest). acts in the procurement of evidence. in any mechanical. seizures. there was no trespassing involved as the answer to the problem of coerced confessions. wire-tapping does not amount to a violation of cases where the securing of a warrant is reasonably the 4th amendment. Remedies against unreasonable search and seizure To be able to gather information on the operation. and requiring the producing of documents that may prove incriminating. U. attention. The operation required over 50 In his dissent. As they did not comply with the 4th amendment. may well be expanded to include the private persona and his family. Petitioner Olmstead is the leading conspirator and general manager Dissent of J. this does not qualify as a confessions and admissions inadmissible may be the taking. orders and the contraband should not be returned but it would also acceptances. and effects against privilege is only applicable to testimonial or communicative unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. (agreeing with the dissent of J.S. The court noticed that in all the cases mentioned. as well as difficulties the conspirators not be used as evidence. Holmes. to be a witness against himself. Although there are exceptions. papers. evidence will be appreciated no matter how it was obtained. This also applies in illegal search suffered. What was used was the recording of audio and 4) the proposal by Congress rendering extra-judicial nothing else. possession. there is no physical residential picketing taking. In wire-tapping. Annual income was seized should be described with particularity. taps were done in the streets and not in the houses of the conspirators. In the confession was improperly obtained rests on the these cases.Particularity of Description caches in that city. a ranch outside urban Seattle. Monthly -Added consti reqment that the person or thing to be sales produced at least $175. as it does in the Anti-Wire important to note that there was no trespass into the Tapping Law. Lastly. Author’s recommendations: 1) the constitutional guarantee on the inviolability of In the present case. Motorist’s Right Since the guarantee protects the person and not places. Among these were. yielding a lot of information. it must almost always have a warrant as said in the Carroll case: “in HELD: No. a ISSUE: Whether wire-tapping amounted to a violation of private car is protected from unreasonable searches and the 4th amendment. and had to be returned to the defendants. four The court finally held that evidence obtained through federal prohibition officers intercepted messages on the warrants illegally issued is inadmissible. J. This rule is supported by both the National Prohibition Act through the unlawful American and English cases. says that “the government ought not to use . These were all acts pertaining to gathering Conclusion evidence. practicable it must be used” RATIO: Right Against Self-Incrimination The US extended the guarantee against self-incrimination 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in on the grounds of public policy and humanity. Holmes: of the operations. 3 sea vessels. importation and selling of liquor. there is a need to provide a pertained to a physical taking. This gathering of evidence discusses that in the course of an illegal search a went on for months. the their persons. Our SC has held that the right things to be seized. Brandeis). the court went through a number of constitutional guarantee where the burden to prove that earlier cases discussing the 4th and 5th amendments. struck down as unconstitutional were various defendant. regulatory system to protect individual rights evidence. as well as a fully staffed office. result of an analysis of a substance taken from the body of supported by oath or affirmation and particularly the defendant.” Petitioners here were convicted of a conspiracy to violate (Professor Greenleaf). the limitation recommended is that these were large business transactions. projected to be over $2M. unlawful entries. Moreover. It is made by private parties. However. In the court’s eyes. Among contraband was found. “Where there is no violation of a constitutional FACTS: guarantee. The author also telephones of the conspirators..00. The right of privacy finds protection not only in various the evidence acquired was deemed inadmissible in court provisions of the constitution but also in special laws. it regards to the 4th amendment.shall be compelled. against self-incrimination only protects against testimonial evidence or the performance of acts which not being purely 5th amendment: No person. the verity of the above statement is absolute.

Any experiment w/c the embezzlement. 1929 He was convicted of the crime of robbery with 1. it was decided that vasectomy be he is the probable potential parent of socially performed on Skinner. should escape in the event that evidence was obtained The Act violates the equal protection clause in the 14th criminally. frequent his convictions because of the exception in section 195 of the Act. After a jury no opportunity to be heard on the issue as to whether trial. 1935 The Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act was passed. Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that one who commits larceny by trespass or trick or SKINNER vs. This decision was undesirable offspring. Example: A clerk who embezzles over $20 from his employer and a stranger who steals The Act provides that if someone is found by the court or the same amount are both guilty of felonies. inheritability of criminal traits follows the legal distinctions which 1934 He was convicted of the rime of robbery with the law has marked between these firearms and sentenced to the penitentiary.. Holmes “it is a less evil that some Amendment. OKLAHOMA fraud has biologically inheritable traits which one who commits embezzlement lacks. two offenses. Notice and the right to a but did not elaborate. Line between larceny by fraud and larceny by embezzlement is determined “with reference 1926 Skinner was convicted of stealing chickens to the time when fraudulent intent to and sentenced to the reformatory. There Act states that offenses arising out of the violation is no redemption for the individual whom of the prohibitory laws. nor that reformatory. the law touches. affirmed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. as unconstitutional by reason of the 14th 2. i. FACTS: ii. times for crimes involving moral turpitude. Habitual criminal is defined as A person who. Petitioner challenged the Act authorities respecting inheritability of criminal traits. criminals should escape than that the Government should play an ignoble part”.if we are to • When the law lays an unequal hand on those who confine ourselves to precedent and logic the reason for have committed intrinsically the same quality of excluding evidence by violating the Constitution seems to offense and sterilizes one and not the other. had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. jury trial are provided. The Attorney General has to institute a proceeding against such a person in Other Criticisms of the Act which the Court mentioned Oklahoma courts. Lastly. What DECISION: he states is that the courts have 2 options: 1) the courts use evidence obtained criminally or 2) some criminals Oklahoma Supreme Court decision REVERSED. revenue acts. 3. Due process is lacking because the defendant is given Amendment in the US Consti. is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in an • The power to sterilize may have subtle. section 195 of the far-reaching and devastating effects.evidence obtained and obtainable by a criminal act”. If jury as a habitual criminal and that he “may be rendered the stranger repeats his act and is convicted sexually sterile w/o detriment to his/her general health”. The Act is penal in character and that the sterilization provided for is cruel and unusual punishment. To J. ISSUE: WON the legislation violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. No basis for inferring that the line has firearm and sentenced again to the any significance in eugenics. 1. Vasectomy in case of male.. he states “. it has me logically to lead to excluding evidence obtained by a made as invidious (offensive) discrimination as if it crime of the officers of the law”. irreparable injury. However. convert the property to the taker’s own use” arises. But the clerk then the court shall order that he/she shall be rendered is not subject to the penalties of the Act no sexually sterile. or political offenses shall not be state conducts is to the individual’s considered within the terms of the Act. . having been convicted 2 or more • The Act involves one of the basic civil rights of man. either in • Marriage and procreation are fundamental Oklahoma court or in a court of any other state. Oklahoma penal institute. he may be sterilized. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. is to the very existence and survival of the thereafter convicted of such a felony in Oklahoma and race. The Act cannot be sustained as an exercise of the 1936 Attorney General instituted proceedings police power in view of the state of scientific against Skinner. three times. salpingectomy matter how large his embezzlements nor how in case of a female.

a RATIO: 2nd. the Due best contraceptive device or material for her use. counsels. Fees Process Clause protects those liberties that are “so rooted were usually charged. so often applied by this any person to use any drug or article to prevent Court. that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent conception. 1972) than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined Ponente: J. They examined the wife and prescribed the not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. lend. Appellants claimed that the accessory activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may statute as applied violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The former provides: "Any person who uses any drug. The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship. which made it a crime to sell. Secs ISSUES: 21 and 21(a). Certainly the accessory should have standing to for writ of habeas corpus . not whom they had a professional relationship. achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive prescribing a contraceptive device or material for the impact upon that relationship. instruction. not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily An intermediate appellate court and the State's highest broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms. medicinal article or EISENSTADT vs. assert that the offense which he is charged with assisting GRISWOLD vs. the appellee invited members of the "Any person who assists. and its teach. Justice Douglas The primary issue in this case concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several FACTS: fundamental constitutional guarantees. He personally handed a package of Emko prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal vaginal foam to a young. more compelling reason = to protect morals through regulating the private sexual lives of single persons The standards of "case or controversy” should be less strict  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed by reason of the appellants’ criminal conviction for serving conviction married couples in violation of an aiding-and-abetting  US District Court (Mass) dismissed appellee’s petition statute. following examination. Such a law cannot stand in wife's use. the First medical director. causes. The statutes whose constitutionality is involved in this appeal are 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev. but the spread of disease 2. and medical advice to from government intrusion. receive.” • Both were convicted as accessories for giving married This law which. The statute provides a maximum 5-year term the constitutional rights of the married people. The Connecticut statute forbidding use of  State’s goal: preventing the distribution of articles contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy. Whether or not Appellants have standing to assert persons. of imprisonment for such violation. if not dangerous. but only from doctors or pharmacists on prescription HELD: 2." FACTS: Section 54-196 provides:  After delivering a lecture on overpopulation and contraception. A Connecticut statute makes it a crime for light of the familiar principle. Whether or not the Connecticut statute forbidding  The statutory scheme distinguishes among 3 distinct use of contraceptives violates the right of marital classes of distributes: privacy which is within the penumbra of specific 1. single persons may NOT obtain contraceptives from anyone to prevent pregnancy 1." BAM! he was convicted in a Massachusetts state court for violating Massachusetts General Laws Ann. or give away any contraceptive device to unmarried 1. prevent pregnancy. BAIRD instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less (March 22. a licensed physician (Buxton). These constitutional guarantees include: Freedom of Speech and • Appellants are the Executive Director of the Planned Press including the right to distribute. hires or audience to come and help themselves to contraceptive commands another to commit any offense may be articles. offender. pregnancy. Brennan and imprisoned. although some couples were in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be serviced free. physical consequences. abets. a crime. 2. court affirmed the judgment. married or single persons may obtain constitutional rights of the married people with contraceptives from anyone to prevent. seeks to prevent conception and. or cannot constitutionally be.). ranked so fundamental. They Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected gave information. married persons may obtain contraceptives to guarantees of the Bill of Rights. designed to prevent conception which may have undesirable. read and Parenthood League of Connecticut (Griswold). in forbidding the use of contraceptives persons information and medical advice on how to rather than regulating their manufacture or sale. As a result. Appellants have standing to raise the 3. the concept of liberty married persons as to the means of preventing embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is conception. and freedom of inquiry and thought. CONNECTICUT is not. unmarried woman.

. but that bet an advocate of the This case deals with the statute as in Griswold vs. statute will materially impair the ability of single Ullman. Equal Protection Clause: denies to States the power available in drug stores which invite more the attention of to legislate that different treatment be accorded to enforcement officials. as a health measure. If the prosecute any violation of Connecticut law. 1. Baird has sufficient interest in challenging the take no better measure to assure that laws will be just statute’s validity to satisfy the “case and controversy” than to require that laws be equal in operation. Baird cannot be prevented to assail its validity bec he is neither a doctor nor a druggist. and 3-month imprisonment. hence. also joined them in have a dubious relation to the State’s criminal saying that the statute deprived them of liberty and prohibition on fornication. to that extent. As a years of its existence. Courts can 1. to be free from 3.” For one thing. WON appellee has standing to assert the rights of  Whatever the rights of the individual to access to unmarried persons denied access to contraceptives  contraceptives may be. that another pregnancy would be exceedingly perilous to Moreover. it would not only no imminent or impending threat of arrest on the invidiously discriminate against the unmarried. Secs 21 and 21(a) of the Mass statute her life. WON the Mass statute could be upheld as a deterrent  Griswold case  Right of privacy: If the right of to fornication. Also.. of birth-control devices for the the best and safest medical treatment is to prescribe prevention of disease. as distinguished from the contraceptives in order to preserve the health of petitioner. In this case. the statute conflicts with statute seems never to have been initiated according to “fundamental human rights” under Griswold v counsel nor the researchers of the Court. Judicial notice Connecticut. IT VIOLATES THE EQUAL There is no more effective practical guaranty against PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment arbitrary and unreasonable gov’t intrusion that to require that the principles of law. rights of persons to obtain contraceptives and Connecticut where. so that all persons similarly ISSUES: circumstanced shall be treated alike. two couples and their those desirous of doing so. which officials would impose RATIO: upon a minority must be imposed generally. such deterrence cannot reasonably be taken as the purpose of the ban on HELD: distribution of contraceptives. such ground exists. 2. prevention of conception. the statute threatens to prosecute them for their use of or for giving would be both discriminatory and overbroad for being advice regarding contraceptives. prosecutions for violation of the prohibition to conception. asking the Court to declare the Connecticut persons to obtain contraceptives. whether the basis criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of state or federal. which entails a $30 fine property without due process. it is Dr. A classification must be reasonable. The Mass statute is also On the other hand. Petitioners do not allege that appellee. but petitioners. are denied a forum in which to assert their own rights. married or single. FACTS: 2. resulting from these deaths. Buxton. As ruled in Griswold v abnormalities resulting in their death shortly after birth. Hence. Violation of the present statute is a felony. The Court goes on to say that in the over 75 also be overbroad with respect to the married. requirement of Art III of the Consti  it has been held that the Mass statute is NOT a health measure. Unmarried persons statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives denied access to contraceptives are themselves the unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. not immediately harmed or immediately threatened with harm. or simply as a privacy means anything. was also taken of the fact that contraceptives are readily 3. in this case. subject of prosecution and. Connecticut. US CA reversed US DC’s decision and remanded the arbitrary. ISSUE: The Court cannot believe that Mass has chosen to W/N the allegations raised by petitioners regarding the expose the aider and abetter who simply gives away a constitutionality of the Connecticut statute raise a contraceptive to 20 times the 90-day sentence of the justiciable question before the Court. only at the instance of one who is himself the statute. hence. the rationale is dubious considering the Because of the great emotional and psychological stress widespread availability to ALL PERSONS in the State. offender himself. the POE vs. Effect of the ban on distribution of contraceptives to Paul and Pauline Poe had three consecutive pregnancies unmarried persons has at best a marginal relation to terminating in infants with multiple congenital the proffered objective. There is thus Mass statute were a health measure. Enforcement of the Mass physician sued the State and its Attorney-General. Doe recently underwent a riddled with exceptions that deterrence of premarital pregnancy which caused her critical physical illness such sex cannot reasonably be regarded as its aim. their doctor. Ullman If health was the rationale of Sec 21(a). ULLMAN relationship bet Baird and those whose rights he seeks to assert is not simply that bet a distributor and potential distributees. state that in the course of his public duty he intends to not all contraceptives are potentially dangerous. Buxton’s opinion that unmarried and married. WON there is some ground of difference that rationally unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters explains the different treatment accorded married and so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision unmarried persons under the assailed statute  no whether to bear or beget a child. Given the fact that federal judicial persons placed by a statute into different classes on power is to be exercised to strike down legislation. Mrs. the rights must be the same YES for the unmarried and the married alike. No. Dr. it is the right of the prohibition to contraception  NO individual. and must rest upon some ground of case with instructions to grant the writ difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation. punishable by 5 years in prison. The allegations merely “illogical to the point of irrationality.

and dismissed the application for injunctive failure of contraceptive measures. and that the Texas criminal "potential future defendant". very speculative." 1. instituted federal action in Mar that she sought. that they don’t get caught which is not a abortion statutes. a married couple. and sexual privacy said to be protected that several prosecutions for violations of this statute had by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras (Griswold. because of the uncertainty of the law it proper choice under the present constitutional system. right to practice medicine. Jane Roe-unmarried & pregnant. The court then held that abstention was warranted injury an alleged "detrimental effect on their marital with respect to the requests for an injunction. 1. also naming the District Attorney as defendant. Ninth. But the SC relaxed this rule. She unconsitutional for her to have an abortion. while defendant DA cross. and. at that time in the relief. NATURE: Appeal from the US DC of the Northern District ISSUES: of Texas 1. that the law be struck down as 1970 against the District Attorney of the county. illegal under the Texas statutes. Roe. but the Does did not for failing to allege is significant because "absent harassment and bad faith. or in personal. sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal appellee notes that the records to not disclose whether she abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face. or to attempt one. Mrs Doe had a "neuro-chemical ROE vs. sometime in the future. "capable of repetition. wishes to terminate her pregnancy but is prevented by Texas' laws. Doe might become pregnant because of possible statutes void. Fifth. Roe-At the trial court stage. declaratory & injunctive relief.a single woman who was residing in as a pregnant women was logically connected to the claim Dallas County. filed a companion complaint to that certiorari review. except procured or attempted by medical HELD: advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs' Ninth Amendment Does-has asserted as their only immediate & present rights. Justice Douglas. dismissed the Does' complaint. reversing the finding were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an of the trial court on the doctor's standing. rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First. a facts sufficient to present a controversy. declared the abortion Mrs. He was difficult to tell whether his patient's particular then goes on to repeat the arguments in Griswold situation fell within or outside the exception recognized by regarding the application of the statute reaching into the A1196. as a consequence. conditions. which had standing. court is asking the people to violate the law and hope that 2. dissenting. the circumstances of the case do not justify the exercise of judicial power as it lacks the Petitioners: requisites for “case” and “controversy”. However. J. Doe & intervenor Hallford appealed to SC future. WADE disorder" & was advised to avoid pregnancy. as therein defined. contends that the statues invade upon the right of a Public clinics dispensing birth-control information has pregnant woman to chose to terminate her pregnancy. through the his status as present state defendant from his status as Fourteenth Amendment. Eisenstat) been initiated in the minor courts. clinical Blackmun. in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It therefore happiness"Their claim is that. whether or not petitioners have standing to bring suit 2. sought & was important since usual rule in federal cases is that an granted leave to intervene in Roe's action. & seeking have rendered the case moot. and was pregnant at the time of the hearing of the case or an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the when the TC decision was handed down. the statutes were vague and intimacies of the marriage relationship forcing search uncertain. logical nexus test in Flast met as her status the challenged action. (01/22/1973) she wishes to have alegal abortion under safe. He tries to distinguish protected by the Ninth Amendment. that is. yet evading review. Hallford-had twice been arrested in Texas for violation of it is not enforced. initiated (US v Musingwear). The Court failed to take notice of the fact marital. unable to Mr. been closed down by the State as well as others following grounded in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Nelson case which the ponente cited as the test case the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. discontinued use of birth control pills. & warrants for private bedrooms for its enforcement since that they violated his own and his patients' rights to what it prohibits is not the sale or manufacture but the privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own use of contraceptives. This court found that Roe & Hallford Hallford-has two pending cases with the State court. The District Court defendant in a pending state criminal case cannot held that the fundamental right of single women and affirmatively challenge in federal court the statutes under married persons to choose whether to have children is which the State is prosecuting him". and not simply at the date the action is of Roe. it was undisputed that she Similar statutes are in existence in a majority of the had standing. but the SC sees no abortion statutes were void on their face because they distinction & applies the rule to him. transfer to another jurisdiction to secure abortion. Jane Roe. nonmootness. she might want an abortion that might then be regarding denial of injunction. familial. Texas. which is statutes. and Fourteenth Amendments 3. John & Mary actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or Doe. which the SC finds as appealed regarding grant of declaratory relief. The delivery of the baby would claiming like constitutional deprivations." judge district court. Fourth. Hallford. that if ever she became pregnant. The bare allegation of so indirect an . The two actions were reasoning that pregnancy provides for classic conclusion of consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three. whether or not Texas laws regarding abortions are FACTS: unconstitutional for invading a constitutionally protected Texas State Penal Code Arts 1191-1194 & 1196 make it a right crime to procure an abortion. for the statute. Does-childless couple. in effect the Amendment. In failing to answer the or among those rights reseved to the people by the 9th question of the constitutionality of the statute. a licensed physician.

No connection between family. The SC took a look first at the historical perspective on single reason. He penalties of the 1861 Act. and must be acts of sodomy. or in the 9th HELD: No. committing that act with another adult male in the Bourne. Federal Constitution. the legal abortion. that it has any possible pre-natal • Despite the language of the Due Process Clauses application. Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law. is unsupportable. Common law provided that an abortion before "quickening"(the 1st recognizable movement of the fetus in BOWERS vs. holding that the Georgia effect. abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in The CA reversed and remanded. at common law. a capital crime. is still disputed. FACTS: came in 1803. The statute makes no controversy (Younger v Harris). a contention that the protection of prenatal life is a • Moreover. and thus violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by preserved the "quickening" distinction. Does are therefore not distinction between abortions performed early in appropriate plaintiffs. portion of the 19th century. any claim that these cases nevertheless "compelling state interest" that warranted the abortion stand for the proposition that any kind of private laws. 4 dissenting crime. and throughout the major state a claim. The unborn have never been recognized in the of the 5th and 14th Amendments. in § 2. constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in but that this right is not unqualified. Hardwick brought suit in Federal question whether an abortion necessary to preserve the life District Court. or even a lesser White. but. +4 concurring. Phrasing it another way. and that the unborn is a "person" under the 14th sexual conduct between consenting adults is Amend. restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted subsuming rights that to a great extent are by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the . Lord Ellenborough's Act. and that the statute for several reasons violates the banned abortion. England's first criminal abortion statute. a large majority of the jurisdictions arrest. or procreation on the one hand and Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved. was found by the court to be at the beginning acceptable to only a small District Court decision affirmed. "Art. unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. and it limits to a 2. Amendment's reservation of rights to the people. in been interpreted to have substantive content. is broad Precedent Cases: enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not • It is evident that none of the rights announced in to terminate her pregnancy. It made abortion of a quick fetus. that the carried over to the US to the extent that only as recently as Georgia sodomy statute placed him in imminent danger of the end of the 1950's. which said that a doctor should not here. Measured against these multitude of cases in which those Clauses have standards. apparently answered in the affirmative the bedroom of his home. challenging the constitutionality of the of the pregnant woman was excepted from the criminal statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy.The Court concludes that the those cases bears any resemblance to the claimed right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision. conceeding that this is not explicitly found in any and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still part of the Consti. But this right of privacy. with any assurance. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. HARDWICK utero) was not an indictable offense. abortion was for the most part accepted ot tolerated. there are a law as persons in the whole sense. abortion are of "relatively recent vintage". In English statutory law. considered against important state interests in regulation. situation (as abortion techniques were initially unrefined & presented a threat to the woman's health. This trend in thinking was asserted that he was a practicing homosexual. the Court homosexual activity on the other has been has held that regulation limiting these rights may be demonstrated. "saving" the mother's life." provide drugs to induce an abortion. While there is respondent. whether it be make such conduct illegal. founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action. Even the cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it Hippocratic Oath. however and whenever performed. it provided lesser penalties for In August 1982. The SC Process Clause of the 14th Amendment recognizes that the debate now is between the State's right (some say duty) to protect prenatal life versus the Attorney General petitions for certiorari questioning the contention that the laws were passed to protect the woman holding that the sodomy statute violates the fundamental from placing herself in a potentially life threathening rights of homosexuals. None indicates.injury is insufficient to present an actual case or mother. the Court held that the use of the word is such constitutionally insulated from state proscription that it has application only post-natally. At least with respect to the rights because his homosexual activity is a private and early stage of pregnancy. therefore. It held substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental she does in most States today.It is thus apparent that. marriage. § 1. and very possibly without such a intimate association that is beyond the reach of state limitation. the opportunity to make this choice was present regulation by reason of the 9th Amendment and the Due in this country well into the 19th century. reasoning that most of the laws criminalizing justification for the procedure. The statute. J. either by the Court of Appeals or by justified only by a "compelling state interest." sweeps too broadly. pregnancy and those performed later.) ISSUE: WON the Federal Constitution confers a The ponencia moves to a discussion on the right to fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy privacy. a woman enjoyed a statute violated respondent's fundamental rights. respondent Hardwick was charged with the felony of abortion before quickening. at the time of the The court granted Bower’s motion to dismiss for failure to adoption of the US Constitution. number of people. The case of Rex v.

and if all laws representing essentially moral guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects. Garner. Hardwick. its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection LAWRENCE vs. TEXAS reasons. Court Answers: Illegal conduct is not always immunized whenever it occurs in the home. 186 (1986). all 50 States outlawed sodomy. where the process aspect of the case. (1969). Against this background. §21. liberty" is. when the Fourteenth petitioners. the courts will be very busy indeed. All sodomy laws in the US are now home. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity.” App. Union had criminal sodomy laws. East Cleveland. Art. choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process and a decision on the latter point advances both Clause. extend a fundamental right to homosexuals to engage in acts of consensual sodomy. Bowers then being Court held that the 1st Amendment prevents conviction for authoritative. Connecticut.S.” §21. do not escape the law where they are committed at home. Penal Code Ann. Those contentions were rejected. case reversed and remanded (I’m not sure but as an other sexual crimes even though they are committed in the effect of this ruling. 139a. Their conduct was in private and consensual. Victimless crimes. The majority opinion indicates that the Court Respondent Argues: The result should be different where of Appeals considered our decision in Bowers v. this was proper. And if respondent's submission is limited to the voluntary sexual conduct between consenting adults.06(a) concept of ordered liberty." such that "neither liberty (2003). to claim that a right to arguments under both the Equal Protection and Due engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1868. or “(B) the penetration of the genitals or It is obvious to us that neither of these formulations would the anus of another person with an object. to Pet. consensual sexual act. firearms.” The statute defines “[d]eviate • those liberties that are "deeply rooted in this sexual intercourse” as follows: (A) any contact between any Nation's history and tradition. in a divided opinion. interests. It provides: “A person commits an offense if he nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. Georgia. immune from federal or state regulation or apartment and saw him and another adult man.25. unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non- commercial consenting adults in private) Respondent Asserts: There must be a rational basis for the law and that there is none in this case other than the presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia Ratio that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable. facetious." engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another Moore v. 326 (1937) sex (man). After history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered hearing the case en banc the court. When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State. In fact. (1977) individual of the same sex. and No. having entered a plea of nolo contendere. at best. engaging in a private. Tex. . Houston police entered petitioner Lawrence’s . The central holding of Bowers has been Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private brought in question by this case. forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they Const." part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person. The • those fundamental liberties that are "implicit in the applicable state law is Tex. Stanley itself recognized that its holding offered no protection for the WON the bowers case should be a controlling precedent for possession in the home of drugs. incest. all but 5 of the 37 States in the each fined $200 and assessed court costs of $141. possessing and reading obscene material in the privacy of one's home. until 1961. namely anal sex. this case.. The petitioners challenged the statute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was and of a like provision of the Texas Constitution. The ratified the Bill of Rights. that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to FACTS: discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. the homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the 478 U. petitioner proscription.01(1). 1. Relies on Stanley v. Equality of treatment and the due process right to Court Answers: The law is constantly based on notions of demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive morality. The petitioners were adults at the time of the alleged offense. and it should be residence. 127a. 24 States and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties The Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District for sodomy performed in private and between consenting considered the petitioners’ federal constitutional adults. such ISSUE as the possession and use of illegal drugs. or stolen goods. rejected the constitutional arguments and affirmed the convictions. Nature of the rights qualifying for heightened judicial The complaints described their crime as “deviate sexual protection: intercourse. it would be HOLDING difficult to limit the claimed right to homosexual conduct while leaving exposed to prosecution adultery. were Amendment was ratified. and today. to be controlling on the federal due home. §3a. for Cert. with a member of the same Palko v.

at 190– nonenforcement with respect to consenting adults acting discloses the Court’s failure to appreciate the extent of the in private. touching upon the most private human with all that imports for the dignity of the persons charged. early sodomy laws seem not to have been overturning it once there are compelling reasons to do so. 857. Casey. lives of homosexual persons. to the extent Bowers relied on values still retain their dignity as free persons. sexual behavior. The Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half state interest which can justify its intrusion into the century are most relevant here. criticism from other sources is choose without being punished as criminals. American laws targeting same-sex couples did intended to produce offspring.. In those States.. is not correct today. and education–and Romer v. The stigma the Texas criminal statute do not more than prohibit a particular sexual act. It does involve two adults who. in status. The 25 States with laws exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. at not easily refuse consent.addressed. and in the most private of including notation of convictions on their records and on places. v. supra. The Bowers Court’s initial substantive homosexual conduct. between adults implicating disparity (d) Bowers’ rationale does not withstand careful analysis. or between men and animals. Its continuance as precedent demeans the matters pertaining to sex. The liberty of greater significance. The longstanding In his dissenting opinion in Bowers Justice Stevens criminal prohibition of homosexual sodomy upon which concluded that (1) the fact a State’s governing majority has Bowers placed such reliance is as consistent with a traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not general condemnation of nonprocreative sex as it is with a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the an established tradition of prosecuting acts because of practice. and it controls here.. engaged in sexual practices common to a have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual homosexual lifestyle. at 855—856. That analysis should have now. And. See County of Sacramento v. including Texas. 505 U. 517 U. In the United States. Casey. 478 U. statement–“The issue presented is whether the Federal that still proscribe sodomy (whether for same-sex or Constitution confers a fundamental right upon heterosexual conduct). supra. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate 833. Casey. however. 501 prohibit nonprocreative sexual activity more generally. 808. the home. consensual noted. 624–which struck down class-based legislation is just about the right to have sexual intercourse. 833.S. whether or not entitled to formal under state law. the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of sodomy have ancient roots. They are not without doubt and. 828. family relationships. their imposes. For prohibiting the conduct referenced in Bowers are reduced this inquiry the Court deems it necessary to reconsider its now to 13. Tennessee. even when not roots. between adults involving force. Although the offense is penalties and purposes have more far-reaching but a minor misdemeanor. are a form of “liberty” not develop until the last third of the 20th century. but this Court’s obligation is to define Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in the liberty of all. is not trivial. This case does not involve minors. of prostitution. Bowers causes uncertainty. procreation. not to mandate its own moral code. They seek to control a personal job application forms. (a) Resolution of this case depends on whether petitioners (c) Bowers’ deficiencies became even more apparent in the were free as adults to engage in private conduct in the years following its announcement. it remains a criminal offense consequences. relations between men and minor girls or boys. Bowers’ holding has not induced whether between men and women or men and men. private conduct without government intervention. Far from possessing “ancient intimacies of physical relationships. Even protected by due process. those who might Burger there indicated. It should be homosexual adults to engage in intimate. that there is no longstanding history in conduct. opinion and the concurring opinion by Chief Justice persons who might be injured or coerced. only nine States have singled out same-sex relations controlled Bowers. and is relied upon in Bowers are more complex than the majority hereby overruled.S. of which 4 enforce their laws only against Bowers holding. Lewis. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. They show an emerging individual’s personal and private life. and registration as sex offenders relationship that. 850. Early American sodomy laws were not choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Payne v. the case’s reasoning and holding have been rejected by the European Court of (b) Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to Human Rights. directed at homosexuals–cast Bowers’ holding into even Although the laws involved in Bowers and here purport to more doubt. detrimental reliance of the sort that could counsel against Moreover. at 851–which confirmed that the liberty at stake. disapproving the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the of its reasoning in all respects. There has been no showing that in this country this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a the governmental interest in circumscribing personal distinct matter. Where a case’s foundations have recognition in the law. awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in . or public conduct or the very least. U.S. criticism of protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons Bowers has been substantial and continuing. the historical grounds correct when it was decided. Stare decisis directed at homosexuals as such but instead sought to is not an inexorable command. demeans the claim the individual put forward. shared with a wider civilization. 523 U. The Bowers Court was. Bowers was not for criminal prosecution. at 192. To say that the issue in Bowers was Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to simply the right to engage in certain sexual conduct marriage. contraception. just as it child rearing. making the broader point that for centuries there mutual consent. with full and course. at 847. moreover.” ibid. Casey.S. sodomy prosecutions often involved predatory the precedents before and after it contradict its central acts against those who could not or did not consent: holding. not just as to its historical confines of their homes and their own private lives and assumptions. and (2) individual decisions concerning the their homosexual character. and that other nations have taken action it. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the conduct as immoral. for Instead. are overstated. enforced against consenting adults acting in private. would demean a married couple were it said that marriage 620. supra.” 478 U. Evans.S. is within the liberty of persons to sustained serious erosion. Thus. there is a pattern of homosexuals to engage in sodomy … .S. conduct.

S. The degree of intrusion caused by before imposing a suspicionless drug testing program a collecting a urine sample depends upon the manner in school must demonstrate some identifiable drug abuse which production of the sample is monitored. in which this Court upheld by the Policy. Pp. which depended primarily upon the school’s custodial responsibility and authority.S. see Vernonia . government. The State cannot demean intrusion on the children’s Fourth Amendment rights their existence or control their destiny by making their against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.. at 665. This procedure is virtually identical to the activities. 646 . 4—14. the whole. (a) Because searches by public school officials implicate Fourth Amendment interests. Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which 515 U. The petitioners are entitled to Vernonia Court conducted a fact-specific balancing of the respect for their private lives. action for equitable relief. See. Moreover. Rather. C. 515 U. a search may be reasonable when easily be refused. Each of them must abide by OSSAA rules. at 658.. Under the problem among a sufficient number of those tested. Pp.The present case does not involve minors. 515 U. 8—10. (c) Considering next the character of the intrusion imposed 47J v. 515 U. “negligible” intrusion approved in Vernonia.. at 654. with full and mutual consent from each individualized suspicion may not be necessary. see e. a finding of two adults who. Acton. 4—6. EARLS essential in Vernonia. The case does involve responsibility for children. id. was not BOARD of EDUCATION vs. It does not involve public conduct or supported by “special needs” beyond the normal need for prostitution. see Vernonia . the Court contrast to the criminal context. The court then held that the School District had for the normal sounds of urination to guard against failed to demonstrate such a problem among Tecumseh tampered specimens and ensure an accurate chain of students participating in competitive extracurricular custody.g. supra. Oklahoma. the only consequence of a failed violate the Fourth Amendment.. The Policy clearly requires that test results be kept in HELD: confidential files separate from a student’s other records and released to school personnel only on a “need to know” basis. the Court must review the Policy for government’s concerns and the efficacy of the Policy in “reasonableness. Their right to liberty Applying Vernonia’s principles to the somewhat different under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right facts of this case demonstrates that Tecumseh’s Policy is to engage in their conduct without intervention of the also constitutional. the Court the suspicionless drug testing of school athletes.. Such Activities Association (OSSAA). engaged in sexual practices common to a upholding the suspicionless drug testing of athletes.S. Applying Vernonia School Dist. the test results are not turned over to any Tecumseh’s Policy is a reasonable means of furthering the law enforcement authority. ibid. alleging that the Policy violates the Fourth Amendment. private sexual conduct a crime. given the minimally intrusive nature of the judgment. 6—8. Vernonia. 515 U. The allegedly compromised by the drug testing. at 660. In other. It does not involve whether the government law enforcement. Because the “reasonableness” inquiry must give formal recognition to any relationship that cannot disregard the schools’ custodial and tutelary homosexual persons seek to enter. considering the nature and immediacy of the at 652. and a Policy has been applied only to competitive extracurricular faculty sponsor monitors students for compliance with the activities sanctioned by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools various rules dictated by the clubs and activities. School District (School require occasional off-campus travel and communal District) requires all middle and high school students to undress.. holding that the sample collection and the limited uses to which the test Policy violated the Fourth Amendment . Respondent high school regulation further diminishes the schoolchildren’s students and their parents brought this 42 U. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the (b) Considering first the nature of the privacy interest government may not enter. a faculty monitor waits outside the closed restroom that testing that group will actually redress its drug stall for the student to produce a sample and must listen problem. Some of these clubs and activities by the Tecumseh. Pp... Pp. In the are situated in relationships where consent might not public school context. drug test is to limit the student’s privilege of participating in extracurricular activities. students who participate in FACTS: competitive extracurricular activities voluntarily subject themselves to many of the same intrusions on their The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy (Policy) adopted privacy as do athletes.S. at 847. however. In meeting them. privacy. the Court concludes that the students can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life affected by this Policy have a limited expectation of of the individual. a probable cause finding concludes that the Policy effectively serves the School is unnecessary in the public school context because it . The Tenth Circuit reversed.” Casey. It concluded that results are put. the concludes that the invasion of students’ privacy is not District Court granted the School District summary significant. at 656. and all of them have their own rules and consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to requirements that do not apply to the student body as a participate in any extracurricular activity. the homosexual lifestyle. such Policy. see Vernonia .S.” the touchstone of constitutionality. e. In any event. In practice.g.S. Nor do the test results lead to School District’s important interest in preventing and the imposition of discipline or have any academic deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not consequences. §1983 expectation of privacy. (d) Finally. id. This distinction. Respondents argue that because children participating in nonathletic extracurricular activities are not subject to regular physicals and communal undress they have a stronger expectation of privacy than the Vernonia athletes. It does not would unduly interfere with maintenance of the swift and involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who informal disciplinary procedures that are needed.

the power of carrying laws president reported that people in the community were into practical operation and enforcing their due calling the board to discuss the “drug situation. the ruling in Griswold v. to make laws. And the school board enforce and administer laws. Ch 2. The zones of privacy are also recognized and protected in several statutes. drug use. It impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry’s protected sector. 32 and 723 of the Civil Code. p.” ‘zone of privacy’ The right of privacy is recognized and enshrined in several · AO 308 issued by FVR on December 12. which belongs to 1. under the Tecumseh schools. namely: ISSUES: Articles 26. 1998) In the case of Morfe v. The policy (Sec 3. 305 .3d 1264. The blurring of the demarcation line between the It does not state whether encoding of data is limited to power of the Legislature to make laws and the power of the . 489 U. shall be used to identify people who will seek its coverage. Title I. The legislative body possesses plenary drug dog found marijuana near the school parking lot. general and heard students speaking openly about using drugs. See id. firmly distinguishing it from the public 2. Teachers testified that they saw Constitution. at 661—662. to the validity of a testing regime. affects the life and liberty of the use of “Biometrics technology” and “computer every Filipino citizen and foreign resident. 290-292 and 280 of the Revised Penal Code. important governmental concern. 656 . this Court has not required a particularized administrative operation of gov’t. See. 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights. 673—674. Treasury implementing the law and carrying out the legislative Employees v. Mutuc. It must be in harmony or pervasive drug problem before allowing the government with the law and should be for the sole purpose of to conduct suspicionless drug testing. he is given ADMINISTRATIVE POWER. 3(1). The right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by OPLE vs. the power to by an extracurricular club member. Hence. the enactment of the former being beyond the Intellectual Property Code.S. AO 308 establishes a system of identification that is establish a linkage among concerned agencies” through all-encompassing in scope. 308. without such. Also. 520 U. AO 308 clearly deals with a subject that should be covered by law. President’s power  YES The ponencia proceeds to discuss the dangers to the 2. which the State can control. 2. President which relates to specific aspects in the Furthermore. District’s interest in protecting its students’ safety and Executive to administer and enforce them will disturb the health. business with gov’t agencies without the contemplated ID Pp. The Anti-Wire 1. District has also presented specific evidence of drug use at · Legislative power: the authority.. Preventing drug use by schoolchildren is an delicate balance of power and cannot be allowed. TORRES the Constitution. and more application designs” particularly. Given the nationwide epidemic of Code of 1987. his rights and enjoying his privileges. a citizen cannot transact School District to enact this particular drug testing policy. 144-146 for the complete citation of AO 308) 6. under AO 308. 10—14. card. organs.” observance. Respondents consider the proffered evidence insufficient · The President. the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act. Ponente: J. Thus. violates the right to privacy. 319. represents the and argue that there is no real and immediate interest to gov’t as a whole and sees to it that all laws are justify a policy of drug testing nonathletes. power for all purposes of civil gov’t. it establishes for the first time a NCIRS. WON AO 308 is a law and not a mere administrative Tapping Act. A and comprehensive.. Administrative Code of need to prevent and deter the substantial harm of 1987). entitled “Adoption of that governmental powers stop short of certain intrusions a National Computerized Identification Reference into the personal life of the citizen… A system of limited System (NCIRS)” on 2 grounds: government safeguards a private sector. and to alter and repeal them.g. Hence. The School government. Chandler v. childhood drug use provides the necessary immediacy for AO 308 does not merely implement the Administrative a school testing policy. Miller. s/he will have a difficulty exercising 242 F. the Court will give stricter scrutiny to the breach of exercise The health and safety risks identified in Vernonia apply of power belonging to another by one branch of with equal force to Tecumseh’s children. Police found drugs or drug paraphernalia in a car driven · Executive power: vested in the President. (July 23. Book III. it was entirely reasonable for the policies. The School District · Administrative order: an ordinance issued by the has provided sufficient evidence to shore up its program. as Chief Executive. reversed. namely: Sections 1. 2. even though some which is concerned with the work of applying policies and showing of a problem does shore up an assertion of a enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental special need for a suspicionless general search program. hence. It is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate the individual. and the order. It involves a · AO 308 does not state what specific biological subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an characteristics and what particular biometrics technology administrative order. it is a burden of gov’t to show that AO 308 is justified by some compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn. Puno (IDOL!) Connecticut that there is a constitutional right to privacy was adopted. “The right to privacy is accorded FACTS: recognition independently of its identification with · Petition for the declaration of unconstitutionality of liberty… The concept of limited gov’t has always included Administrative Order(AO) No. Articles 229. But a enforced by the officials and employees of his demonstrated drug abuse problem is not always necessary department. Von Raab. and the evidence of increased drug use in which requires an overhaul of various contending state Tecumseh schools. WON AO 308 violates the right to privacy  YES people’s right to privacy: 1. e. students who appeared to be under the influence of drugs The grant of legislative power to Congress is broad. Section 4 of AO 308: provides for a Population Reference RATIO: Number (PRN) as a “common reference number to 1.S. 1996 (see provisions of the Constitution.

marketing strategies and other • The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly confidential programs and information from competitors. GLAXO WELCOME 1. it does not mean that every relationship with Betsy. still. under what circumstances and for what wanted to avail of the redundancy package. to resign • Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets. while our laws endeavor • Tecson received several reminders from his District to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice Manager regarding the conflict of interest which his and the protection of labor. drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest. labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. store. They advised him that he and Bettsy should decide The indefiniteness of AO 308 can give the gov’t the roving which one of them would resign from their jobs. City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur (where his family was 2. The • January 1999. · AO 308 does not tell us how the information gathered • Tecson asked for more time because Astra was merging shall be handled. Glaxo only aims to protect its interests company. process. Also. The ability of a sophisticated data center to generate a located) sales area. to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or 1. It does not provide who shall control and with another pharmaceutical company and Betsy access the data. non-counterchecking position or preparation for • Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic employment outside the company after six months. 1995 – petitioner Pedro A Tecson was hired by 2. He asked for a reconsideration but comprehensive cradle-to-grave dossier on an individual his petition was denied. the right voluntary arbitration. manufacturing formulas. consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees • It is reasonable under the circumstances because of competing drug companies. privacy. is not against the use of • Because the parties failed to resolve the issue at the computers to accumulate. DISCLAIMER: the Court.000. The Court transfer and brought the matter to Glaxo’s Grievance ruled that an individual has no reasonable expectation of Committee. In laying down the assailed relationship and the employee’s employment with the company policy.Tecson’s superiors informed him that law also recognizes that management has rights which his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a conflict of interest. per se. ISSUE: DUNCAN ASSOC vs. But it remained firm in its decision and gave privacy with regard to the National ID and the use of Tescon until February 7. Glaxo offered Tecson a separation to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual pay of P50. they submitted the matter for transmit data to improve the bureaucracy. (Glaxo) as medical clause? representative 3. continued acting as medical representative in the regardless of technology used. Glaxo’s policy is a valid exercise of affinity with co-employees or employees of competing management prerogative. 2000 to comply with the biometrics technology. . The need to clarify the penal aspect of AO 308 is another competing with similar products manufactured by Astra. cannot be inferred from its Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area. authority to store and retrieve information for a purpose although they told him that they wanted to retain him as other than the identification of the individual through his much as possible because he was performing his job PRN. No less than the • Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo’s products Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area. well. If management perceives a relationships of that nature might compromise the conflict of interest or a potential conflict between such interests of the company. they got married. and transmit it over a national network is one of the most • Tecson sought Glaxo’s reconsideration regarding his graphic threats of the computer revolution. from the company. WON tecson was constructively dismissed? • Tecson signed a contract of employment with the company that states that he agrees to study and abide HELD & RATIO: by existing company rules. biological information alone for identification purposes. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and • Tecson brought the case to the National Conciliation & technological advancements that enhance public service Mediation Board & the Court of Appeals which upheld and the common good. WON Glaxo’s policy against employees marrying FACTS: from competitor companies is valid? • Oct 24. It merely requires that the law be the validity of Glaxo’s policy prohibiting its employees narrowly focused and a compelling interest to justify from having personal relationships with employees of such intrusions. retrieve and grievance machinery level. AO 308 is so widely drawn that a transfer order.00 but he declined the offer. adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its right • Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Betsy. Inc. purpose. interests cannot be denied. Indeed. provisions. These factors are essential to safeguard the • November 1999. provides that an employee is expected to inform especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the management of any existing or future relationship by highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan privacy and guaranty the integrity of the information. the management and the employee will explore against the possibility that a competitor company will the possibility of a transfer to another department in a gain access to its secrets and procedures. reason why its enactment should be given to Congress. competitor companies as a valid exercise of its management prerogatives. WON said policy violates the equal protection Glaxo Wellcome Philippines. He was also not included in product conferences regarding such products. Tecson defied the transfer order and minimum standard for a reasonable expectation of privacy. to reasonable returns on investments and to a supervisor of Astra (competitor) in Albay expansion and growth. Yes. • Tecson was not issued samples of products which were 3.

or when a clear discrimination. He is therefore estopped from questioning the equal protection of the laws. • The commands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the state or those acting under color of The challenged policy has been implemented by Glaxo its authority. However. the "person. all in the same Bicol effects and consequences of such transgression. the Court's inaction is the state action. renders the conflict of interest not only possible.cannot be bartered away -. when there is a demotion in rank or There are many ways to satisfy state action. Glaxo even expressed its desire to retain conduct. in its most technical legal sense. with due regard for constrained to reassign Tecson to a sales area different the lot of the employee. The policy is not -. The proximity employees of the competitor and he is well aware of the of their areas of responsibility. By case. To force him to choose between his job only to the individual. an children because they are not good for its image? involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible. Region. grandparents because they can't board the cab fast enough? Can McDonald's or Jollibee exclude street • Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting. the stipulations therein have the force of law discriminatory or wrongful. from her company instead. Tecson is clearly requires her to work in close coordination with District aware of Glaxo’s policy in prohibiting relationships with Managers and Medical Representatives. guaranteed claims. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their Excerpts: own choosing. It has blessed the sin with its imprimatur. against merely private conduct." the victim. owned up to the wrong it should have chastised. let the relationships." etc. profit." Our Charter makes no such between them and thus. employee handbook. The challenged policy does not violate the other’s market strategies in the region would be equal protection clause of the constitution. are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the Tecson’s wife holds a sensitive supervisory position as interest of fair play. When the problem could not be Indeed. No. however. Branch Coordinator in her employer-company which • Upon signing the contract with Glaxo. Petitioner was not constructively dismissed For instance. unreasonable. market reign over all things commercial. aimed at restricting a personal prerogative that belongs choosing a "foundation of the nation. No. should be complied with in distinction: it says plainly "nor shall any person be denied good faith. All that the law The policy being questioned is not a policy against says is that there are certain things that are placed marriage. Glaxo was impartial and even-handed manner. Equal protection clause erects no shield impartially and disinterestedly for a long period of time. He was even given time to resolve the conflict manifestations or actions has been found to have by either resigning from the company or asking his wife to become entwined or involved in the wrongful private resign from Astra. In light of this affirmative • None of these conditions are present in the instant command. discriminatory There was ample notice given to Tecson by Glaxo. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and The aim of the law in this context is to insulate family the company that may arise out of such values from the menace of the market. but actual. this should not be seen as a case of love versus in avoidance of conflict of interest. Since Tecson knowingly and or those acting under color of its authority" and "erects no voluntarily entered into a contract of employment with shield against merely private conduct. Management’s appreciation of a conflict of interest is founded on factual basis. that are "inalienable" marry anyone of his or her choosing. and such transfer. • Petitioner’s transfer to another place of assignment was merely in keeping with the policy of the company In the end. and thus valid. The Court did not • From the wordings of the contractual provision and the terminate Tecson from employment but only reassigned policy in its employee handbook. an employee’s personal and Betsy is callous. whoever violates his equality rights. Rather it is. in Pedro's case. from that handled by his wife for Astra. it is clear that Glaxo him to another area where his home province is. It would have diminution in pay. fair warnings from the • The only exception occurs when the state in any of its managers. as learning by one spouse of the 2. a . The record does not show that Tescon was tolerating intolerance. been easier here because the Constitution requires the insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes state to respect the "sanctity of family life" as the unbearable to the employee. inevitable. the Constitution says. the Court becomes a willing demoted or unduly discriminated upon by reason of accomplice. 3." That language protects said policy. There is a long decision does not detract the employer from exercising noble history in law where courts refuse to lend their management prerogatives to ensure maximum profit and honor to contracts that dishonor constitutionally business success. the or wrongful. does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of BUT BEWARE! D2 NAG-COMMENT C DEAN !!! competitor companies. • Tecson was aware of that restriction when he signed his The Court invokes the "state action" requirement that says employment contract and when he entered into a the equal protection clause is "addressed only to the state relationship with Bettsy. Sure. contract. An employee of the company remains free to beyond the reach of the market. The Tecson in its employ because of his satisfactory company actually enforced the policy after repeated performance and suggested that he ask Betsy to resign requests to the employee to comply with the policy. or unlikely. can a taxicab reject pregnant women or when he was re-assigned to Butuan. the application of the policy was made in an resolved after several years of waiting. whether the violator is the state or a private person. however Glaxo. The exception is not present in this case.

Court held declaration that the marriage was valid at its that the UK was in breach of Art. As an alternative respect for private life) & Art 12 (right to marry) of claim. & Mrs. WON Sec 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act the employer burdens a constitutionally protected claim 1973 is incompatible w/ articles 8 & 12 of the like the right to marry. birth. FACTS: • The trial judge and the CA. To think that person’s sex for the purpose of marriage. has relieved Glaxo uterus or ovaries or any other biological of its duty to craft those "narrowly tailored" measures that characteristics of a woman.’ enjoying the right to marry under any . Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 is incompatible w/ • Goodwin: A test of congruent biological factors can Articles 8 & 12 of the European Convention on no longer be decisive in denying legal Human Rights. WON at the time of the be enough to say that the management prerogative "to marriage. The falling in love is one of life's sweetest joys. but she was still without Court. Bellinger is transsexual) transsexual establishes that gender re-assignment *Note: the aim of gender reassignment surgery is to make has been properly effected.question of the "level of scrutiny. by not applying strict scrutiny.. and here comes biological sexual constitution of an individual your boss reminding you of "its effects on [your] is fixed at birth. born in 1946. and an narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose. praise Glaxo for its benign but feudal concern for Pedro: • Corbett v Corbett: (concerns the gender of a male to "When their relationship was still in its initial stage. at the latest. etc.) Held: The law should adopt the about its effects on his employment. formerly Elizabeth Ann adhered to the Corbett approach and held that the Wilkinson. Mrs. (Mrs. she felt more inclined to be female. BELLINGER approach ignores the compelling significance of the psychological status of the person as a man or a woman.." which requires that the regulation • W/ the gender reassignment surgery. Bellinger. Bellinger. He will be judged by RATIO: heightened standards because he impinges upon rights which enjoy a higher level of protection." changed either by the natural dev’t of organs of the opposite sex or by medical or surgical means. If all 3 when Pedro and Betsy were just falling in love. Act 1949. gonadal & genital test. However. Bellinger. But it found no somebody feel more comfortable w/ his/her body. Mrs Bellinger was ‘female’ within the protect a competitive position" is reasonable (or. Regrettably. That standard is 1. chromosomal. was The contrary view classified & registered as male.. female transsexual in the context of the validity of Tecson's supervisors at Glaxo constantly reminded him a marriage. & can’t be employment. like 1. rec69ognition to the change o gender of a post- operative transsexual. • The present state of English law regarding the sex of transsexual people is represented by the case of In case you have any lingering doubts." In other words. Despite this. Mrs Bellinger is validly married to wearing a uniform.’ • Background: Mrs. 1981. Court recognized that it is *Transsexual: born w/ the anatomy of a person of one sex for a contracting state to determine the conditions but w/ an unshakeable belief or feeling that they are under w/c a person claiming legal recognition as a persons of the opposite sex. listen to the Court Corbett v Corbett. 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 provides that a marriage is void unless the parties are ‘respectively male and female. but they increased social acceptance of transsexualism & separated and eventually divorced in 1975. WON petitioner. equal protection entails. it meets the "minimum test of rationality"). Mrs Bellinger seeks a operative male to female transsexual. she • The European Court of Human Rights said that an married a woman when she was 21. enacted in Sec. she seeks a declaration that Sec 11(c) of the the Convention. that should determine a company did its best to smother that love. This BELLINGER vs. it would Mr Bellinger (that is. the are congruent. in legal meaning of that expression in the statute) [NO] jargon. • Criticism on Corbett: It is too reductionistic to have regard only to the 3 Corbett factors. This court underwent sex change before she married Mr decided the Goodwin v UK case. though recognizing the • On May 2. upon which to decide upon the gender of a child at • Sec. re. Since an increased recognition of the problems w/c post- then. ‘not to justification for barring the transsexual from turn them into a woman. Mrs be supported by compelling interests and that it be Bellinger’s testes & penis was removed. But if 2. she has dressed & lived as a woman and operative transsexual people encounter. Mr. then the employer must discharge a higher burden. 8 (right to inception and is subsisting. was a male who underwent gender 3 criteria relied upon therein remain the only basis reassignment surgery. and treats an employee differently European Convention on Human Rights [YES] because of his choice of a life partner. 1(c) of the Nullity of Marriage Act of 1971. If all that the ISSUES employer imposes are ordinary job requirements. • Goodwin v UK: Christine Goodwin was a post- • In the present case. the orifice was created. observing official hours." of the standard of judicial review to be applied by the Court. Bellinger went marked change in social attitudes to problems through a ceremony of marriage under Marriage such as those of Mrs Bellinger since Corbett. NO called "strict scrutiny.

the recognition of gender reassignment built". [The Goodwin decision is • FOR THESE REASONS I WOULD NOT MAKE A prospective in character] DECLARATION THAT THE MARRIAGE BET’N MR Developments since the Goodwin decision & MRS BELLINGER WAS VALID. & although the Goodwin decision dealt w/ the Conclusion on first issue: human rights position as at the date of the • Despite humanitarian considerations & the judgment (Jul 2002). even in the context of marriage. or relationship deeply embedded in 2.Is Act # 2339 unconstitutional because it deprives the religious & social culture of this country. Domestic law. There must be some objective. gender. a person incompatibility. A CHANGE IN • 1) The terms of reference of the interdepartmental THE LAW AS SOUGHT BY MRS BELLINGER working grp on transsexual people include re. MUST BE A MATTER OF DELIBERATION & examining the implications of granting full legal DECISION BY PARLIAMENT. There seems to be no ‘standard’ operation or recognized definition of the outcome of completed surgery. 2) govt announced intention to bring 2. the Collector problem w/c should be considered as a whole & of Internal Revenue. including Sec 11(c) of Bellinger celebrated their marriage long before the the Matrimonial Causes Act will have to change. Human Rights Act 1998 came into force. Province "quite a distance from the road and strongly • SECOND. or become regarded as. the non-recognition of their international trend towards recognizing gender ability to marry (by virtue of Sec 11c) continues to reassignment. the taxes? present question raises wider issues. Protected Interests in Property They are pre-eminently a matter for Parliament. child care. extended govt’s announcement of forthcoming legislation on meaning: that a person may be born w/ one sex the matter has not had the effect of curing the but later become.May the courts restrain by injunction the collection of • THIRD. sitting in its prevent them marrying each other. It (1915) is questionable whether the successful completion Trent J of some sort of surgical intervention should be an essential prerequisite to the recognition of gender FACTS: assignment. 3) from the Goodwin decision. Marriage is an institution. and the Act 1973 would necessitate giving the expressions government accepted such position. transsexual people who can demonstrate they have insofar as it makes no provision for the recognition taken decisive steps towards living fully & of gender reassignment is incompatible w/ Sec 8 & permanently in the acquired gender to marry in that 12 of the Convention. D. to collect taxes from such property not dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. RAFFERTY be recognized for the purposes of marriage. Court of first regarding recognition of gender reassignment for Instance prohibited the defendant to collect or remove the the purpose of marriage cannot sensibly be made billboard. The decision and to remove it when it is offensive to sight. Sec 12: right of English law w/c fail to give legal recognition to to marry (Case did not say anything else on the the acquired gender of transsexual persons are in provision) principle incompatible w/ Arts 8 & 12 of the • Mrs Bellinger claims that although she & Mr Convention. Act # 2339 allows the defendent. The issues are altogether ill-suited for determination by courts and court procedures. judicial capacity ought not to accede to the • That non-recognition of gender reassignment for submissions made on behalf of Mrs Bellinger. the purposes of marriage is incompatible w/ Secs Recognition of Mrs Bellinger as female for the 8 & 12 is found by the European Court of Human purposes of Sec 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Rights in its Goodwin decision. YES forward primary legislation w/c will allow • Sec 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. of the opposite sex. much uncertainty surrounds the circumstances in w/c gender reassignment should CHURCHILL VS. birth certificates. etc) 1. the Lordships’ House. Some residents (German and British Consuls) find for the purposes of marriage is part of a wider it offensive. Questions of social policy & administrative feasibility arise at several points. status to transsexual people in their acquired gender. Mere “Regulation” under the Due Process Clause • Intervention by the courts would be peculiarly VERSUS “Taking” of Property via the Power of inappropriate when the change being sought in Eminent Domain the law raises issues such as the ff: • FIRST. circumstances. those parts • Sec 8: right to respect for private life.e areas such as educ. However. publicly available criteria by w/c gender Plaintiffs put up a billboard on private land in Rizal reassignment is to be assessed. in isolation from a decision on the like problem in other areas where a distinction is drawn bet’n ISSUE: people on the basis of gender (i. the ‘male’ & ‘female’ in that Act a novel. It’s property without due process of law in allowing CIR to deeply embedded as a relationship bet’n 2 persons remove it if it is offensive? of the opposite sex…There are those who urge that the special relationship of marriage should not RULE: now be confined to persons of the opposite sex .

treasurer violating Act 1147 As to the diminishment of power of the courts. his property amounting to an exercise of eminent blahblahblah (consti1). Other courts in RATIONALE: US hold the view that police power cannot interfere with private property rights for purely aesthetic purposes. Those noises and smells though ostensibly there is an adequate remedy. as such state must necessarily slaughterhouse. useless.S. Billboards are legitimate. It has increased the toll on life and affects public  By limiting the application of the statue to health. Billboard that cannot be seen by people are constitutional. FACTS: no law nor jurisprudence that says it is not allowed to sue  Luis Toribio slaughtered for human consumption after having paid the tax. The success of billboards lie not upon the use of are not dissociated from the general welfare of the public. Ads cover landscapes 2. W/N the statute is applicable only to slaughter done in maintenance of a healthy economic standard of society a municipal slaughterhouse and aka damnum absque injuria. comfort. It is said par 2 sec 56 Act municipal slaughterhouse except upon 136 confers original jurisdiction upon CFI to hear and permit secured from the municipal determine all civil actions but civil actions at that time had treasurer…” a well-defined meaning. State may interfere in public interest but by the government of the right of the person over not final. it's void. here industries. the o Act 1147. Police power has been expanding. eminent domain and police power. Once police power was reserved for common nuisances. What is more aesthetic than sight which the ad industry is wooing us with. There is.sec 100 of act 2339 gives power to the CIR to remove work or draft purposes. “No large cattle shall be Philippine courts never had the power to restrain the slaughtered or killed for food at the collection of taxes by injunction. taxation. Taxes.1. safety and morals.unsightly advertisements which are offensive to the sight etc. multiplicity of we were right the first time suits or a cloud upon title to real estate will injunction is an extraordinary remedy and not to be even offensive noises and smells coming from those used if there is an adequate remedy provided by law. If nothing can justify a carabaos without a permit amounting to a taking statute. State interferes with private property ISSUE: through.Writ of injunction by the courts is an extraordinary this court is of the opinion that unsightly advertisements preventive remedy. Court is final. Various industries have regulated and greatly impaired if not totally destroyed since these animals could now be slaughtered for . of course. signs. _Plaintiffs say that those sections are unconstitutional disposition: because by depriving taxpayers remedy. signboards after due  It is contended by Toribio that statute is applicable invstigation. Civil actions like municipal treasurer unless such animals injunction suits are of a special extraordinary character. and such is the usual course in a Carabao without a permit from the municipal bringing suits against illegal(?) taxes. Only under the last are the benefits derived from the 1. use of injunction and provides a remedy for any wrong. vs. TORIBIO insane number of suits enjoining the collection of taxes by tax avoiders. 30. was denied since animal was not found to be unfit for agricultural 2. The basic idea of civil polity in US domain without just compensation or an undue is gov't should interfere with individual effort only to the exercise of police power by the State. they are not garbage but can be offensive in certain circumstances. and act is general public. “No permit to slaughter defined the only action previously and that is the payment carabaos shall be granted by the of the tax under protest then suit. Pay it under protest. aesthetic reasons. offensive billboards. Sec. The question becomes is that a reasonable only to slaughter done in a municipal exercise of police power affecting the advertising industry? slaughterhouse and that the statute is Police power is reasonable insofar as it properly considers unconstitutional sine it penalizes the slaughter of public health. are unfit for agricultural work or for Section 139 also does not diminish power of the courts draft purposes…” because the power is still there if there is no adequate  Application of Toribio for a permit remedy available but sec 140 gives an adequate remedy. whether legal _motion for a rehearing_ or illegal. if the courts can do so then there will be an U. Sec. But 1. safety. their recovery by providing an elaborate and economic progress of the nation by controlling prices and compulsory system of branding and dictating to industrial workers wages and conditions of registration labor. therefore court may not do regulated for health reason are actually regulated for more so. etc. it also deprives judgment reversed them of property without due process of law and it diminishes the power of the courts_. The state will not function since taxes are not paid (and judges will become unpaid!). Now industry is  The statute seeks to protect the large cattle of organized along lines which make it possible for large the Philippines from theft and to make easy combinations of capital to profit at the expense of socio. 31. the purpose of the article is regulate industries. cannot be restrained by the courts by injunction. Practically. also general social and those done only in the municipal economic life of the nation. extent necessary to preserve a healthy social and economic condition of society. The legislature had already o Act 1147. Ordinary (adequate) remedies are in which are offensive to the sight are not dissociated from the law itself. There must be a further showing that there are special trent j: circumstances such as irreparable injury. Sections 139 and 140 of the Act forbids the the general welfare of the public. private property but on channels of travel used by the therefore can be regulated by police power.

human consumption without need of showing FACTS proof of ownership. and is therefore null and void. their former house having been destroyed by a and expedient. of the Municipality of Baao rule that such an undefined and unlimited delegation of Camarines Sur. Defendants reiterated their right to the enjoyment of their property or to request for a building permit. but the latter forwarded police power of the state: first. W/N the statute is unconstitutional issued. A first objection to the validity of the ordinance in question is that under it the mayor has absolute discretion to issue or deny a permit. Art. the general welfare affirmed the conviction. because they needed a place of residence them by the constitution. necessary for the WON the conviction was valid. like all other social and parcel of land registered in Fajardo's name. or to set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action.  Disease threatened the total extinction of carabaos in the Philippines resulting in famine On February 26. the regulation in question. and it is a settled No. 1954. No. is from the municipal mayor a building that destroys the invalid (People vs. Vera. filed a written request just restraint of injurious private use of with the incumbent municipal mayor for a permit to property  police power of the State. Municipal Ordinance No. standards are entirely lacking. as well as to demolish the statute building in question. for having constructed without a permit power to allow or prevent an activity. From this decision. The ordinance fails to state any policy. consumption anywhere without the permit obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor. reasonable restraints and regulations established by law. provided for in the Act. o Given these circumstances and Defendants appealed to the Court of First Instance. which conditions. No purpose to be attained by requiring the permit is expressed.00 for each repair permit 2. and second. Any person or persons who will construct or the slaughter of large cattle for human repair a building should. III. . A fee of not less than P2. per se lawful. but again the request was the rights of the community). Series of 1950 was beyond the authority of said municipality to enact. under Appellants proceeded with the construction of the building the governing and controlling power vested in without a permit. During the incumbency of defendant-appellant Juan F. located along conventional rights. are subject to such the national highway and separated from the public plaza reasonable limitations in their enjoyment as by a creek. 65 Phil) view of the public plaza.” typhoon and they had been living on leased property. construct a building adjacent to their gasoline station on a  “Rights of property.  Because of the statue the use and enjoyment of the owners over their cattle are in a way After the term of Fajardo as mayor had expired. the records to us because the appeal attacks the that the interests of those of a constitutionality of the ordinance in question. The ordinance thus confers Appeal from the decision of the CFI convicting Juan F. no conditions for its grant or refusal are PEOPLE vs. No. The conviction is reversed. cultivate the fields. appellant Babilonia. upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted power to grant Fajardo and Pedro Babilonia of a violation of Ordinance or deny the issuance of building permits.00 should be charged for each building permit and P1. 7. as the legislature. particular class require such interference.  Statute should be construed so as to give Fajardo as mayor of the municipality of Baao. he and his impaired… therefore it is not a taking but a son-in-law. (as a Consti. Camarines Sur. accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly HOLDING oppressive upon individuals. for the reason among shall prevent them from being injurious (to the others that the proposed building would destroy the view equal enjoyment of others having an equal or beauty of the public plaza. 7. sec 9 consequence of the first issue) Private property shall not be taken for public use without RATIO just compensation. the accused  To justify the exercise of appealed to the Court of Appeals. before constructing or repairing. and said accused are acquitted. It is not merely a case of deficient standards. 2. The appealed conviction can not stand.  Statute therefore prohibits and penalizes "SECTION 1. The request was denied. 1. the municipal council passed the ordinance in and promote the object for which the statue question providing as follows: was enacted. may thing necessary very badly. FAJARDO enumerated. Series of 1950. for violation of the ordinance in question. Camarines effect to the manifest intent of the lawmaker Sur. that ISSUE the means are reasonably WON the assailed municipal ordinance was valid. and sentenced appellants to pay a necessitated the enactment of the fine of P35 each and the costs. SEC. appellants were charged before and from the insufficiency of work animals to convicted by the justice of the peace court of Baao. and to such turned down by the mayor.

reverse. modify or appellants just compensation and an opportunity to be affirm in certiorari. Even thus age. of the means that the resolution of such cases may be Revised Administrative Code. and ordinance was not conceived and promulgated under the which may be exercised in the interest of a favored few. may provide” final judgments and orders of lower courts in. * * * promulgating anew rule instead of merely To establish fire limits in populous centers. every structure that may be erected impartial court as guaranteed by due process on appellants' land. and amounts to a taking of age. tribunal. it oversteps the amendment: no carabao. 1984 which may be regulated in the interest of the general welfare. But while property boat from masbate to Iloilo on Jan 13. prescribe the implementing an existing law. hence. 580). Marcos. The the power of the municipal council to require the issuance of danger of such an ordinance is that it makes possible building permits rests upon its first establishing fire limits in arbitrary discriminations and abuses in its execution. the same privileges under the same circumstances. other than the unregulated arbitrary will of the city As there is absolutely no showing in this case that the authorities as the touchstone by which its validity is to be municipal council had either established fire limits within tested. and in fact. The fees collected under the uncontrolled power to capriciously grant the privilege to provisions of this subsection shall accrue to the municipal some and deny it to others. however. to refuse the application of one school fund. the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive. stands • This court has declared that while lower courts condemned under the ordinance in question. buildings that may be constructed or repaired within them. 32 Phil. be constrained to prevented from resolving the same whenever let their land remain idle and unused for the obvious warranted. Despite such orders. subject only to review by the highest purpose for which it is best suited. being urban in character. Fundamental rights under our government do not the municipality or set standards for the kind or kinds of depend for their existence upon such a slender and buildings to be constructed or repaired within them before it uncertain thread. permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their • Petitioner’s claim is that the penalty is invalid property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve because it is imposed without according the owner or assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. in that it operates to permanently deprive appellants of the Therefore. beautification of neighborhoods as conducive to the • Petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump comfort and happiness of residents.The ordinance in question in no way controls or guides the thereof. 2243. Certain legislative powers of discretionary constitutionality of a law when it is questioned character. Ordinances which thus invest a city passed the ordinance in question. This section made in the 1st instance by these lower courts provides: • Courts should not follow the path of least resistance by simply presuming the SEC. (c). The appellants would. We do not and no carabeef shall be transported from overlook that the modern tendency is to regard the one province to another. and were cxonfiscated in its pursuit. sex. It prescribes municipal council and which shall not be less than two no uniform rule upon which the special permission of the pesos for each building permit and one peso for each city is to be granted. violators still interpreted. they are nonetheless not highway. among others. discretionary powers: executive order but it is really a pres decree. The validity of the ordinance in question was justified constitutionality of certain measures. I. 626-A which provides: Baao to issue a building permit to the appellant was o The Pres has given orders prohibiting the predicated on the ground that the proposed building would interprovincial movement of carabaos and "destroy the view of the public plaza" by preventing its the slaughtering of carabaos of a certain being seen from the public highway. that the mayor can refuse a permit solely in case that the proposed building FACTS: "destroys the view of the public plaza or occupies any • Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of EO public property". Thus the city is clothed with the repair permit issued. when for all material purposes. the refusal of the Mayor of NO. the State may prohibit structures offensive • The RTC sustained the confiscation to the sight (Churchill and Tait vs. YNOT vs. As a right to be heard before a competent and the case now stands. Issued not for kinds of buildings that may be constructed or repaired taking care that the laws are faithfully executed within them. • So did the appellate court the State may not." landowner or lessee and to grant that of another. as amended. revise. the municipality must give constitution to “review. promulgate the ff right to use their own property. are express authority of sec. manage to circumvent the prohibition. it is clear that said council with a discretion which is purely arbitrary. because it should observe a becoming modesty in examining would interfere with the view of the public plaza from the constitutional questions. The ordinance should have established a rule by which its impartial enforcement could be secured. We have jurisdiction under the To legally achieve that result. Rafferty. 2243 (c) aforequoted. all cases involving the 2. This simply by the court below under section 2243. regardless of bounds of police power. physical condition or purpose appellants property without just compensation.-The municipal council shall have authority to • The challenged measure is denominated as an exercise the following. CA It is contended. as the law or rules of court heard. par. populous parts of the town and prescribing the kinds of depending upon no conditions or qualifications whatever. in effect. under the guise of police power. and issue permits for till creation or repair but in the exercise of legislative authority . charging a fee which shall be determined by the discretion vested thereby in the respondents. unreasonable and invalid. on the other hand. the two are applying for precisely Under the provisions of the section above quoted. regardless of its own beauty.

Claims found the facts of the case to constitute a taking of The concept of “taking” has been given a sweeping property and rewarded appellees with $2. Said property was close to and glare of planes. vs. 626-A 2. In 1948. • The EO defined the prohibition. whether temporary or permanent. and that there was no physical complying with their 24-month notice agreement. it’s an invalid more is needed to determine US liability. • It may not be dispensed with except in the interest Furthermore. rather than the flying of the planes the municipal airport leased by the government. made invasion or taking of property. the definition of “property” under the of public health and public morals Fifth Amendment contains a meaning supplied by • Police power was invoked by the govt to justify EO local law – as in the case of North Carolina Law. which outlines that the US had complete Sometime in 1933. Also. the Bureau of unfavorable view of the application of the common Telecommunications set up a Government telephone law doctrine. Later. which constitutes taking. respondent PLDT contracted and exclusive national sovereignty in air space. However. the value of the land was not completely • Court held that as to the 1st EO. The question of WON there has been a taking property is a claim within the • EO 626-A=unconstitutional constitutionally-granted jurisdiction of the Court • of Claims. • Invalid exercise of police power. The appellee’s Aeronautics Authority (CAA) designated the safe path to claims are at best an action in tort (nuisance. as it would be an obstacle to a better- 1.. the delegation of powers amount stated as damages is not proper. PLDT 1. that determines WON property was taken. PLDT. dissenting: Respondents are owners of 2. WON awarding of damages is reasonable 3. and landing). Due process is 3. (reasonably necessary) but not so with the EO Thus. No. the Court ruled known its termination of the agreement. The Court of at bar. compatible with the new field of air regulation. the Bureau statute. The Government cannot be sued in appellees. PLDT then respondent’s domain. Thus. vital system of national progress. WON Court of Claims is with jurisdiction HELD. The damages In 1958. convicted the These deficiencies in evidentiary findings are not petitioner. connecting calls coming and going the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by from RCA to the Philippines and vice versa. adapt easily to every situation. Case remanded U. an agreement with the American company. this the CAA. While appellant contend that the flight is agreement extended to radio and telephone messages to well within the minimum safe altitude (take-off and from European and Asiatic countries. There is no contract involved in the case property under the FIFTH AMENDMENT. appellees are only entitled to a lower value 626-A bec it imposes an absolute ban not on the given the limited utility of the land. and not the amount of damage resulting. Yes. The Civil themselves. The finding of which was carried out forthright. of natl meat inspection may see fit. The damages should not be elevated to the level of the ISSUES: Constitution. WON appellee’s property was taken as provided for adapted. chicken farm entitles petitioners to compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In doing so. WHEREFORE. US Congress enacted the Air Commerce Act of 1926 (as amended by Civil Aeronautics Act of FACTS: 1930). CAUSBY to the Court of Claims for evidentiary hearing. rectified by a statement of opinion. RCA The Act deemed navigable air space as that above Communications Inc. In 1956.000 as value of meaning. and immediately imposed punishment. it can still be used for other purposes. North Carolina. The Court of Claims’ finding of donated to charitable institutions as the chairman permanence is more conjectural than factual. • Due process clause. the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss. the Bureau entered into an agreement sustained were a product of a direct invasion of with RCA for a joint overseas telephone service. it was ok destroyed. The path of glide Bureau has agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of as defined by the appellant is not within the PLDT.intentionally vague. The measure of value is not the System by renting trunk lines from PLDT. which came to that rendering lands unusable for purposes of a pass in 1958. much space above ground as he can occupy in connection with his use of the land. It is the character of . The old concept of land ownership must be made the easement. the Court of Claims has clear jurisdiction over violated.8-acre farm outside The Court’s opinion seems to be that it is the noise of Greensboro. the judgment is reversed. RATIO: REPUBLIC vs. there slaughter of carabao but on their movement is no precise description of the nature of the • Unlike in the toribio case. statute glide to one of the airport runways over the property of violation. as it also facts on every material matter is a statutory provides that confiscated carabaos shall be requirement. They contend that the noise and glare from the Court of Claims unless over matters of implied or airplaines landing and taking off constituted a taking of express contracts. meant to invasion. negligence). the Fifth Amendment 2. Yes. despite the Court’s Created in 1947. here there is no trial easement taken. Land owners are entitled to at least as extended service to the general public. And an invalid delegation of powers the matter. which includes the prohibition for public use that meaning of minimum safe altitude of flight in the which was furnished for private use.S. FACTS: Justice Black.

complained that the Bureau was violating their agreement However, while the RP may not compel an
as the latter was using PLDT’s trunk lines for public use agreement, it may require PLDT to permit
and not just private. PLDT then gave notice that if these interconnection between it and the government, as
activities continued, they would disconnect service. When an exercise of eminent domain. While said power
no reply was received, OLDT pulled the plug on the usually pertains to title, the court here said that
Bureau, causing an isolation of the RP from the rest of the the power may be used to impose a burden on the
world, except the US. owner, without having to relinquish the ownership
and title. Also, the State should be able to require
The Bureau proposed an interconnecting a public utility to render services in the general
agreement, but as negotiations wore on, neither party interest. In this case, the general public would be
could come to a compromise. the ones who will profit from an interconnection.
2) PLDT contends that the court had no jurisdiction,
Petitioner Bureau of Telecommunications is and the proper body is the Public Service
prayed for a judgment commanding PLDT to execute an Commission. The court here stated, however, that
agreement, allowing the Bureau to use PLDT’s facilities, as the latter has no jurisdiction over the taking of
well as a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain property under the power of eminent domain.
respondent from severing existing connections as well as Also, while PLDT is a public utility, and its
restoring those already severed. franchise and properties are under the jurisdiction
of the Public Service Commission, the Bureau’s
While the lower court directed respondent to telecommunications network is a public service
reconnect the severed lines and refrain from disconnecting owned by the RP and is therefore exempt from
more, as well as to accept incoming international calls, such jurisdiction (sec. 14 Public Service Act).
PLDT filed its answer denying any obligation it has to the 3) EO 94 sec. 79 empowers the Bureau to b)
Bureau, as well as assailing the jurisdiction of the Court of negotiate for, operate and maintain wire telephone
First Instance. PLDT also claimed that the Bureau was or radio telephone communication service
engaging in commercial telephone operations, which was throughout the Philippines c) to prescribe, subject
in excess of its authority. to approval by the Department Head, equitable
rates of charges for messages handled by the
The court then said that it could not compel the system and/or for time calls and other services
parties to enter into agreement, that under EO 94, that may be rendered by the system.
establishing the Bureau, said Bureau is not limited to
government services, nor was it guilty of fraud, abuse, or Nothing precludes the Bureau from engaging in
misuse of PLDT’s poles, as well as declared the injunction commercial activities or prevents it from serving
permanent. The complaint and counterclaims, however, the general public. While in the agreement, the
were dismissed. Hence this appeal. Bureau limited itself to government services, the
court said that this does not bar it from future
ISSUES: expansion into commercial services, as this is
allowed by law.
1) Whether or not the trial court can coerce the
parties to enter into agreement. 4) The competition assailed here is merely
2) Whether the court of first instance had hypothetical. This is shown by the figures. At the
jurisdiction. time of filing the proceedings, PLDT still had
20,000 applications pending, and the Bureau had
3) Whether the Bureau of Telecommunications is 5,000. There can be no competition when PLDT
empowered to engage in commercial telephone cannot even handle the demands of the public.
business. Also, the charter of PLDT provides that its rights
are not exclusive. Lastly, the court said that the
acceptance of PLDT of payments for rentals
4) Whether these commercial services created unfair implies knowledge of the Bureau’s intentions to
competition, and the Bureau is subsequently enter into commercial services. As the relationship
guilty of fraud and abuse. has been around for awhile and the public has
utilized both services, it is too late for PLDT to
5) Whether PLDT has a right to compensation for the claim misuse of its facilities.
use of the Bureau of PLDT’s poles. 5) PLDT claims that the use of the poles are free only
for telegraphic services, as the telephone services
HELD: did not exist yet at the time of the franchise. Also
1) No the trial court may not. alleged is that the Bureau must pay for the use of
2) Yes, the trial court had jurisdiction over the case. the poles, as well as if the latter attaches more
3) Yes, the Bureau is empowered to engage in than one ten-pin crossarm for telegraphic
commercial telephone business. purposes. However, the court said that there is no
4) No, these services did not create any unfair proof of any strain caused by the telephone wires,
competition. nor of any damage caused, nor that the RP has
5) No, PLDT has no right to compensation. attached more than one ten-pin crossarm. They
reasoned that so long as there is no additional
RATIO: burden, the reservation in favor of the telegraphic
wires should extend to the telephone wires.
1) The court here stated that contracts and
agreements must be made freely and not tainted
by violence, intimidation, or undue influence.

1. WON the lower court erred holding that the taking
REPUBLIC vs. CASTELVI of the properties commenced with the filling of the
FACTS: 2. WON the lower court erred in finding the price of
P10/sq.m. of the lands.
1. Republic (Philippine Air Force) occupied Castellvi’s
land on July 1, 1947, by virtue of a contract of
lease, on a year to year basis.. DECISION:
2. Before the expiration of the contract of lease in
1956, the Republic sought to renew the contract Issue #1.
but Castellvi refused.
3. The AFP refused to vacate the land. Castellvi wrote The trial court is correct in ruling that the “taking”
to the AFP Chief of Staff informing him that the of the land started only with the filing of the complaint for
heirs of the property had decided to subdivide the eminent domain in 1959 and not in 1947 (start of the
land for sale to the general public. contract of lease).
4. The Chief of Staff answered that it was difficult for
the AFP to vacate in view of the permanent 1. Two essential elements in the “taking’ of the
installations erected and that the acquisition of the property were not present when the Republic
property by expropriation proceedings would be the entered and occupied the property in 1947.
only option. a) that the entrance and occupation must be
5. Castellvi brought a suit to eject the Phil. Air Force for a permanent, or indefinite period
from the land. While the suit was pending, the b) that in devoting the property to public use
Republic of the Phil. filed a complaint for eminent the owner was ousted from the property
domain against Vda. De Castellvi and Toledo- and deprived of its financial use.
Gozun over parcels of land owned by the two. 2. The right of eminent domain may not be
6. Trial Court issued an order fixing the provisional exercised by simply leasing the premises to be
value of lands at P259, 669 expropriated. Nor can it be accepted that the
7. Castellvi filed a Motion to Dismiss for the following Republic would enter into a contract of lease
reasons: where its real intention was to buy.
3. To sustain the contention of the Republic
a) the total value of the parcels land should would result in a practice wherein the
have been valued at P15/sq.m. because Republic would just lease the land for many
these are residential lands. years then expropriate the land when the lease
b) the Republic (through the Philippine Air is about to terminate, then claim that the
Force), despite repeated demands had “taking” of the property be considered as of the
been illegally occupying the property since date when the Gov’t started to occupy the
July 1, 1956. land, in spite of the fact that the value of the
property had increased during the period of
The defendants prayed that the complaint be the lease. This would be sanctioning what
dismissed OR that the Republic be ordered to pay obviously is a defective scheme, which
P15/ sq. m. plus interest at 6% per annum from would have the effect of depriving the
July 1, 1956 AND the Republic be ordered to pay 5 owner of the property of its true and fair
million as unrealized profits. value at the time when the expropriation
proceedings were actually instituted in
Gozun (co-defendant and owner of another parcel court.
of land) also filed a Motion to Dismiss because her
lands should have been valued at P15/sq.m. as Issue # 2
these were residential and a portion had already
been subdivided into diff. Lots for sale to the The price of P10/sq.m. is quite high. The Supreme
general public. Court fixed it at P5/sq.m.

8. After the Republic had deposited the provisional 1. There is evidence that the lands in question
value of the land, it was actually placed in the had ceased to be devoted to the production of
actual possessions of the lands. (1959) agricultural crops, that they had become
9. The Commissioners appointed to determine the adaptable for residential purposes, and that
value of the land recommended that the lowest the defendants had actually taken steps to
price that should be paid was P10/sq.m. The trial convert their lands into residential
court accepted the recommendation. subdivisions even before the Republic filed the
10. 1961 – Republic filed a motion for a new trial upon complaint for eminent domain.
the grounds of newly-discovered evidence but was 2. In expropriation proceedings, the owner of the
denied by the court. A series of appeals and land has the right to its value for the use for
counter appeals followed. which it would bring the most in the market.
11. Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court. 3. The Court has weighed all the circumstances
(such as the prevailing price of the land in
Pampanga in 1959) and in fixing the price of
Important Issues: the lands the Court arrived at a happy
medium between the price as recommended
by the commissioners and approved by the

lower court (P10) and the price advocated by Jupiter Street lies as the boundary between Bel-Air Village
the Republic (20 centavos /sq.m.) and Ayala Corporation's commercial section. And since
1957, it had been considered as a boundary — not as a
part of either the residential or commercial zones of Ayala
Corporation's real estate development projects. Hence, it
cannot be said to have been "for the exclusive benefit" of
BEL-AIR ASSOCIATION vs. IAC Bel-Air Village residents.

Ponente: J. Sarmiento As a consequence, Jupiter Street was intended for the use
by both the commercial and residential blocks. It was not
FACTS: originally constructed, therefore, for the exclusive use of
Before the Court are five consolidated petitions, docketed either block, least of all the residents of Bel-Air Village,
as G.R. Nos. 71169, 74376, 76394, 78182, and 82281 in but, we repeat, in favor of both, as distinguished from the
the nature of appeals from five decisions of the Court of general public.
Appeals, denying specific performance and damages. This
case stems from a provision regarding restrictions found in 2. When the wall was erected in 1966 and rebuilt twice, in
the deed of sale granted to Bel-Air homeowners. Included 1970 and 1972, it was not for the purpose of physically
in the said deed was a restriction (sec II, b) which limited separating the two blocks. According to Ayala Corporation,
use of lots for residential purposes only. In the 1960’s it was put up to enable the Bel-Air Village Association
Ayala Corp. began developing the area bordering Bel-Air "better control of the security in the area" and as the
along Buendia Ave and Jupiter St. With the opening of the Ayala Corporation's "show of goodwill,"
entire length of Jupiter Street to public traffic in the In fine, we cannot hold the Ayala Corporation liable for
1970’s, the different residential lots located in the northern damages for a commitment it did not make, much less for
side of Jupiter Street the ceased to be used for purely alleged resort to machinations in evading it. The records,
residential purposes. The municipal government of Makati on the contrary, will show that the Bel-Air Village
and Ministry of Human Settlements declared that the said Association had been informed, at the very outset, about
areas, for all purposes, had become commercial in the impending use of Jupiter Street by commercial lot
character. buyers.

Subsequently, on October 29, 1979, the plaintiffs- It is not that we are saying that restrictive easements,
appellees Jose D. Sangalang and Lutgarda D. Sangalang especially the easements herein in question, are invalid or
brought the present action for damages against the ineffective. But they are, like all contracts, subject to the
defendant-appellant Ayala Corporation predicated on both overriding demands, needs, and interests of the greater
breach of contract and on tort or quasi-delict. They were number as the State may determine in the legitimate
joined in separate suits by other homeowners and the Bel- exercise of police power. Our jurisdiction guarantees
Air Village Association (BAVA) against other commercial sanctity of contract and is said to be the "law between the
establishments set up in the vicinity of the village. After contracting parties," but while it is so, it cannot
trial on the merits, the then Court of First Instance of contravene "law, morals, good customs, public order, or
Rizal, Pasig, Metro Manila, rendered a decision in favor of public policy." Above all, it cannot be raised as a deterrent
the appellees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered to police power, designed precisely to promote health,
a reversal safety, peace, and enhance the common good, at the
expense of contractual rights, whenever necessary.
Undoubtedly, the MMC Ordinance represents a legitimate
1. Did the Bel-Air residents who converted their residences exercise of police power. The petitioners have not shown
into commercial establishments violate the restrictions why we should hold otherwise other than for the supposed
found the deed of sale? NO "non-impairment" guaranty of the Constitution, which, as
we have declared, is secondary to the more compelling
2. Is Ayala Corporation (formerly Makati Development interests of general welfare. The Ordinance has not been
Corporation), liable for tearing down the perimeter wall shown to be capricious or arbitrary or unreasonable to
along Jupiter Street that had separated its commercial warrant the reversal of the judgments so appealed.
section from the residences of Bel-Air Village and ushering
in, as a consequence, the full "commercialization" of
Jupiter St, in violation of the very restrictions it had
(April 29, 1987)
RATIO: Ponente: J. Gutierrez, Jr.

1. Insofar as these petitions are concerned, the court FACTS:
exculpated the private respondents, not only because of • Jan 15, 1979: Pres Marcos issued PD 1811, reserving
the fact that Jupiter Street is not covered by the restrictive a certain parcel of land in Mactan, Cebu for the
easements based on the "deed restrictions" but chiefly establishment of an export processing zone by
because the National Government itself, through the Metro petitioner Export Processing Zone Authority. However,
Manila Commission (MMC), had reclassified Jupiter Street not all reserved areas were public lands. So petitioner
into a "high density commercial (C-3) zone," pursuant to offered to purchase the parcels of land in accordance
its Ordinance No. 81-01. Hence, the petitioners have no with the valuation set forth in Sec 92 of PD 464.
cause of action on the strength alone of the said "deed Despite this, the parties failed to reach an agreement
restrictions." regarding the sale of the properties.

• Petitioner filed with the CFI of Cebu a complaint for would be nothing short of a mere formality or charade
expropriation with a prayer for the issuance of a writ as the court has only to choose between the 2
of possession, pursuant to PD 66, which empowers the valuations; it cannot exercise its discretion or
petitioner to acquire by condemnation proceedings any independence in determining what is just or fair.
property for the establishment of export processing  The ruling is that, the owner of property expropriated
zones. is entitled to recover from expropriating authority the
• Feb 17, 1981: respondent judge issued the order of fair and full value of the lot, as of the time when
condemnation declaring petitioner as having the lawful possession thereof was actually taken, plus
right to take the properties sought to be condemned. A consequential damages. If the Court’s authority to
second order was issued, appointing certain persons determine just compensation is limited, it may
as commissioners to ascertain and report the just result in the deprivation of the landowner’s right of
compensation for the properties sought to be due process to enable it to prove its claim to just
expropriated. compensation, as mandated by the Consti. The
• June 19: the 3 appointed commissioners valuation in the decree may only serve as a guiding
recommended that P15/sq.m. was the fair and principle or one of the factors in determining just
reasonable value of just compensation for the compensation but it may not substitute the court’s
properties own judgment as to what amount should be awarded
• July 29: petitioner filed Motion for Recon on the and how to arrive at such amount.
ground that PD 1533 has superseded Secs. 5-8 of  In the case, the tax declarations presented by the
Rule 67 or the Rules of Court on the ascertainment petitioner as basis for just compensation was made
of just compensation through commissioners. MFR long before martial law, when land was not only much
was denied by the trial court. cheaper, but when assessed values of properties were
stated in figures that were only a fraction of their true
ISSUE/HELD: market value. To peg the value of the lots on the basis
WON PD’s 76, 464, 794 and 1533 have repealed and of outdated documents and at prices below the
superseded Sec 5 to 8 of Rule 67 of the Revised Rules acquisition cost of present owners would be arbitrary
of Court, such that in determining the just compensation and confiscatory.
of property in an expropriation case, the only basis should Guidelines in determining just compensation
be its market value as declared by the owner or as • Determination of “just compensation” in eminent
determined by its assessor, whichever is lower  NO domain cases is a judicial function.
• The exec or leg depts. may make the initial
determinations; but when a party claims a violation of
RATIO: the guarantee in the Bill of Rights, no statute, decree,
Just compensation or EO can mandate that its own determination shall
• The equivalent for the value of the property at the prevail over the court’s findings. Much less can the
time of its taking. courts be precluded from looking into the “just-ness”
• A fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained, of the decreed compensation.
which is the measure of the indemnity, not
whatever gains would accrue to the expropriating Held: PD 1533 (and the other PDs which it amended) is
entity. unconstitutional and void.
• In estimating the market value, all the capabilities
of the property and all the uses to which it may be
applied or for which it is adapted are to be
NPC vs. CA
considered and not merely the condition it is in at
the time nor the use to which it is them applied by
the owner. Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the
• This court may substitute its own estimate of the Court of Appeals, entitled National Power Corporation,
value as gathered from the record. Plaintiff-Appellant,v B.E. San Diego, Inc.
• All the facts as to the condition of the property and
its surroundings, its improvements and FACTS:
capabilities, should be considered. National Power Corporation (NPC, for short), commenced
 In this case, the decrees categorically and peremptorily negotiations with spouses Esteban Sadang and Maria
limit the definition of just compensation. Lachica, for the purchase of a portion of 8,746 sq. ms. of
 Recurrent phrase in the assailed PD’s: the latter's parcel of land of 62,285 sq. ms., situated in
“…the basis (for just compensation) shall be the Barrio San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan, for the purpose of
current and fair market value declared by the owner or constructing an access road to its Angat River
anyone having legal interest in the property or Hydroelectric Project. Although the negotiations were not
administrator, or such market value as determined by yet concluded, NPC nevertheless obtained permission from
the assessor, whichever is lower.” said spouses to begin construction of the access road,
 The method of ascertaining just compensation under which it did in November 1961.
the decrees constitutes impermissible encroachment
on judicial prerogatives. It tends to render this Court However, on December 7, 1962, B.E. San Diego, Inc. a
inutile in a matter which, under the Consti, is reserved realty firm and private respondent herein (SAN DIEGO, for
to it for final determination. Following the decrees, its short), acquired the parcel of land at a public auction sale
task would be relegated to simply stating the lower and was issued a title.
value of the property as declared either by the owner
or the assessor. Hence, it would be useless for the CFI Decision
court to appoint commissioners under Rule 67 of the
Rules of Court. The strict application of the decrees

ISSUE: Republic vs. which accord with the settled rule that in determining rendered a Decision on December 24.00 per square meter as just compensation for the portion of land sought to be After a review of the records. The Trial Court then rendered a Decision: "Defendant further maintains that because the access road was not constructed in a straight line. explanation has been offered for such neglect. in such cases." aside. "Needless to state. for the purpose set forth. if any. 'the CA Decision property was agricultural in use as well as for taxation purposes.00 per square meter compensation to be paid for the property sought. 1969.00 as full indemnity for the property at Code) by having constructed the road in a straight the rate of P3." On the contrary. and the Decision of the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan authorizing payment of P31.75 per square meter is that at the time of actual occupancy by the plaintiff. 85. at "It is noted that the only basis of the court a quo plaintiff's expense. d) Ordering the registration of this Act of Expropriation. to which due course was given. In Yes. with leave of Court. consisting of 8.00 as full (2) SAN DIEGO’s contention that the location and indemnity for the property at the rate of P3. Venturanza. 1980. Civil amount of P31. that the just and reasonable compensation for the viewed not merely as to the uses to which it is at property in question is P7. thus cause the least prejudice to the defendant. supra. respondent CFI reasoned thus: thoroughfare should provide a marked improvement to . with the Register of Deeds of Bulacan in assessing the just compensation of the property at the back of defendant's title to the whole property. Corrales. what is Reconsideration having been denied. it was described as "cogonales. The inquiry.M. the prevailing Commissioners. and no improvements therein is entered. which was only accessible by (6%) per annum on the amount adjudged from December carabao-drawn sledge during the rainy season. as was the belief of respondent Court of Appeals.75 per square direction of the access road is burdensome is not borne meter is reinstated. decreeing: the value of the land appropriated for public "Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances purposes. NPC instituted proceedings for "It has been amply shown that the defendant eminent domain against the spouses Sadang in the Court purchased the land for the purpose of converting of First Instance of Bulacan. the same into a first class residential subdivision. 98). it is our considered view be not what the property is worth in the market. 7. subdivision 'futile. 1963.922. NPC availed of the its worth from its availability for valuable uses?' present recourse. the Trial Court observed that "the On the other hand. 1963 until fully paid. 1962. that is to say.00 per square meter. c) A final Order of Condemnation over the property and Plaintiff failed to observe this rule. Montano Realty. and approval for several reasons: (2) in not reducing the rate of interest payable by NPC from twelve (12%) per cent to six (6%) per cent per annum. The judgment of respondent Appellate Court is set fact. at the time of taking by NPC in 1961. out by the evidence. we are of the considered expropriated based on its planned convertibility into a opinion that the findings of the Trial Court merit our residential subdivision. (1) Both documentary and oral evidence indicate that the land in question. consequential damage to speak of' FIRST ISSUE thus becomes readily tenable.” the time applied. to receive the evidence and determine the just defendant's land was P20. This rendered portion of the land referred to in Paragraphs 4 and 9 of the the owner's plan of converting the land into a Amended Complaint.746 square meters. 650. WON respondent Court of Appeals erred 327).” free from all liens and encumbrances.75 a square meter is and represents "prevented from carrying out the plan of converting the fair market value the property into a housing subdivision.' access road of the plaintiff to its Angat River Hydroelectric Project. It has DIEGO did not appeal from the Appellate Court judgment also been held 'that the owner has a right to its although it filed a Brief. P3. et al. but with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adopted. 32 Phil.922. The Report of the Commissioner of the Court revealed that NPC merely improved a pre-existing Yes. 1963. must always obtaining in the present case. (3) The finding of the Trial Court that "there is Ratio negligible. value for the use for which it would bring the most in the market' (City of Manila vs. But such posture is hardly in Both parties appealed to the then Court of Appeals. later amended on June 20. at the price of P3. Corrales. On Evidence has also been adduced to show that.On February 14.75 per square meter. a) Declaring to plaintiff the full and legal right to acquire the property was unnecessarily divided into three by eminent domain the absolute ownership over the separate and irregular segments. All considered. (1) in fixing the amount of P7. one for each of the parties and another for market price of residential lots in the vicinity of the Court. Petitioner is directed to pay interest at six per cent mining road on the premises. SAN DIEGO was not. 17 SCRA 322. and per annum from March 11. HOLDING: was agricultural in use as well as for taxation purposes. the Trial Court appointed two appraised by C. until fully paid. with interest at 12% fine in order to cover the shortest distance. SAN (City of Manila vs. as March 19. plaintiff should have given heed b) Authorizing the payment by plaintiff to defendant of the to the above legal prescription (Art. to implead SAN DIEGO.

& tasked the Human Settlements Commission to (5) And most importantly. which respondent Court FACTS: observed as the just compensation awarded in two civil There was a plan extending EDSA to Roxas Blvd that suits for lands condemned in the immediate vicinity. The case of Manila Electric Co. Branch 3 of Pasay City. meter. the change from the original plan of Cuneta Ave to the In addition. Marcos asking him to order the Ministry of Public Works to proceed with the original plan.4 has categorically ruled that it is the time of 2. with Pres. court did not exceed jurisdiction since the Republic entitled thereto in the form of legal interest on the complied with all the statutory requirements for it to have price of the land from the time it was taken up to immediate possesion of the property.00 per square meter. the basis should be the price or value at Rein & Del Pan Sts.00 to P15. a. Despite this the MPH insisted on due compensation for lands appropriated by the implementing the route which passed through Fernando Government. Complaint was filed only in 1963. to our minds. of Sagay vs.000. offered under the Social Justice Clause to part with the property at P4. fixed by the trial court after hearing. occupied for generations" and not only to the motel we held in Amigable vs. (10/30/1980) the property was mortgaged to the Development Bank Fernandez. After formal hearings the HSC compensation.16 per square meter.00. filed motion to dismiss. 43 SCRA 360 (1972). the amount of which should be would be adversely affected by the change were notified. 1962. defendant (private respondent). 2. However. the 1. the original consideration for the extension is that it would travel in a straight line. The present petition." Gov't in changing the proposed route did not intend to do so for the protection of the motels but to minimize the In the case at bar. legal interest should accrue from social impact factor as more people would be affected if the December 7. equal protection of the law was not accorded to the "taking" as to it should commence only from said date. owners of Cuneta Ave. petitioner's was "cogonal" at the time NPC constructed its access property being amongst those that will be affected by the road in 1961. is not issuing the writ of possesion because petitioner raised a controlling. that: Respondents: " AS regards the claim for damages. interim and was issued a title only on December 7. Previous to that.the flourishing housing subdivision managed by DIEGO is concerned. would pass thru Cuneta Ave. Cuenca. 60 constitutional question that the court must first resolve Phil. the price that SAN DIEGO stresses the property should command. or in 1957. J. NPC also presented contrary change in the plan. it is now settled doctrine. Petitioner by the Government. on the issue of just investigate the matter. and specially considering that the property Pan Sts. on the In the case at bar.00.285 square meters at public auction for P10. Marcos SECOND ISSUE then ordered the head of the MPH Baltazar Aquino to explain. the choice of Fernando Rein-Del Pan Sts arbitrary and taking and not as "potential building" site that is the capricious for : determining factor. or at DE KNECHT vs. vs. by way of second mortgage. which are lined with old houses. the Sadang spouses. b.05 and P. Moreover. of the Philippines for P20. the plan was cannot be a fair gauge since said Court neither adopted changed from that proposed route to Fernando Rein & Del the same. but the new route Since SAN DIEGO bought the land in question in the detours to the north first before heading south. for NATURE: For Certiorari & Prohibition on the Order of the P30. Tuason. the plaintiff is 1. Petitioner: The convertibility of the property into a subdivision. following the recommended that the planned extension be reverted to its leading case of Alfonso vs. BAUTISTA P0. the taking by NPC occurred in ground that the payment for the expropriated properties November 1961.00 per sq. cited in Municipal Govt. The owners of the properties along evidence indicating prices of P. the time that payment is made by the government. Pasay. Those who attorneys fees. a fair market “Takings” under Eminent Domain VERSUS “Takings” value. when it constructed the access road on had already been made with the PNB. 663. 1962. SAN DIEGO had purchased the entire property of 62. respondent court lacked or exceeded its jurisdiction in criterion relied upon by respondent Court. at six per cent (6%) per annum. It is this that is being assailed in the "cogonal" and owned by the spouses Sadang. Pasay The price of P12. is not. gov't filed expropriation the time it was taken from the owner and appropriated proceedings in the CFI. Respondent Judge the expropriated property at time when it was still Bautista granted writ.000. 668.06 per square Fernando-Del Pan filed on April 1977 a formal petition meter at around the time it had entered the property.2 that to determine original route. CFI. the government should pay for Del Pan route was not sudden or capricious. before it can issue an order to take possesion Jison." up to the time that payment is made by NPC (4) The appraisal by a realty firm of P20. the time of taking as far as SAN original plan had pushed thru as opposed to a smaller number of homeowners in the second route . In Feb 1979. In June 1979 the Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of possesion.000. the petitioner who is one of the "owners of solid & substantial homes & quality residential lands On the issue of legal interest in expropriation proceedings.00. The former owners.00 and subsequently in 1958 to SAN DIEGO.

prematureness of the "choice of the Fernando Rain-Del Pan streets as the complaint and arbitrary and erroneous valuation line through which the EDSA should be extended to of the properties. The Court held in JM dismiss said case due to the enactment of the Batas Tuason v LTA that "a landowner is covered by the mantle Pambansa Blg. Thus.. Republic cs. is the antithesis of any govermental act that dismissal by reason of the enactment of the law. instant case. the choice of Fernando Rein-Del Pan was arbitrary and hence should not recieve RATIO: judicial approval.P. Such against the order of the lower. Bautista. 3) that the HSC report has subsequent legislation for expropriation. • As early as 1977 the gov’t. Francisco Elizalde and Antonio Roxas moved to dismiss the expropriation action in Held: YES compliance with the dispositive portion of the The power of emminent domain is unesquestioned as it is previous decision of the SC. of jurisdiction. pendency of appeal with the • The decision in De Knecht vs. and o completing the Manila Flood and Control and • Philippines filed in the CFI an expropriation Drainage Project. GANCAYCO. In the approval. recommended the original frowns on and for the same purpose. compensation. granted the petition. A4. proceeding against the owners (Cristina De Knecht w/ • Republic acquired about 80 to 85 percent of the the 15 others) of the houses standing along Fernando needed properties involved in the project through Rein-Del Pan streets. SC held that President of the Philippines. SC set aside the order of the trial court. The owners did not raise any • Some motions which led to the victory of De Knecht objection as to arbitrariness on the choice of the and other land owners in saving their property from project and of the route. Republic filed the o De Knecht filed a motion to dismiss alleging lack expropriation proceedings in the CFI. In view of the with the PNB of 10% of the amount of said finding. Petition granted. J. determine the just compensation. 1973 Consti. S9 A3 manifestation stating that it had no objection to 1987 Consti). Republic’s right as determined therein should no possession of the properties sought to be longer be disturbed and that the same has become the condemned. ISSUE: Baustista) Whether or not respondent judge acted with grave abuse of o defendants-Maria Del Carmen Roxas Vda. 340 expropriating the same properties of protection that due process affords. negotiated purchase. de discretion in issuing the writ of possesion Elizalde.. here is what happened: petitioner cannot negotiate. De Knecht • These projects were aimed at: o easing traffic congestion in the Baclaran and outlying areas. The Republic filed a constitutionally granted. But there are exacting standards that need the motion to dismiss." It is based on the recommendation order. (S2. to be met. SC expropriation proceedings may be undertaken by the petitioner not only by voluntary negotiation with the . 2)that is is doubtful whether the extension of EDSA along Cuneta Ave can be objected to on the ground of WON an expropriation proceeding that was determined by social impact as those to be affected are mostly motels as a final judgment of the SC may be the subject of a opposed to residential areas. Blg. expropriation. smacks of whim & caprice. Baustista) Just to • It is only with the remaining 10 to 15 percent that the elaborate. the Court reasoned that taking all the factors: 1)that is seemed odd why there was a sudden change in plan where the route went north rather than ISSUE: south. Govt may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose • After a few years. the Republic filed a motion to what private land to be taken. • The right of the Republic to take private properties for o De Knecht filed with this Court a petition public use upon the payment of the just compensation for certiorari and prohibition directed is so provided in the Constitution. CA granted appeal on an oppresive manner" and that it is the courts that can the ground that the choice of Fernando Rein-Del Pan determine whether or not property owners have indeed Streets as the line through which EDSA should be been the "victims" of partiality & prejudice in the extended is arbitrary and should not receive judicial expropriation proccedings & thus nullify the act. through the DPWH began work on the westward extension of EDSA out fall of the Manila and suburbs flood control and drainage project and the Estero Tripa de Gallina. • Subsequently B. (De Knecht v. (De Knecht vs. and created a Committee of 3 to law of the case between the parties involved.: o controlling flood by the construction of the outlet FACTS: for the Estero Tripa de Gallina.. of the Human Settlements Commission that the choice o Republic filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of of Cuneta street as the line of the extension will possession of the property to be expropriated on minimize the social impact factor as the buildings and the ground that it had made the required deposit improvement therein are mostly motels. The lower court granted arbitrariness. Roxas Boulevard is arbitrary and should not receive o De Knecht filed for the issuance of a restraining judicial approval. CA held o Lower court issued a writ of possession that the decision of the Supreme Court having become authorizing the Republic to enter into and take final..negates state power to act in • De Knecht appealed to the CA. 340 was enacted.

It is simply because the Court has found that • Subsequently. not because it concedes that the lawmakers of the properties in question to enable her to implement can nullify the findings of the Court in the exercise of its the aforementioned decrees.000 the corresponding designated administrator of the National Government with authority to immediately take possession.00 which shall be payable to the owners within a period of five (5) years in own assessment of the circumstances five (5) equal installments. then prevailing as to the propriety of the expropriation and thereafter by enacting Presidential Decree No.P. B. 1980. concurring: Manila. LOI No. 1978 . Manotok. 1669 unconstitutional. the present expropriation is owners of the properties to be expropriated.D. WON PD 1669 & PD 1670 expropriating the improvement program (ZIP) because the findings of the Tambunting & SUnog-Apog estates are representative of the City of Manila and the National unconstitutional? Housing Authority (NHA) described these as blighted 2. legislative arm of the Gov’t in making its • Just compensation @ Pl7. executory decision of the SC. Blg. WON the petitioners have been deprived of due process communities. No. relocated and duly compensated. Metropolitan Manila Zonal Improvement Program which included the properties known as the Tambunting Estate ISSUES: and the Sunog-Apog area in its priority list for a zonal 1. Hence. 1669. the Register of Deeds requested the enactment of the statute.P. been undertaken on the land and that the land is squatted upon by resident families which should considerably • The decision is no obstacle to the depress the expropriation cost. issued LOI No. land owners but also by taking appropriate court • December 22. with the power of demolition of the could not enter due to the 'armed' resistance offered by expropriated properties and their improvements and shall De Knecht. WON the taking is for public use 4. disposition. 1977 . 340. discretion..that the amounts of compensation for the expropriation of the properties do MANOTOK vs. Blg.P. 3. • Expropriation of the "Tambunting Estate". Blg. petitioner Elisa R. 340. supervening events have changed the name of the Republic of the Philippines. • April 4. 1977 – Pres. • The social impact factor which persuaded the Court • January 28. • In the meantime. after which the President made a HELD: public announcement that the national government would acquire the property for the fire victim . The SC is sustaining the submission of the owner's copy of the certificates of title legislation. Nos.D. • August 19. furnishing it with a certified copy of P. WON there was just compensation • March 18. All residents in the area have been and the Sunog-Apog area expropriated. 1670. • The single piece of property 'occupied' by De Knecht is • NHAA. 1980.D. it appears that it was local governments and approved by the Ministry of based on supervening events that occurred after the Human Settlements to be included in the ZIP upon decision of this Court was rendered in De Knecht in proclamation of the President. NHA not constitute the "just compensation" & expressed veritable doubts about the constitutionality of the said JUSTICE GUTIERREZ JR. 555 instituting a passage of P. he should consider existing the case pending before it on the ground of the conditions in the area notably. that no improvement has enactment of B. 340 is not a legislative reversal of the finding in 1669 and 1670 for registration.D. received a no longer arbitrary. provides. In committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing assessing the market value. 1980 .President issued PD Nos.6-77 adopting the constitutionality of P.000. a fire razed almost the entire Tambunting Estate. among others: the solitary obstacle to this project. 1978 .issuance of EO No. 1669 and to consider this extension to be arbitrary had 1670 which respectively declared the Tambunting Estate disappeared. Only private respondent remains as Presidential Decree No. 1669 and 1670. factual basis of that decision to justify the subsequent • However. the only parcel of land where Government engineers control. Manotok wrote a letter to the NHA alleging. and the trial court • City Assessor shall determine the market value. When the Batasang 1810 declaring all sites Identified by the Metro Manila Pambansa passed B.000.000.P. Bautista. that the expropriation of the certificates of title covering the properties in question be petitioner's property was arbitrary.President issued Proclamation No. Eighty percent of the EDSA outfall and 30% of the EDSA extension had been completed. Nos. J. some officials of the NHA circulated instructions to the tenants-occupants of the properties FACTS: in dispute not to pay their rentals to the petitioners for their lease-occupancy of the properties in view of the • June 11. the owners nationwide slum improvement & resettlement program & of the Tambunting Estate filed a petition to declare P. action or by legislations.petitioner Elisa R. The Tambunting Estate 1980 justifying the expropriation. 340 effectively superseded the final and for the condemned properties. 1670. 558 adopting slim improvement as a national No.NHA wrote to the Register of Deeds of CRUZ. with the request that the De Knecht v. evolve and implement a comprehensive development plan • B. one of the under the changed situation. and the Sunog-Apog area were among the sites included. Blg. As Justice Gancayco cancelled and new certificates of title be issued in the clearly points out. letter informing her of the deposits made with regard to the first installment of her property. contains the same provisions for the Sunog-Apog property valued @ P8. The owners of the Sunog- housing policy Apog area also filed a similar petition attacking the • July 21.

" is necessity that is public in character. If the said property are given to the basis for just compensation shall be the market squatters. there is no showing whatsoever substitute for the court's judgment in expropriation as to why the properties involved were singled out for proceedings. The expropriation is no showing for a need to demolish the existing valuable is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon improvements in order to upgrade Sunog-Apog. there is no showing how the 1.D. The land-owner is the City Assessor. There are many properties in question were summarily proclaimed a squatter colonies in Metro Manila in need of upgrading. There has been no just compensation. well studied. The City Assessor is warned by the covered by the mantle of protection due process affords. 3. that no improvement has been undertaken on the land and that the land is squatted upon by resident 3.s 1669 and 1670. it was is well-developed with roads. No.. not public in character & there was no just water connection to the Metropolitan Waterworks and compensation.D. NPC v. The market value stated by the city assessor alone cannot In the instant petitions. The owner of property expropriated by the State is entitled to how much it was worth at the Where it is alleged that in the taking of a person's time of the taking. there is no mention of any market value declared by the owner. which is the procedures is needed. 3. but the decisions. Yes. and telephone connections to the Philippine 2. and than just compensation. The area deprived the petitioners due process in the taking. measure of the indemnity. property owner the opportunity to prove that the valuation made by a local assessor is wrong or prejudiced. 1669 power only serve to limit its exercise in order to protect the and P. Sections 6 of the two decrees The government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose peg just compensation at the market value determined by what private property should be taken. the courts will have to step in and probe into such an alleged violation. There slightest semblance or any proceeding. A of the property at the time of its taking. property. It means a fair and full more solidly grounded on basic rights and democratic equivalent for the loss sustained. The Tambunting estate or at least the western half of the subdivision fronting Rizal Avenue Extension is valuable National Housing Authority v. genuinely sincere. It was not proven that the taking was for public use. or question the amount of payments the maximum amounts of compensation and the bases fixed by decree. blighted area & directly expropriated without the The Government should have attended to them first. An appeal may be made to higher value because. In the challenged PDs.The power of eminent domain is inherent in every state set up new squatter colonies. The Government still has to prove that expropriation of Limitations: commercial properties in order to lease them out also for 1. orders. CA: Constitutionally suspect methods or authoritarian just compensation means the equivalent for the value procedures cannot. Reyes commercial property. Government. drainage and sewer facilities. rulings. adequately funded.. the expropriation of the subdivision or its incidents. be the basis for social justice. the actual or symbolic taking of the Office of the President but the courts are completely such properties occurred only in 1980 when the enjoined from any inquiry or participation whatsoever in questioned decrees were promulgated. The Long Distance Telephone Company. Anything program to alleviate problems of the urban poor which is beyond that is more and anything short of that is less. It palce where middle to upper class families reside. Petitioners were able to powers given to the respondent NHA. The 2 PD’s exceed show however that the Sunog-Apog area is a residential the limitations in the exercise of the eminent domain. families which should considerably depress the The basis for the exercise of the power of eminent domain expropriation costs. they either lease out or sell their lots to wealthy value declared by the owner for tax purposes or merchants even as they seek other places where they can . Municipality of Daet vs. The challenged decrees unconstitutional coz they President arrived at the conclusion that the Sunog-Apog are uniquely unfair in the procedures adopted and the area is a blighted community. In P. The public use and social and the provisions in the Constitution pertaining to such justice ends stated in the whereas clauses of P. not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating entity. It decrees to "consider existing conditions in the area is a mandate of reason. It is violative of the due process and the expropriation through decrees or what necessity impelled eminent domain provisions of the Constitution to deny to a the particular choices or selections. The fixing of plead their side. Yes. notably. individual against whose property the power is sought to be enforced. CA: It mandates some form of proceeding wherein notice the basis should be the price or value at the time it and reasonable opportunity to be heard are given to was taken from the owner and appropriated by the the owner to protect his property rights. The petitioners were deprived of due process. due process must be observed in the taking. or thereof which are the assessed values of the properties in resolutions of the NHA are expressly declared as beyond 1978 deprive the petitioner of the opportunity to prove a the reach of judicial review. his right to due process of law has been violated. payment of just compensation Constitution. the signing of the decree. No. Sewerage System electric connections to Manila Electric Company.D. Not only are the owners given absolutely no opportunity to contest the expropriation. taking must be for a public use commercial purposes would be "public use" under the 2. 1670 would not be served thereby.

manager. a denial of due process. there are other factors to be taken into validity that attaches to a challenged statute or consideration. provides a penalty which is the cancellation of approval ordinances intended to protect public license causing the destruction of the morals business • In view of the requirements of due process. obedience to the dictates of justice . age. birthday. sex. prepared for the purpose. which were provided HELD/RATIO: for in the questioned decrees cannot adequately reflect the • There are standards of constitutional adjudication value of the property and. responsiveness to the supremacy of reason. therefore. classifies motels into two classes and requiring introducing several amendatory provisions maintenance of certain minimum facilities calculated to shatter the privacy that 5. unconstitutional and. keeper of a hotel or • Astorga annexed a stipulation of facts that there is motel to ask guests to fill up a prescribed form an alarming increase in the rate of prostitution. sex length of stay. it is a valid exercise of police power that as wither capricious. requires owner. CITY Fire Insurance Co): presumption of OF MANILA constitutionality must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the statute FACTS: • No such factual foundation being laid in the • June 13. property of any reasonable relation to a proper purpose person is subject to judicial inquiry which is to curb morality • When exercise of police power may be considered 2. 1963. guardian and prohibits establishments from • Another Means: increase in license fees to leasing a room (or part of it) twice every 24 discourage illegal establishments hours • This court has invariably stamped with the seal of 6. number of a necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry. relationship) presence and exit and thus become the ideal 3. public morals. approved on • The mantle of protection associated with the due june 14 by vice mayor astorga then the acting city process associated with the due process guaranty mayor does not cover petitioners ( I think what this • Petitioners: Ermita-Manila Hotel and Motel means is that the individual customers should be Operator Assoc. whimsical. manila enacted ordinance no. companions with name. or a court could complain of the alleged violation of any other applicable constitutional invasion of the right to privacy and the guaranty may call for correction by the courts guaranty against self-incrimination • There is no controlling and precise definition of • Lower court decision: The challenged ordinance due process. therefore. and the general welfare 1. equal protection and other applicable constitutional • Respondent says: guaranties. prohibits admission of persons below 18 characterizes the registration of transients and unless accompanied by parents or lawful guests. the municipal board of the city of present case. 4760 is violative of the due process government assessor. • What then is the procedural or substantive requisite? ISSUE: 1. Presumption must prevail. occupation. great part to the existence of motels which provide nationality. Hotel del Mar (a member) and Go the ones to invoke the right to privacy thing) Chiu (president and gen manager of Hotel del • Safeguard to public moral is immune from such Mar) imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture • Defendant: Mayor of Manila (astorga) and unsupported by anything of substance • Petitioners contend that the ordinance is • Purpose of the state (the purpose of police power): unconstitutional and void for being unreasonable promote public health. 4760. the challenged ordinance bears a it may affect the life. imposes a 150-200% increase in the license • Purpose specifically in this case is to minimize fee practices hurtful to public morals 2. and fornication in Manila traceable in name. facilities of such hotels will be open for heaven for prostitutes and thrill seekers inspection by the mayor. null and void. such market value as determined by the WON Ordinance No. as stated in the above must be evidence to offset the presumption of cases. whichever is lower. should not be in both procedural and substantive aspects. public and violative of due process because it safety. that will be open to public at all times (whole adultery. There binding on the property owners for. ordinance • Evidence to rebut is unavoidable unless the ordinance is void on its face • Precedent US case (O’Gorman &Young v Hartford ERMITA MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS vs. address. chief of police or any • Means: ordinance check the clandestine authorized representatives (invasion of the harboring of transients and guests to fill up a right to privacy and the guaranty against self registration form. the exercise of police power insofar as 1. It merely requires that any “taking” no 4760 of the city of manila would be should be valid. and by 4. in incrimination) a lobby open to public view at all times. clause- No The maximum amounts. in any case. liberty. unjust or only guests or customers not before the unreasonable.

A.  The Congress she allegedly undercut has not rejected but in fact substantially affirmed the ASSOC. Marcos’s P. must not outrun the bounds of reason and  The 1935.D. who essentially assail the comfort. health and prosperity of the state constitutionality of the different measures to implement • There is a required balance bet authority and the Constitutional mandates regarding agrarian reform.O. or the right of the (Proc. 27 by Pres. while exercising legislative powers before decline to interfere with Congress had convened. business or a particular mode of earning cannot  This was followed by Pres. if the Court must. No. 131 and E. Constitution. providing the mechanics for its • Purpose was not unreasonable in this case implementation.O. Liberty is regulated for the previous enactments. Aquino to promulgate Proc.A. instituting a prevent the exercise of police power--. 6. nor shall any person 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 be denied the equal protection of the laws. Marcos in the exercise of his powers under martial laws has Consti. and happiness for  Note: Issues shall be the allegations and contentions of all.  These measures did not cease to be valid when she lost her legislative power.A. 2.D. No.neither is comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP). • Cities and municipalities have plenary power to declaring full land ownership in favor of the tax (1) for public purpose. 131 and E. due process cannot be a slave to form or  This was superseded by Pres. 1 and 4 already been sustained in Gonzales v. the restriction on freedom and E. Promulgation of P. Proc. existence of an undesirable situation and the 6657—the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of legislative attempt at correction 1988. 72 to phrases provide for compulsory acquisition of private lands for • The increase in license fees is incidental to the distribution among tenant-farmers & to specify police power (power to regulate) maximum retention limits for landowners • There is municipal discretion which the courts  Pres. had also issued E. No. It is subject to reasonable restraint suppletory effect. 27. liberty to ensure peace. 228) and July 22.O. Aquino. Each of them has sustained or is in danger of • Ordinance also not vague (common sense can sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the understand it) acts or measures complained of. place. Nos 228 and 229 are constitutional  YES. 27 and providing for the • The mere fact that some individuals in the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree community may be deprived of their present as well as the manner of their payment. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS vs. No. of expression. 229) while Congress convened people peaceably to assemble and petition the government in July 27. brushing aside. 3844—the Agricultural Land Reform Code— circumstances had already been enacted.  They are not midnight enactments as they were Sec 4. or of the press. III. 228. Even before the 1973 Constitution. Estrella  Power of Pres. 5. 6657 . sec. it enacted R. No. Petitioners in the 4 cases include landowners whose lands are given • Fundamental aim of the state (to which individual to the tenants tilling the lands. No. rights are SUBORDINATED): to secure the general landowners associations etc. WON enactment of P.O.O. 131 Section 1. 1973 and 1987 Constitution had already result in sheer oppression recognized equitable redistribution of private property. order. the transcendental importance to the public of these Judgment reversed cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. or and E.D. No person shall be deprived of life. SEC. by general law for the common good  4 cases were consolidated and resolved.D. No. Nos 228 and 229 is authorized under Sec. 131. should be reflective of democratic traditions of finally mandating an agrarian reform program in the legal and political thought 1987 Constitution. (2)just. sugar planters. arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness (1989) avoided 3. liberty. and R. 2. No. technicalities of procedures. No. which although considerably changing the • Liberty is not absolute. Proc. the petitioners and respondents • People vs Pomar (maternity leave held not a proper exercise of police p) is no longer a living principle ISSUES: • Government has the right to intervene even in 1. (3) uniform beneficiaries of P. Art. 1987 speech. OF AGRARIAN measures and even provided that they be suppletory REFORM to R. property without due process of law. 4. No. 229. nevertheless gives them greater good. they continue to be in force unless modified or repealed by subsequent law or declared invalid by the courts. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of enacted in July 17 (E.O. WON petitioners and intervenors are proper parties contractual relations affected with public interest  YES. • There is a correspondence between the undeniable  When Congress did convene. for redress of grievances. not unrelated to time. Besides. No.

3. WON P50 billion fund created in Sec. 2 Proc. No. o Public use.
131 and Secs. 20 and 21 of E.O. 229 is invalid for o Just compensation
not originating in the House of Reps (Sec. 24, Art.  Public use. The purposes specified in PD No. 27,
VI) and not being certified by the National Treasurer Proc. 131 and RA 6657 is in fact, an elaboration of
as actually available (Sec. 25(4), Art. VI). the constitutional injunction that the State adopt
 NO, as it is not an appropriation measure even if it the necessary measures “to encourage and
does provide for the creation of said fund, for that is undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
not its principal purpose. The creation of the fund is lands to enable farmers who are landless to own
only incidental to the main objective of the directly or collectively the lands they till.” That
proclamation, which is agrarian reform. public use, as pronounced by the Constitution,
 It should follow that the specific constitutional must be binding on the court.
provisions do not apply.  Just compensation. Petitioners argue that the
manner of fixing the just compensation is entrusted
4. WON Proc 131 and EO 229 should be invalidated for to the administrative authorities in violation of
not providing for retention limits as required by judicial prerogatives. To be sure, the determination
Sec. 4, Art. XIII, Consti. of just compensation is a function addressed to the
 MOOT as R.A. No. 6657 now does provide for such courts of justice and may not be usurped by any
limits in Sec. 6 of said law other branch or official of the government. But a
reading of the assailed provision of R.A. 6657 (Sec.
5. WON EO 229 violates constitutional requirement 16(d)) will show that although the proceedings are
that a bill shall have only one subject, to be described as summary, the landowner and other
expressed in its title interested parties are nevertheless allowed an
 NO. The title of the bill does not have to be a opportunity to submit evidence on the real value of
catalogue of its contents and will suffice if the the property. But more importantly, the
matters embodied in the text are relevant to each determination of the just compensation by the DAR
other and may be inferred from the title. is not by any means final and conclusive upon the
landowner or any other interested party, for Sec.
6. WON writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the 16(f) provides: “Any party who disagrees with the
performance of a discretionary act especially by a decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
specific department of the government (as jurisdiction for final determination of just
contended by a private respondent) compensation.” Thus, the determination made by
 NO. mandamus can lie to compel the discharge of the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all
the discretionary duty itself but not to control the parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice
discretion to be exercised. In other words, will still have the right to review with finality the
mandamus can issue to require action only but not said determination in the exercise of what is
to specific action admittedly a judicial function
 The petitioners also argue that Sec. 18 of RA 6657 is
7. WON sugar planters should not be made to share unconstitutional insofar as it requires the owners of
the burden of agrarian reform as they belong to a the expropriated properties to accept just
particular class with particular interests of their compensation in less than money, which is the only
own medium of payment allowed. True enough
 NO. No evidence has been submitted to the Court jurisprudence has shown that the traditional
that the requisites of a valid classification have been medium for payment of just compensation is money
violated, namely and no other (Manila Railroad Co. v. Velasquez, J.M.
o It must be based on substantial distinctions; Tuazon v. LTA, Mandl v. City of Pheonix, etc.). But
o It must be germane to the purposes of the law; this is not traditional or ordinary expropriation
o It must not be limited to existing conditions only; where only a specific and limited area is sought to
and be taken by the State for a local purpose. This is a
o It must apply equally to all the members of the revolutionary kind of expropriation which affects all
class private agricultural land as long as they are in
excess of the maximum retention limits allowed
8. WON the State should first distribute public their owners. It benefits the entire Filipino nation,
agricultural lands in the pursuit of agrarian reform from all levels of society. Its purpose furthermore,
instead of immediately disturbing property rights goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future.
by forcibly acquiring private agricultural lands The cost will be tremendous which is not fully
 NO. The Constitution calls for “the just distribution available at this time. It is assumed that the framers
of all agricultural lands.” In any event, the decision foresaw this and thus it is assumed that their
to redistribute private agricultural lands in the intention was to allow such manner of payment as
manner prescribed by the CARP was made by the is now provided for by the CARP law. The Court did
legislative and executive departments in the exercise not find in the records of the Con-Com, categorical
of their discretion. The Court is not justified in agreement among the members regarding the
reviewing that discretion in the absence of a clear meaning of just compensation as applied in the
showing that it has been abused. CARP. But then, there is nothing in the records
either that militates against the assumption that
9. WON expropriation as contemplated by the agrarian Con-Com had intended to allow such mode of
reform program matches the requirements for a payment.
proper exercise of the power of eminent domain  With these assumptions, the Court held that the
 YES. The requirements for proper exercise of the content and manner of compensation in Sec. 18 is
power are not violative. It is further held that the proportion of

cash payment to the other things of value 3.Due process must give opportunity for owner to prove
constituting the total payment, as determined on valuation wrong.
the basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is
not unduly oppressive upon the landowner. RATIONALE:

10. WON RA 6657 is unconstitutional for divesting 1. The public use requirement for eminent domain is
the landowner of his property even before actual flexible and evolving. This jurisdictions trend is that
payment to him in full of just compensation, in whatever may be beneficially employed for the general
contravention of a well-accepted principle of welfare of the general welfare satisfies the requirement of
eminent domain. public use(Heirs of Juancho Ardona v Reyes). Consti has
 NO. The rule is that title to the property many provisions concerning socialized housing as
expropriated shall pass from the owner to the propmotion of general welfare. (Art2 sec7:
expropriator only upon full payment of the just establish social services including housing; Art2 sec9:
compensation. And it is true that P.D. no. 27 promote just social order w/ social services; Art13 sec9:
expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer urban land reform). Housing is a basic human need and
as of Oct. 21, 1972and declared that he shall “be becomes a matter of state concern since it affects general
deemed the owner” of a portion of land consisting of welfare.
a family-sized farm except that “no title to the land
owned by him was to be actually issued to him It has a public character and is recognized as such with
unless and until he had become a full-fledged UN calling 1987 International Year of Shelter for the
member of a duly recognized farmer’s cooperative.” Homeless. The expropriated land would be used for
It was understood however, that full payment of the Bagong
just compensation also had to be made first, Nayon Project which provides low-cost housing for govt
conformably to the constitutional requirement. employees. There is a shortage in housing in NCR with
50% of urban families unable to afford adequate shelter
(NEDA). Petioners also contended that size does not matter
with PD and "any private land" can be expropriated
(concerns with CARP/CARL).
Court says any land can be under eminent domain not
1987 just landed estates.. NHA has broad discretion and absent
fraud, NHA may choose any land without interference from
ponente: Cortes J court. NHA's powers stem from Consti (art2 sec10: social
justice; art13 sec1: regulate property to diffuse wealth).
2. Court quotes Export Processing Authority v Dulay. Just
Respondent National Housing Authority filed a complaint compensation means the value of the property at the time
for expropriation of 25 hectares of land which includes the of the taking; fair and full equivalent value for loss
lots of petitioners Lorenzo Sumulong and Emilia Vidanes sustained; all facts to the condition of property should be
Balaoing, together with a motion for immediate possession considered. Various factors come into play that provincial
of the properties. The land was valued by provinvial assessors do not take into account like individual
assessors at P1 / sq meter through PD's. NHA deposited differences because they only account for generalities.
P158,980 with PNB. All these are pursuant to PD 1224 Owners are not estopped from questioning the valuations
which defines "the policy on expropriation of private of their property.
property for socialized housing upon payment of just
compensation". 3. Court quote Export PZA supra: violative of due process
to deny owners of opportunity to prove valuations wrong.
Respondent judge Buenaventura Guerrero issued the writ Repulsive to justice to allow a minor bureaucrat's work to
of possession. Petitioners filed for reconsideration. prevail over court. Courts have evidence and
arguments to reach a just determination.
Court quotes Ignacio v Guerrero: Requirements for a writ
1. Is socialized housing for public use even though it is not of possession to be issued:
used by public itself? 1)Complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
2. Is there just compensation when value arbitrarily fixed 2) provisional determination of just compensation by trial
by govt? court on the
basis of judicial discretion,
3. Is there due process when it allows taking immediate 3)deposit requirement
possession of property?
writ of possession annulled for excess of jurisdiction.
1.The expanded concept of public use together with Consti remanded for further proceedings to determine
provisions makes socialized housing for public use compensation

2. Just compensation is for fair and full value of the loss
sustained, not provincial assessors say-so.

the city and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection
CITY GOVERNEMENT vs. JUDGE ERICTA of property therein. "

On the other hand, respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc.
This is a petition for review seeking the reversal of the contends that the taking or confiscation of property is
decision of the CFI of Rizal declaring Section 9 of obvious because the questioned ordinance permanently
Ordinance No. 6118, S-64, of the Quezon City Council null restricts the use of the property such that it cannot be
and void. used for any reasonable purpose and deprives the owner of
all beneficial use of his property. The respondent also
FACTS stresses that the general welfare clause is not available as
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 61 18, S-64, entitled a source of power for the taking of the property in this case
"ORDINANCE REGULATING THE ESTABLISHMENT, because it refers to "the power of promoting the public
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and
provides: WON Section 9 of Ordinance No. 61 18, S-64 is
"Sec. 9. At least six (6) percent of the total area of
the memorial park cemetery shall be set aside for HOLDING
charity burial of deceased persons who are Yes, it is unconstitutional. The petition for review is hereby
paupers and have been residents of Quezon City dismissed. The decision of' the respondent court is
for at least 5 years prior to their death, to be affirmed.
determined by competent City Authorities. …”
For years, the aforequoted section of the Ordinance was We find the stand of the private respondent as well as the
not enforced but seven years after the enactment of the decision of the respondent Judge to be well-founded. We
ordinance, the Quezon City Council passed the following cite, with approval the decision of the respondent court:
"An examination of the Charter of Quezon City
"RESOLVED by the council of Quezon assembled, (Rep. Act. No. 537), does not reveal any
to request, as it does hereby request the City provision that would justify the ordinance in
Engineer, Quezon City, to stop any further selling question except the provision granting police
and/or transaction of memorial park lots in power to the City. Section 9 cannot be justified
Quezon City where the owners thereof have tailed under the power granted to Quezon City to tax,
to donate the required 6% space intended for fix the license fee, and regulate such other
paupers burial. business, trades, and occupation as may be
established or practiced in the City”
Pursuant to this resolution, the Quezon City Engineer
notified respondent Himlayang Pilipino, Inc. in writing that "The power to regulate does not include the
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 would be enforced. power to prohibit (People vs. Esguerra, 81 Phil.
33 Vega vs. Municipal Board of Iloilo, L-6765,
CFI Ruling May 12, 1954; 39 N.J. Law, 70, Mich. 396). A
fortiori, the power to regulate does not include
Respondent Himlayang Pilipino reacted by filing with the the power to confiscate. The ordinance in
CFI of Rizal, Branch XVIII at Quezon City, a petition for question not only confiscates but also prohibits
declaratory relief', prohibition and mandamus with the operation of a memorial park cemetery,
preliminary injunction seeking to annul Section 9 of the because under Section 13 of said ordinance,
Ordinance in question. The respondent alleged that the The confiscatory clause and the penal
same is contrary to the Constitution, the Quezon City provision in effect deter one from operating a
Charter, the Local Autonomy Act, and the Revised memorial park cemetery. Neither can the
Administrative Code. ordinance in question be justified under sub-
section ‘t,' Section 12 of Republic Act 537
The respondent court rendered the decision declaring which authorizes the City Council to "'prohibit
Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118, S-64 null and void. the burial of the dead within the center of
population of the city and provide for their
The City Government and City Council filed the instant burial in such proper place and in such manner
petition. Petitioners argue that the taking of the as the council may determine, subject to the
respondent's property is a valid and reasonable exercise of provisions of the general law regulating burial
police power and that the land is taken for a public use as grounds and cemeteries and governing funerals
it is intended for the burial ground of paupers. They and disposal of the dead.
further argue that the Quezon City Council is authorized
under its charter, in the exercise of local police power, "to "Police power is defined by Freund as 'the power of
make such further ordinances and resolutions not promoting the public welfare by restraining and
repugnant to law as may be necessary to carry into effect regulating the use of liberty and property' (Quoted
and discharge the powers and duties conferred by this Act in Political Law by Tañada and Carreon V-II, p.
and such as it shall deem necessary and proper to provide 50). It is usually exerted in order to merely
for the health and safety, promote the prosperity, improve regulate the use and enjoyment of property of the
the morals, peace, good order, comfort and convenience of owner. It' he is deprived of his property outright, it

In police are made to pay by the subdivision developer when power. health.” necessary licenses and permits. the owner does not recover from the individual lots are sold to homeowners. The necessities of public safety. playgrounds. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform courts resolve every presumption in favor of validity and. 11 defines the “commercial farms” as maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose. this Court FACTS: ruled in Case v. poultry and swine raising…” 'The expropriation without compensation of a portion of o Sec. or the general welfare of o Sec. This has been the law. and convenience are very clear from said requirements which are intended to insure the development of communities with salubrious and wholesome . in turn. L-7995. Law of 1988) was approved on June 10. not on any express provision of limitable of the powers of government (Ruby vs. nay. 3(b). 1988. parks. The ISSUE: questioned ordinance is different from laws and W/N Secs. and other coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and public facilities from the land they sell to buyers of Regulations promulgated in accordance therewith is subdivision lots. it does not need to Himlayang Pilipino. Luz Farms. clause has always received broad and liberal Hernandez. more so. the dead within the center of population of the city and to o Sec 13 and 32 calls upon petitioner to provide for their burial in a proper place subject to the execute a production-sharing plan and provisions of general law regulating burial grounds and spells out that same plan mentioned in cemeteries. however.  On January 2 and 9. 13 Pambansa Blg. 3(b) includes the “raising of livestock the people. received be expressed or defined in its scope. morals. May 31. order to promote the general welfare. 13 and 32 of RA 6657 insofar as it regulations requiring owners of subdivisions to set aside includes the raising of livestock. the Secretary of Agrarian However. commercial. and commenced operating. The Supreme interpretation but we cannot stretch it to cover this Court has said that police power is so far-reaching particular taking. 39 Phil. is not taken for public use but rather to destroy in environments. Batas Sec. 11. whether national or local. It deprives a person of his private property without due process of law. 6657 respectively. law as statutory basis of their exercise of power. As it derives its existence from the Moreover. the Revised Charter of Quezon City compensation to be paid for lands covered which empowers the city council to prohibit the burial of by the CARL. It continues to the present. guidelines and rules be the city to provide its own city owned land or to buy or declared unconstitutional and a writ of expropriate private properties to construct public preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the cemeteries. 16 (d) and 17 vests on the DAR. there is no reasonable relation between the Reform promulgated the guidelines and setting aside of at least six (6) percent of the total area Implementing Production and Profit Sharing and of all private cemeteries for charity burial grounds of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. The beneficiaries of the regulation. Instead of' building or o Sec. Expropriation. is a corporation sangguniang panlungsod may "provide for the burial of engaged in the livestock and poultry business and the dead in such place and in such manner as along with others similarly situated prays that the prescribed by law or ordinance" it simply authorizes abovementioned laws. in scope that it has almost become impossible to limit its sweep. had incorporated. 337 provides in Section 177(q) that a  The petitioner. where the municipal corporation asserts that the o The CARL included the raising of ordinance was enacted to promote the common good and livestock. poultry and swine in its general welfare. No. unconstitutional. The sequestration of six percent of the cemetery "It seems to the court that Section 9 of cannot even be considered as having been impliedly Ordinance No. 660. and practice in the enforcement of the same. and always one of the least municipal corporation. Series of 1964 of Quezon acknowledged by the private respondent when it accepted City is not a mere police regulation but an the permits to commence operations. safety. requires payment of just compensation. Board of Health (24 Phil. 6118.A. Agricultural Enterprise and cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the Agricultural Activity” municipal corporation. The Provincial Board. It has been said that police power is the As a matter of fact. the questioned ordinance was passed after very existence of the state itself. at times the general welfare clause or on implied powers of the most insistent. good order. The ordinance is actually a taking without (and poultry) in the definition of compensation of a certain area from a private Agricultural. 250) that the  R. deceased paupers and the promotion of' health. the petitioners rely solely on the most essential of' government powers. Inc. coverage. poultry and swine in it certain areas for streets. the “private agricultural lands devoted to city passes the burden to private cemeteries. As early as 1913. livestock. the private cemeteries is not covered by Section 12(t) of authority to summarily determine the just Republic Act 537.A No. government for injury sustained in consequence thereof. past." We are mindful of the heavy burden shouldered by LUZ FARMS vs. outright confiscation. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM whoever challenges the validity of duly enacted legislation. When the Local Government Code. Ichong vs. even without compensation. 1957).

” of injunction saying that the FPA had the right to prohibit entry of tenants and disconnect the water supply accrdg to its rules and regulations. Cariday with notice to the FPA. he also leased the other half of the building to 80% of those in commercial Procter and Gamble foe the use of one of its American livestock and poultry production executives (Robert Haden). Board of o In the words of Commissioner Tadeo: Governors shall after at least 10 days previous notice in “…hindi naming inilagay ang writing. “repaired” ang piggery. Therefore. looking into the deliberations which Regulations: led to the adoption of that particular provision ”One residential building per lot.  While it is true that the intent of the framers is not Pertinent restrictions in the Building Rules and controlling.owner of a residential building in the Forbes Park Subdivision. “one residential building” per lot. poultry and swine raising” supply be disconnected by the FPA because of his alleged in the definition of “commercial farms” is invalid. in Pertinent restrictions in the “Deed of Restrictions”: determining the meaning of the language used. occupy 5 hectares or less. The remaining 20% are mostly A letter by Cariday sent to the FPA requesting a clearance corporate farms. 13 and 32 of RA 6657 in directing corporate farms including livestock and Cariday filed in the RTC a complaint for injunction and poultry to execute and implement “profit-sharing damages alleging that its tenants’ health may be plans” (distribution of 3% of gross sales and 10% endangered and their contracts rescinded. “Lots may be used for residential purposes and not mote words are to be given their ordinary meaning than one single family residential building will be except where technical terms are employed in constructed thereon except that separate servant’s which case the significance attached to them quarters may be built”. order the disconnection of the water service agricultural worker sa kadahilanang supplied through deep well pumps…” kasama rito and piggery. so that Hayden may move in together with his belongings  It is therefore evident that Section II of RA 6657 was denied. leased on portion of the house to an Englishman (James  Excluding backyard raisers. CA reversed and annulled the writ the due process clause. RTC granted of net profits to workers) is unreasonable for upon Cariday’s filing of a P50. Gov’t. It may be used only for goes a long way in explaining the understanding of residential purposes and not more than one single-family the people when they ratified it. The security guards did not allow Hayden to which includes “private agricultural lands devoted enter and Cariday was also threatened that the water to commercial livestock. poultry at livestock workers. Cariday was in the Deed of Restriction on the title of a lot in the Forbes asserting that although there is a restriction regards the Park Subdivision. about Duvivier). “…it shall be exclusively for residence only of the owners mandated agrarian reform program of the and bona fide residents and their families. the primary task is a member of the FPA to give an ascertain and to assure the realization of the purpose of the framers.000 bond. Upon  Argument of petitioner that land 2nd inspection.HELD: Cariday Investment Corporation (CARIDAY). Cariday admitted that it livestock and poultry and has the exterior appearance of a single family residence represents no more than 5% of but it is designed inside to allow occupancy by 2 families.” found out that additions or deletions were made. ISSUE: WON the FPA’s rules and regulations regarding the prohibitions are valid and binding CARIDAY vs. FPA motion for being confiscatory and therefore violative of reconsideration denied. it disclosed more violations where it can be is not the primary resource in used by more than one family. Ang inilagay naming FACTS: ditto ay farm worker kaya hindi kasama In June 1986. poultry at livestock its building. corporation organized for the purpose of promoting and The Court said the Cariday’s interpretation unacceptable safeguarding the interests of the residents since the restriction not only clearly defines the type and number of structures but also the number of families that may use it as residence. hence  In constitutional construction. non-stock leasing it to 2 or more tenants. the total investment of commercial FPA demanded it conform to the restrictions. prevails. staff and domestics…in case of violation.non-profit. The prohibition’s purpose is to . Cariday still livestock and poultry raisers. residential building will be constructed on one lot except o Transcripts of the deliberations shows for separate garage and servants’ quarters and bathhouses that it was never the intent of the farmers for swimming pools…” to include livestock and poultry-raising in the coverage of the constitutionally. CA HELD: yes This case is about the proper interpretation of a provision RATIO: In the petition for review of the CA. violations. house guests. And that the Secs. After inspection by FPA’s engineer it was workers. nowhere in the rules and Parties involved: regulations a categorical prohibition to prevent him from Forbes Park Association (FPA).

the concept of a single-family dwelling may embrace the extended family which includes ARTICLE IV – CITIZENSHIP married children who continue to be sheltered until they Section 1. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building. unsanitary conditions. on Social Justice and Human national interest and shall be dealt with by law. 1973. Dissenting: [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Art. The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters. and under III. by law. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years. be resolved on its particular merits. forests or timber. drivers. and exclusive economic Consti. Those lifestyle. property without due process of law. With the exception of agricultural lands. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching unpleasant consequences such as overcrowding. 14. Section 5. No person shall be deprived of life. under the law. allow small-scale utilization of equality before the law of women and men. II. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. all forces continuing housing program and an urban land reform of potential energy. development. Gutierrez. the age of majority. they are deemed. Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural- violating the single family rule where it is STILL not born citizens. and political inequalities through the equitable diffusion of wealth and political power (Sec. gardeners and other without paragraph (3). with priority to subsistence . Art. However. fisheries. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens the use of one solitary family where it could comfortably shall retain their citizenship. together with the private sector. 14 and 22 zone. Under the rules. designed for multiple occupancy. IV nature of family ties. (petition denied) [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. The family restriction is intended to insure Forbes Park real estate value remains Section 2. program which seek to make available at affordable cost flora and fauna. and deterioration of roads. or grant. The State may directly undertake such constitutional bounds of reasonableness. All lands of the public domain. The following are citizens of the Philippines: are financially independent. 1). coal. 1 or industrial uses other than the development of water power. Consti. sec. corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. natural resources by Filipino citizens. Insofar as this petition or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens.avoid overcrowding which would create problems in sanity and security for the subdivision. a minerals. ugly [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the Provision in the Const. III. and other mineral oils. all homeless citizens. It cannot be allowed that Section 22. renewable for not more than twenty-five years. Art. The State is Section 2. XII. of Filipino big residence in Forbes Park would lead to any of the mothers. beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the Section 1. sec. There is absolutely no showing that 2 families living in one [3] Those born before January 17. Section 3. or is concerned. I consider it a waste of scarce resources if property worth millions is limited to Section 4. compared to the exploding population. waters. and other natural resources are owned by decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and the State. unless by their act or house 2 or more families in the kind of comfort and luxury omission. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired Metro Manila has run out of available residential land as in the manner provided by law. Each case must activities. yayas. Section 14. other natural resources shall not be alienated. water supply fisheries. Art.2 economic. considered overcrowding. and utilization of natural There is the difficulty in pinpointing the line where resources shall be under the full control and supervision restrictions of property ownership go beyond the of the State. Congress must give the highest priority to measures which enhance the right of all people to human dignity and reduce social. to have which is undreamed of even to upper middle income renounced it. people. mandated to undertake. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens high where the Court is not protecting against unpleasant of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any consequences but the inflated land values and an elitist act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. 2 and sec. territorial sea. The exploration. and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. sec. surroundings and lawless behavior. wildlife. and shall ensure the fundamental The Congress may. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. In cases of water rights for irrigation. Rights emphasize the social function of land. as well as cooperative fish farming. I concur with the dissenting minority. one family could hire a battalion who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with of servants. petroleum. liberty. The State recognizes and promotes the rights it be circumvented by building a house with the external of indigenous cultural communities within the framework appearance of a single family dwelling but the interior is of national unity and development. Consti. joint venture. Jr. recognizing Filipino custom and the cohesive Consti. or it may enter into co-production.

the municipal council to impose a tax in any form owned corporations involving either technical or financial whatever. 2. chartered cities. or out of the same. 4 imposing “on any and all subject of legislation. the same being then presumed constitutional until declared otherwise. specifically the equal protection clause CFI decision REVERSED.” (Section 1) law (3) it applies not only to present conditions but • Payments for said tax were made. TREASURER of ORMOC results. YES FACTS: • Felwa v Salas: The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated and • The Municipal Board of Ormoc City passed does not bar a reasonable classification of the Ordinance No. 1. As it is now. Inc. and any utilization of minerals. be subject to the tax because the ordinance • CFI upheld the constitutionality of the ordinance expressly points only to OSCI as the entity to be and declared the taxing power of defendant levied upon. repealed by Sec 2 of RA 2264 • Court therein expressed awareness of the The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be transcendental effects that municipal limited to Filipino citizens. save in cases prescribed by law. the classification. in Ormoc City a municipal on substantial distinctions which make real tax equivalent to 1% per export sale to USA and differences (2) it is germane to the purpose of the other foreign countries. WON defendant Municipal Board has authority to levy such an export tax HELD: 2. paragraph 2. shall be and general welfare of the country. to be 3. Board to lagoons. the ordinance provided a sufficient basis to preclude ISSUES: arbitrariness. this appeal.087.” the State shall promote the development and use of local • Subsequently however.087. it can’t export of sugar. for 1. petroleum. lakes.workers in rivers. In such agreements. WON constitutional limits on the power of taxation. for the coverage of the tax. under Sec. 2264 because the tax is on both the sale and even if later a similar company is set up. upon goods & merchandise carried into assistance for large-scale exploration. void. the ordinance is unconstitutional for being it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and violative of the equal protection clause and the exported by the OSCI and none other. still. entered into in accordance with this provision. export/import taxes or licenses will have on the national economy and stated that there was no other alternative ‘til Congress acts to provide remedial measures to forestall any unfavorable ORMOC SUGAR CO. Ordinance declared and rule of uniformity of taxation were infringed UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sec 2 of RA 2264 gave scientific and technical resources.. RATIO: . At the time of collection.. INC. it is an export tax forbidden under Sec. bays. and other mineral oils attempt to impose an import/export tax upon according to the general terms and conditions provided by such goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge law. collected. is not entitled to interest on the Act to include all other forms of taxes. to those who belong to the same class • OSCI filed a complaint in the CFI of Leyte alleging: • The questioned ordinance does not meet them. the tax amounts to a customs duty. and the municipality. chartered city broadened by the Local Autonomy • OSCI. vs. should be in terms applicable to tax which Ormoc City is authorized to impose future conditions as well.50. use of bridges or otherwise. Defendants ordered to refund the P12. rule of uniformity of taxation • While it its true that at the time of the ordinance’s 2. 1 of Sec 2 of RA plaintiff. the tax is neither a production nor a license reasonable. under protest. of the same class as charge in violation of par.. licenses or fees. fee or established sugar central. however. 1. thirty days from its execution. licenses or refund because the taxes were not arbitrarily fees not excluded in its charter. development.50 paid. productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the • A classification is reasonable where (1) it is based Ormoc Sugar Co. within • On the inconsistency between the two provisions. the Court held in Nin Bay Mining Co v Municipality of Roxas that Sec 2887 of RAC has been Section 14. 15-kk of its charter and under Sec • The taxing ordinance should not be singular and 2 of RA 2264 (Local Autonomy Act) exclusive as to exclude any subsequently 4. Thus. also to future conditions which are substantially by Ormoc Sugar Co. levy such an export tax in view of Sec 2887 of the RAC which states: “It shall not be in the power of The President may enter into agreements with foreign. based on real contributions to the economic growth for wharfage. Inc (OSCI) totaling identical to those of the present (4) it applies only P12. municipalities & municipal districts authority to levy for public purposes just The President shall notify the Congress of every contract & uniform taxes. 2887 enactment the OSCI was the only sugar central in of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC) Ormoc City. and • OSCI questions the authority of the Mun. YES fishermen and fish.

there is a misjoinder of parties (dumlao not related to the latter 2) PEOPLE vs. acquired and had under his possession a bottle of o Plea that the function be exercised at the A-1-1 gin. 1639 (sec 2 and 3). there standards to be followed in the exercise of function: FACTS: o Existence of appropriate case o Personal and substantial interest in Being a member of a non-Christian tribe. the yet been decided (“a judgment of conviction for any portion of the 2nd par of sec 4 providing that “the of the aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive filing of charges for the commission of such crimes evidence of such fact”) before a civil court or military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie Held: (yup. . Unless the elective provincial. raising the constitutional question Cayat. there is reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from which he FACTS: had retired. or DUMLAO vs. Proper Party. who has retired from a provincial. CAYAT • Next.person who impugns the validity of a statute must have a personal and substantial Cayat now challenges the constitutionality of the Act for interest in the case such that he has sustained. a liquor other than the native wines of his tribe. There is no petition seeking for his liquor. disqualifications of certain candidates who have cases against them which are filed but have not • WHEREFORE. the pleaded not guilty. disqualification (so WTF is his problem?). • In the case of a 65-year old elective local official. 2 makes it unlawful for any Philippine non-Christian 1. be passed upon to decide the case • Explained further… Sec. He’s raising a hypothetical issue and his case is within Sec. Walang issues!!! Kidding! Non evidence of such fact”=null and void justiciable kasi siya in a way except sa isa… yun huli) • This case is unacceptable for judicial resolution • For one. The validity of second paragraph of sec 4 providing for court agrees with them. No. or municipal official who conflict with the constitution is clear beyond has received payment of retirement benefits to reasonable doubt. 1639 satisfies the wasting public funds. 3) an improper exercise of police power There is no personal or substantial interest. 2. Court has discretion as to requirements of proper classification WON a taxpayer’s suit should be entertained 2) Whether or not Act. Igot and protection clause does not forbid all legal Salapantan (as taxpayers) classification. Theirs is a general grievance. Petitioners are actually without cause power of action. city. alleging it is discriminatory and contrary to equal • Absent herein is a showing of the clear invalidity of protection and due process insofar as Sec 4 the questioned provision. Provisions can’t be assailed by taxpayers bec they ISSUE do not involve expenditure of public moneys. Equal • Petitioners are Dumalao (as a candidate). imprisoning them of as term not exceeding 6 months. No. COMELEC municipal office. Neither Igot nor Salapantan has 1) discriminatory and denies equal protection of the been alleged to have been adversely affected by the laws operation of the statutory provisions they assail as 2) violative of due process unconstitutional. While petitioners) he admitted to the facts. Actual Case and Controversy. it is within the competence of which he is entitled under the law and who shall he legislature to prescribe qualifications have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected.judicial review is native to buy or possess any alcoholic beverage or liquor limited to the determination of actual cases and other than the “so-called” native wines and liquors that controversies. earliest opportunity (this has been met by This was in violation of Act. 1st par of sec 4 BP blg52= valid. held agad. direct injury as a result of its enforcement. the accused. 3 fines a violator of not more than Php200 or the jurisdiction of respondent COMELEC. Unavoidability of constitutional questions. • HOWEVER!!! Accdg to Igot and Salapantan. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective second par of sec 4 “a judgment of conviction for local office from which he has retired”) any of the aforementioned crimes shall be conclusive evidence of such fact” contravenes the • Igot and Salapantan on the other hand assail the constitutional presumption of innocence.the due process clause issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota 3) Whether or not it is an improper exercise of police presented. There must be a clear provides for a special disqualification (“any retired unequivocal breach of the constitution. or being: will sustain. What is proscribed is a classification • Dumlao questions constitutionality of BP blg 52 which is arbitrary and unreasonable. Dumlao has not been adversely they have been made accustomed to. 1639 is violative of the 3. He ha already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same govt work. It is then the duty of affected by the application of the assailed the police or any authorized agent to seize and destroy the provisions. No. city. Petitioners do not seek to restrain respondent from 1) Whether or not Act. He was o Necessity that the constitutional question found guilty and fined to Php50.

that of peace WON the Act deprives the aliens of the equal and order. control weights and measures and labor and other laws relating to trade. The prohibition of possessing alcoholic beverages other than local wines is • provision for the forfeiture of licenses to designed to insure peace and order in the tribes. The Legislature passed R. times as long as those conditions exist. positive and fundamental differences between an FACTS: alien and a citizen. According to the court. Lao Ichong. 1. the third circumstance is present. but to geography and to the level of civilization (remember Rubi v. Property may be seized • the subject of the Act is not expressed in by the government in 3 circumstances: the title • the Act violates international and treaty 1) in payment of taxes obligations 2) when used in violation of law • the provisions of the Act against the 3) when property causes a corpus delicti transmission by aliens of their retail business thru hereditary succession In this case. corporations and partnerships 2) it shall be reasonable in its operation affected by the Act. the court states that the Act serves a purpose. it is not limited as it is intended to apply for all commerce and industry. as the term “non-Christian tribes” refers. There are real and actual. HELD: The law is a valid exercise of police power ICHONG vs. 1) Yes it does. In discussing whether the means protection of the laws. ISSUE: 4) In discussing police power. . retail business of additional stores or branches of retail business 2) Due process means: 1) there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with 2. • provision against the establishment or opening by aliens actually engaged in the Lastly. which fully justify the legislative classification adopted. or corporations the capital of which are not 1) So as to qualify under the equal protection of laws. HERNANDEZ and it does not deny the aliens the equal protection of the laws. Secondly. the classification is real and ten years after the approval of the Act or substantial. until their death or voluntary class retirement. economic and crimes. the courts merely stated that this is in the realm of the legislative. IMPT. the wholly owned by Filipinos. in his own behalf and behalf of other the general powers of the legislative department alien residents. • a prohibition against aliens and against RATIO associations. it applies equally to all members of the class. filed an action to declare it 3) it shall be enforced according to the regular unconstitutional for the ff: reasons: methods of procedure 4) it shall be applicable alike to all citizens of the • it denies to alien residents the equal state or a class protection of the laws and deprives them of their liberty and property Also noted by the court is that due process does not without due process always accord notice and hearing. it has a clear purpose. unless their 3) must not be limited to existing conditions only licenses are forfeited in accordance with 4) must apply equally to all members of the same law. 1954 are allowed to 2) must be germane to the purposes of the law continue their business. Provincial Board of • Citizens and juridical entities of the Mindoro).A. partnerships. 1180 (An Act to HELD Regulate the Retail Business). to religious belief. These are: • aliens actually engaged in the retail 1) must rest on substantial distinctions business on May 15. from engaging law in question must satisfy the requirements of proper directly or indirectly in the retail trade classification. from having a stranglehold upon the people’s 2) No it is not. economic life. are reasonable. Thirdly. In case of juridical persons. not until the expiration of term. Its purpose was to prevent persons who are not citizens of the Phil. as free engage in the retail business for violation use of those prohibited beverages often led to lawlessness of the laws on nationalization. This is due to the fact that the process of civilization is a slow process. 3) No it is not. United States were exempted form this Act.

9066.S. . absolute equality among residents. which upheld the curfew order as an exercise of the power of directed that after May 9. if it appears that he knew or should have known of the existence and extent of the restrictions or order and that 3. as Commander in Chief of the Army. To these questions.S. issued after we were at war with Japan. and all persons of one class are of the Secretary of War or any such military commander. the military FACTS authorities and of the President." 4. of the constitutional question involved caused the court to grant certiorari. The Hirabayashi conviction and this one thus rest on the same 1942 Congressional Act and the same basic executive and KOREMATSU vs. against none but citizens of Japanese ancestry amounted was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in to a constitutionally prohibited discrimination solely on San Leandro. Secretary of War. a "Military Area. the alien may become the potential enemy of the State. declared that "the successful prosecution of the 5. 81. lacking in that spirit of loyalty and . which provides that requires that all persons shall be treated alike. The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage 7. or by any military commander designated by the Secretary of War. Compulsory exclusion. and the State cannot rely on him/her in times of crisis or WON the President and Congress went beyond their war emergency. No. The alien is naturally national-defense premises. Army. we sustained a conviction obtained for violation of the curfew order. under as to privileges conferred and liabilities the authority of an Executive order of the President. The equal protection clause does not demand charging violation of an Act of Congress." enthusiasm for the Phil. by the enforced. The 1942 Act was attacked in the Hirabayashi case as an December 18.S. all persons of Japanese the government to take steps necessary to prevent ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question espionage and sabotage in an area threatened by was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States. and finally that to apply the curfew order The petitioner. where he temporarily stays and makes his living. real and applicable to any such area or zone or contrary to the order reasonable. and the importance ." illegitimate use of pernicious designs and practices. 34. which the petitioner violated. It merely 1942. The classification is actual. national as a trader. treated alike. That order. ". 1942. The mere fact of alienage is the root cause of war requires every possible protection against espionage the distinction between the alien and the and against sabotage to national-defense material. or both. be guilty of a misdemeanor aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not to exceed classification in the exercise of police power. is justified in whom he makes his profit. Through the circumstances of "emergency and peril. . Japanese attack. 1944 unconstitutional delegation of power. California. United States. 34 of the Commanding consideration which their importance justified. Official statistics point out to the ever- increasing dominance and control by alien of Exclusion Order No. leave. contrary to the restrictions 2. or commit any under like circumstances and conditions both act in any military area or military zone prescribed. . remain in. an American citizen of Japanese descent. that the curfew order and other orders on which it rested were beyond the war powers of the Congress. While the citizen holds his life. The alien owes no ISSUE allegiance or loyalty to the State." contrary to account of race. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. we gave the serious Civilian Exclusion Order No. the retail trade. Order No. all of which orders were aimed at the twin dangers of espionage and sabotage. military orders. The alien retailer has shown such utter outweighed Korematsu's rights. $ 5. U. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of theCourt. 320 U. It is this domination and was one of a number of military orders and proclamations. of March 21. . it was contended MR. his person and his property subject to the needs of the HOLDING country. RATIO: Prosecution of the petitioner begun by information 1. disregard for his customers and the people on though constitutionally suspect. shall. the alien now enjoys a monopolistic RATIO control on the nation’s economy endangering the national security in times of crisis and Validity of Law emergency. powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent 6. for each offense. In Hirabayashi v. and national-defense utilities. The difference in status between citizens and his act was in violation thereof. We General of the Western Command.000 or to imprisonment for not more than one year. whoever shall enter. ruling affirmed. control that is the legislature’s target in the all of which were substantially based upon Executive enactment of the Act. . U.

The court rejects the argument. he was subject to beyond the war power of Congress and the Executive punishment. He was were conflicting orders outstanding. But as applying to the whole group. either. forbidding him both to excluded because we are at war with the Japanese leave the area and to remain there. Regardless of the true citizens of Japanese ancestry refused to swear unqualified nature of the assembly and relocation centers . national defense and safety. no less The contention is that we must treat these separate orders than curfew. But exclusion from a threatened area. Nothing short of apprehension by It is argued that the validity of the exclusion order cannot the proper military authorities of the gravest imminent be considered apart from the orders requiring him. It is argued that on May 30. inadequate protection and ordered exclusion. there because of hostility to him or his race. has a definite and close relationship to as one and inseparable. without reference to the real military dangers which were presented. It was because we could not reject the The power to exclude includes the power to do it by finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to force if necessary. 1942. exclusion from the area in which one's home is located is a far “Inseparability of orders” contention greater deprivation than constant confinement to the home from 8 p. to 6 a. it will such persons could not readily be isolated and be noted. under the March 27 and May 3 orders. In the instant case. as in the Hirabayashi case. (2) report to and temporarily remain that population. to exclude those of Japanese ancestry from the West whether he remained in or left the area. concluded that curfew provided conviction under it cannot stand. whose number and strength could not in an assembly center. we are allegiance to the United States and to renounce allegiance dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion to the Japanese Emperor. group. Each of these requirements. and several thousand evacuees order. it results in holding that the temporary exclusion of the entire group was rested by order under which petitioner was convicted was valid. exclusion of those of Japanese origin was of those separate provisions of the order. the military on the same ground." to report or to remain in an assembly or relocation center. we cannot in this case determine the validity Like curfew. which demanded that prompt and adequate measures be taken to guard Since the petitioner has not been convicted of failing against it. order. imposed distinct duties in connection with the separately dealt with. Empire. True. 34 was promulgated. the court cannot reject separate provisions of the separate orders. Coast war area at the time they did.m. which he stipulated in his trial that he had violated. was the May 3 order which situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese prohibited his remaining there. the exclusion order and his defending our shores. whichever view is taken. if detention in the assembly or the prevention of espionage and sabotage. assembly center the court cannot say either as a matter of all danger of Japanese invasion of the West Coast had fact or law that his presence in that center would have disappeared. That there imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp were members of the group who retained loyalties to Japan solely because of his ancestry. 1942. These separate as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities requirements were that those of Japanese ancestry (1) and of Congress that there were disloyal members of depart from the area. (3) go under military control to a be precisely and quickly ascertained. To cast this case into outlines of racial requested repatriation to Japan. We cannot say relocation center there to remain for an indeterminate that the war-making branches of the Government did period until released conditionally or unconditionally by not have ground for believing that in a critical hour the military authorities. It is deemed necessary because of the presence of an sufficient here for us to pass upon the order which unascertained number of disloyal members of the petitioner violated. and it was that same ancestry be segregated from the West Coast . This is made clear when we analyze the requirements of the Here. without evidence or has been confirmed by investigations made subsequent to inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition the exclusion. The judgment that exclusion of the whole group was for the same reason a Conclusion military imperative answers the contention that the exclusion was in the nature of group punishment based It is said that we are dealing here with the case of on antagonism to those of Japanese origin. Had petitioner here left the prohibited area and gone to an Petitioner urges that when Order No. 1942. The military relocation center would have illegally deprived the authorities. we are unable to conclude that it was argument that on May 30. In the light of the principles we announced in the knowing of its existence. prejudice. There is therefore no basis for the Hirabayashi case. to danger to the public safety can constitutionally justify report and to remain in an assembly or relocation center. the area on May 30. And any forcible measure must bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from necessarily entail some degree of detention or the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order restraint whatever method of removal is selected. charged with the primary responsibility of petitioner of his liberty. merely confuses the “Conflict of Order” contention issue. Approximately five thousand American towards the United States. most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. the date specified in the because they decided that the military urgency of the information against him. resulted in his detention in a relocation center. and constituted a menace to the separate steps in a complete evacuation program. because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and The only order in effect touching the petitioner's being in felt constrained to take proper security measures.m. the date the petitioner Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area was charged with remaining in the prohibited area.

Conceding this to be so for the purposes of this case. for whom and by whom. Laws permitting. anything in is claimed by the plaintiff in error that. or a constituting a part of the political community. then. because availing ourselves of the calm being deprived of his so-called property. since he is not lawfully entitled to the reputation of being a white man. and have been generally. appreciation of each other's merits and a voluntary The constitutionality of this act is attacked upon the consent of individuals. called the commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory people of the United States. now social. In determining the question of FACTS: reasonableness it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages. such property. the petitioner was required by to have been questioned. we are unable to see how this statute deprives him . Despite this. which prohibits certain I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is restrictive legislation in part of the States? NO inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens. Upon the other perspective of hindsight -. and with a view to the promotion of their general assembly of the state of Louisiana. so assigned. W/O Not the statute is unconstitutional for being in DISSENT: conflict with the 13th Amendment. race. 2. or to enforce of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens. a mutual the assailed Louisiana statute. it is true. The petitioner was a citizen of the United that a law which authorizes or even requires the States and a resident of the State of Louisiana. and traditions of the This case centers on the constitutionality of an act of the people. the Constitution of the United States ISSUES/HELD: cannot put them upon the same plane. common to all nature of things it could not have been intended to citizens. we cannot say colored races. in this instance the white race is property. the case reduces itself to the question PLESSY vs.. in any mixed the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary community. and the 14th based upon physical differences. or in any way affects his right to. and the preservation of the public peace and providing for separate railway carriages for the white and good order. If he confidence in this time of war in our military leaders be a white man and assigned to a colored coach. which prohibits certain restrictive legislation so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of on the part of the states. 1. recognized as within the competency of the action. to either.So far. and to place in a condition abolish distinctions based upon color. as distinguished from say that at that time hand. have disappeared from our country. he may determined that they should have the power to do just have his action for damages against the company for this. On June 7. and finally. We cannot -. The object of the there would remain a power in the states. It duty to maintain the supreme law of the land. in the same sense that a right of action. of mixed separation of the two races in public conveyances is descent (7/8 Caucasian. and even requiring their through representatives. and may be stricken down by Congressional universally. the present situation. separation in places where they are liable to be brought Such a system is inconsistent with the guarantee given by into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of the Constitution of each state of a republican form of either race to the other. as a conflict with the 14th Amendment is concerned. 1892 he unreasonable or more obnoxious to the 14th paid for a first class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway Amendment than the acts of Congress requiring from New Orleans to Covington. he has these actions were unjustified. customs. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several states of the 1. J. the effect would be in the highest degree between the white and colored races. if he be a colored man and be. has no tendency to mischievous. white and black. Slavery as an institution tolerated by law destroy the legal equality of the two races. by sinister amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute legislation. to regulate civil rights.temporarily. or re-establish would. in that state. or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. our government is administered. 1/8 African). Upon entering the separate schools for colored children in the District of passenger train he sat in a vacant seat reserved for white Columbia. abolishing slavery? NO Justice HARLAN 2. passed in 1890. or the corresponding acts of the conductor to transfer to the seats assigned to colored state legislatures. if not government. equality. passengers. but a state of involuntary servitude. comfort. A statute which implies merely a legal distinction Union. abolishing slavery. If one race be inferior to the other socially. W/O Not the statute is unconstitutional for being in conflict with the 14th Amendment. and the attempt to do Amendment. been deprived of no property. upon the basis of race. and hostile to both the spirit and letter RATIO: of the Constitution of the United States. is property. reposing its of. Gauged by this standard. but in the blessings of freedom. the constitutionality of which does not seem passengers. the reputation of belonging to the dominant notwithstanding. Legislation is powerless to ground that it conflicts both with the 13th Amendment of eradicate racial instincts or to abolish distinctions the Constitution. to interfere with the full enjoyment of the equality of the two races before the law. FERGUSON whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation. and with respect to this there must BROWN. When the petitioner refused he was forcibly If the two races are to meet on terms of social equality ejected from the said coach and was charged with violating wit must be the result of natural affinities. or of inheritance. necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature.

Chicanos. and 16 characteristics. Asians. or of minority groups. Petitioner’s special admissions UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA vs. and though he had a score Parties disagree as to the level of judicial scrutiny to be of 549 out of 600. and prerequisite to subjecting racial distinctions to strict 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Declaring that petitioner could not take race into account in making 14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause admissions decisions. Nor has this Court held that discreteness and insularity constitute necessary preconditions to a holding The trial court found that the special program operated as that a particular classification is invidious. applied to the special admissions program. Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial both years being considered only under the general classifications that would violate the Equal Protection admissions program. however. absent the special (June 28. and declaratory relief to compel his program bec white males. he was again rejected. Since petitioner could not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that respondent. Applicants who pass its student body  NO this requirement undergo an interview (rated on a scale of 3. composed the special admissions national origin. applicants were asked to indicate in denied the benefits of. Powell respondent’s admission. 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: “No A separate committee.” concluded that the special admission program was not the • Although the framers conceived of its primary function least intrusive means of achieving the goals of the as bridging the vast distance bet members of the Negro . scrutiny. Respondent’s protection are universal in their application to all admission was not ordered. However. and ethnic background. would not have been admitted. in intent. without he would have been admitted but for the special program. No Federal funds are spent in accordance with the Consti and disadvantaged whites were admitted under the special the moral sense of the Nation” and “to give fellow citizens – program. for lack of proof that persons within the territorial jurisdiction. are not a admission. of color. Proponents of the bill detailed the plight of admissions committee. he was rejected since no late general applicants with scores less than 470 were being accepted. American Indians). regard to any differences of race. but it is special applicants were admitted with significantly lower undisputed that it makes a classification based on race scores than respondent’s. science courses GPA. WON petitioner could satisfy its burden of proving that 1 to 100 per interviewer).5 (on a appropriate in realizing petitioner’s goal of diversifying scale of 4. WON the special admissions program is necessary and candidates who had an undergrad GPA below 2. they did not have to meet Negroes seeking equal treatment in federally funded the 2. admittedly compelling interests of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of doctors willing to serve minority patients. BAKKE program was held to violate the Equal Protection Clause. alleging that the special admissions program “discrete and insular minority” requiring extraordinary operated to exclude him on the basis of his race in protection from the majoritarian political process. 2. places out 100 were reserved for them. Nevertheless. Though he had a 468 out of 500 Clause or the 5th Amendment. had been no special admissions program  NO overall GPA. WON a right of action for private parties exists under admissions programs for an entering class of 100 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964  YES students. such as respondent. If an applicant was The problem confronting Congress was discrimination found to be “disadvantaged. Medical College Admission Test (MCAT). on the ground of race.” In view of the clear legislative Respondent. 2. 1978) program.” he would be rated in the against Negro citizens at the hands of recipients of federal same manner as the one employed by the general moneys. or be subjected to their application forms if they wished to be considered as discrimination under any program or activity receiving “economically and/or educationally disadvantaged” Federal financial assistance. a white male. Negroes – the same rights and opportunities that white people take for granted. applying a strict-scrutiny standard. In Application of Judicial Scrutiny 1974 respondent applied early. petitioner argues After his 2nd rejection. has not been invoked in decisions as a Amendment. 1. Under it. which composed their respective respondent would not have been admitted even if there “benchmark scores” based on the interviewers’ summaries. In both years. color. a provision of the California Consti.5 grade point cutoff and were not ranked against programs.” applicants/members of a minority group (blacks. This violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th rationale. Under the regular admissions program. be program. the court ordered Ponente: J. They are a racial quota because minority applicants in that subject to stringent examination regardless of these program were rated only against one another. pledge of the protection of equal laws. a majority of whom were members person in the US shall. however. and the equal protection of the laws is a The California SC. 4 special admission slots were still unfilled.0) were summarily rejected. At the time. letters of recommendation. the program was held to violate the • Yick Wo v Hopkins: “The guarantees of equal Federal and State Constis and Title VI. The purpose of Title VI was “to insure that candidates in the general admissions process. though many applied. score in 1973. be excluded from participation in. RATIO: extracurricular activities and other biographical data. FACTS: ISSUES  HELD: The Medical School of the Univ of California had 2 1. respondent filed this action for that the court below erred in applying strict scrutiny to the mandatory. or of nationality. applied in 1973 and 1974. injunctive.

ability to communicate with its own sake. Academic freedom has long been viewed as a special and ethnic origin. However. or involves the use of an explicit racial classification never administrative findings of constitutional or statutory before countenanced by this Court. Obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an deemed a “plus” in a particular applicant’s file. but to remedy academic vacuum. students. other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for demonstrated compassion. the Court has never approved a classification applicant as an individual in the admissions process. An admissions program should operate in such a way that would be Court.” the Amendment itself limitations protecting individuals may not be was framed in universal terms. the proving ground for legal learning and practice. “The law school. or condition prior to servitude. There is no principled basis for deciding which groups Racial classification = Diversity? would merit “heightened judicial solicitude” and which It is not an interest in simple ethnic diversity. Petitioner has failed to carry this burden. legislative. the same weight. Brennan. Countering the effects of societal discrimination genuine diversity.e. but when a State’s 3. cannot be effective in JJ. with the impermissible burdens in order to enhance the remaining percentage an undifferentiated aggregation of societal standing of their ethnic groups. a range of factors a university properly may consider in attaining the goal of a heterogeneous student body. with the Court making a specific would not have been admitted. exceptional personal talents. This kind of program treats each However. leadership potential. Petitioner has conceded that it could not carry its be taught. removed from the interplay of disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice. There is no empirical data to its special admissions program is constitutionally deemed demonstrate that any one race is more selflessly invalid. Preferring members of any one group for no reason service experience. Such rights are not absolute. that individual is needed or geared to promote such goal. Nothing in the Consti supports the notion specified percentage of the student body is in effect that individuals may be asked to suffer otherwise guaranteed to be members of selected groups. and Blackmun. The fatal flaw in violations. ideas and the exchange of views with which the at least when appropriate findings have been made by law is concerned. yet it does ethnically diverse student body not insulate the individual from comparison with all the MEANS: special admissions program other candidates for the available seats. respondent still is substantial. without reference to disregarded. etc) in light of the particular qualifications of 2. the poor. The freedom of a enjoining petitioner from taking race into account is university to make its own judgments as to education reversed. Few students and no one Gov’t may take race into account when it acts not to who has practiced law would choose to study in an demean or insult any racial group. The State certainly has a legitimate and substantial each applicant. ethnic diversity is only one element in competence to act in this area. it cannot be said petitioner’s preferential program is its disregard of that the gov’t has any greater interest in helping 1 individual rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. includes the selection of its student body. California SC’s judgment concern of the 1st Amendment. legislative. admissions program involving the consideration of race 4. It is true that the contribution of diversity unlawful special admissions program. Hence. that aids persons perceived as members of relatively victimized groups at the expense of other innocent In sum. The diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of Purposes and Means qualifications and characteristics of which racial or PURPOSE: ethnic origin is but a single though important element. and (4) who may burden of proving that. focused solely on ethnic minorities in medical schools and in the profession diversity. Increasing the number of physicians who will practice places to a minority group is not a necessary means in communities currently underserved towards that end. There is no evidence on record indicating that distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on petitioner’s special admissions program is either ancestry or the color of one’s skin. Thus. although not necessarily according them the disabling effects of identified discrimination. minorities than by race. individual than in refraining from harming another. race and the white “majority. Although a university must have wide discretion in making the sensitive judgments as to who should be admitted. 1. Race or ethnic background may be 4. constitutional . the State has a substantial interest that socially oriented or by contrast that another is more legitimately may be served by a properly devised selfishly acquisitive. he is entitled to reference to legal education: injunction and should be admitted there. maturity. or administrative bodies with HOWEVER. holding that the means is not essential in realizing flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of the purposes: diversity (i. would hinder rather than further attainment of 2. ethnic origin. in which a would not. There are more entitled to a demonstration that the challenged precise and reliable ways to identify applicants who classification is necessary to promote a substantial state are genuinely interested in the medical problems of interest. isolation from the individuals and institutions with concurring and dissenting. hence. which the law interacts. Reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored Petitioner’s special program. and place them in the same footing for interest in ameliorating or eliminating where feasible. White. unique work or 1. Marshall. consideration.” judicial. color. the petitioner’s special admissions program individuals in the absence of judicial. (3) how it shall be taught. Without such findings. The assignment of a fixed number of 3. Four essential freedoms: (1) who may teach. (2) what may 3. but for the existence of its be admitted.

YES. follows an percentage.the university policy of promoting diversity constitutes a diversity. "the diversity that furthers a compelling race in violation of the 14th Amendment. Grutter v Bollinger. S. alleging that respondents which commanded a majority. Hispanic. and qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic Rev. Whether or not diversity is a compelling interest that and the applicant's essay." However. §2000d. that she was rejected by past racial prejudice.her application was rejected because the Law School .Rather.the Law School actually gives substantial weight to statement.'critical mass' " means " 'meaningful numbers' " or " FACTS: The University of Michigan Law School (Law 'meaningful representation. In the landmark Bakke case. in which a specified percentage of the student body is in effect guaranteed to Pettioner (Barbara Grutter) : be members of selected ethnic groups. medical school's racial set-aside program that reserved 16 When the Law School denied admission to petitioner out of 100 seats for members of certain minority groups.respondents "had no compelling interest to justify their use of race in the admissions process" Respondents (Lee Bollinger. Four other Justices would have because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" struck the program down on statutory grounds. Justice Powell emphasized that the " 'nation's because race was merely a "potential 'plus' factor" and future depends upon leaders trained through wide because the Law School's program was virtually identical exposure' to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly this Nation. he also emphasized that "it is not by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion. giving applicants belonging to certain minority Powell. Bakke. and that respondents had no compelling interest race whatsoever. The policy does not define applicants for admission to public universities diversity solely in terms of racial and ethnic status and does not restrict the types of diversity contributions 2. giving applicants who belong to certain minority groups "a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. a white Michigan resident with a 3. Four Justices would have had discriminated against her on the basis of race in upheld the program on the ground that the government violation of the 14th Amendment. the quality of the undergraduate institution 1." GRATZ vs. but also for students with similar credentials from disfavored racial reversing the state court's injunction against any use of groups. or range of numbers or percentages that official admissions policy that seeks to achieve student constitute critical mass. S. In a part of his opinion that was joined to justify that use of race. body diversity through compliance with Regents of Univ. 252." but it does reaffirm the admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in Law School's commitment to diversity with special obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student reference to the inclusion of African-American. jeffrey Lehman. Law School dean. §1981. announcing the Court's judgment. one of the Nation's top law schools.the policy did not purport to remedy past discrimination. 42 U. §1977. as amended. 78 Stat. letters of recommendation. §1981 origin is but a single though important element. there is no number. body is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause (14th and Native-American students. who otherwise might not Amend) be represented in the student body in meaningful numbers.respondents discriminated against her on the basis of using race. and has been viewed as a special concern of the First that the Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored Amendment. former Law School dean. Additionally. Focusing on students' academic ability but rather to include students who may bring to the Law coupled with a flexible assessment of their talents. BOLLINGER . provided a fifth groups a significantly greater chance of admission than vote not only for invalidating the program. The District Court found the by no other Justice. C. and 42 U. Cal. J. the policy seeks to ensure their ability to contribute to the Law School's 1." such as recommenders' enthusiasm. Title VI of the Civil Rights can use race to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil state interest encompasses a far broader array of Rights Act of 1964. v. and the applicant's undergraduate grade point "compelling interest" average (GPA) and Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) score. Whether or not the narrowly-tailored use of race in eligible for "substantial weight. Stat. Powell's opinion in Bakke was binding precedent Grounding his analysis in the academic freedom that "long establishing diversity as a compelling state interest. Admissions Director): -there was no directive to admit a fixed/particular O'Connor. of . attaining a diverse student body was the only interest The Sixth Circuit of the CA reversed. including a personal . By enrolling a "critical mass" of HELD: underrepresented minority students. and potential. 02-241 (June 2003) Denis Shield. School). School a perspective different from that of members of experiences. holding that Justice asserted by the university that survived scrutiny." Since . uses race as a "predominant" factor. C. percentage or number of minority students. present UMich pres. she filed this suit. an interest in simple ethnic diversity. S. Grutter. C.'.8 GPA and 161 The decision produced six separate opinions. and the areas and difficulty of can justify the narrowly tailored use of race in selecting undergraduate course selection. Justice Powell expressed his view that Law School's use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. none of LSAT score. Justice factor. an essay describing diversity factors besides race how the applicant will contribute to Law School life and . 42 U." that can justify . officials must look beyond grades and ISSUES: scores to so-called "soft variables. but rather to NATURE: certiorari to the US CA consider an applicant's race along with all other factors . this Court reviewed a character and to the legal profession. the policy requires admissions groups which have not been the victims of such officials to evaluate each applicant based on all the discrimination information available in the file. BOLLINGER/ GRUTTER vs.

through exposure to widely diverse people. Courts. can justify using race in university admissions.g. and strict scrutiny is designed to provide a School frequently accepts nonminority applicants with framework for carefully examining the importance and the grades and test scores lower than underrepresented sincerity of the government's reasons for using race in a minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) particular context. provide educational opportunities to members of all racial Attaining a diverse student body is at the heart of the Law groups. The Court finds it unnecessary to decide this applicant. cultures. the program adequately ensures Context matters when reviewing such action. in the context Enrolling a "critical mass" of minority students simply to of individualized consideration of the possible diversity assure some specified percentage of a particular group contributions of each applicant. . satisfies these requirements. after obtaining the requisite hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. and in particular. racially diverse officer corps is essential to national security. (d) The Law School's admissions program bears the Mrs." policies." alternatives. Sweatt v. Gomillion v. law schools. admissions policies must be limited in time. students for an increasingly diverse workforce. Finally. who are rejected. Narrow tailoring does not require diversity is essential to its educational mission. a race-conscious admissions program cannot of Illinois for a license to practice law. it must be Powell's views. Adarand Constructors. and to place them on the same footing for issue because the Court endorses Justice Powell's view consideration. the numerous expert studies and reports showing that such use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to diversity promotes learning outcomes and better prepares further the interest approved today. Also.. or §1981 way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the a. c. Hunt. for society. ILLINOIS of the Nation's leaders. The Law School's claim is further bolstered by practicable. Gratz v. holistic review of each applicant's file. the Law School's race- merely because of its race or ethnic origin would be conscious admissions program does not unduly harm patently unconstitutional. The 2. Peña. either de jure or de facto. have struggled to discern "flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of whether Justice Powell's diversity rationale is binding diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each precedent. Public and private universities across the Nation Bakke. a lottery system or decreasing the emphasis on GPA defers to the Law School's educational judgment that and LSAT scores. however. the program is flexible enough to ensure that student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a Clause. To be narrowly qualifications. Instead. represent the training ground for a large number BRADWELL vs. All government racial classifications must be application. i. Wygant v. Myra Bradwell.Bakke. the path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity. applied the the judges of the Supreme Court tailored. Shaw v. Justice Powell's opinion has been the touchstone "insulat[e] each category of applicants with certain desired for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions qualifications from competition with all other applicants. Major American businesses decisions is not prohibited by Equal Protection Clause. because universities.e. necessary to further a compelling governmental interest There is no policy. But not all such uses giving serious consideration to all the ways an applicant are invalidated by strict scrutiny. military leaders assert that a highly qualified. The Court important. of Ed. and its "good faith" that the Law School adequately considered the available is "presumed" absent "a showing to the contrary. The Court e. The Court endorses Justice Powell's view that Law School should have used other race-neutral means to student body diversity is a compelling state interest that obtain the educational benefits of student body diversity. like the Harvard plan admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in approved by Justice Powell. The Court expects that 25 years from now. But the Law School defines its nonminority applicants. Race-based action might contribute to a diverse educational environment. including cross-racial better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and understanding and the breaking down of racial will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as stereotypes. that all factors that may contribute to diversity are Lightfoot. High-ranking retired officers and civilian US CA decision affirmed. narrowly tailored to further that interest. The Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in Law School's admissions program. it may consider race or ethnicity only as a have modeled their own admissions programs on Justice " 'plus' in a particular applicant's file". obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse Moreover. Because the Law School's use of race in admissions and for the legal profession. Not every decision influenced by race is equally meaningfully considered alongside race. ideas. Moreover." It follows that universities cannot the context of university admissions. the Law School has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse FACTS: student body. Bollinger. the Law objectionable. of automatic does not violate the Equal Protection Clause so long as it is acceptance or rejection based on any single "soft" variable. The Law School engages in a highly analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. Thus. although not necessarily according them that student body diversity is a compelling state interest in the same weight. Inc. have made clear that the skills needed in today's petitioner's statutory claims based on Title VI and §1981 increasingly global marketplace can only be developed also fail. The exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative or Court's scrutiny of that interest is no less strict for taking mandate that a university choose between maintaining a into account complex educational judgments in an area reputation for excellence or fulfilling a commitment to that lies primarily within the university's expertise. Moreover. The Court is satisfied School's proper institutional mission.. Title VI. and laudable educational benefits that diversity takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing is designed to produce. and viewpoints. establish quotas for members of certain racial or ethnic groups or put them on separate admissions tracks. Painter. Jackson Bd. race-conscious critical mass concept by reference to the substantial. v. individualized. NO. The Court is also satisfied that. The Court rejects the argument that the b.

brought this case to the Federal Supreme regulate the granting of license to practice law in the Court. all positions. Other rules of admission are left to the discretion of the members of the Supreme Court. and that it belonged to men to make. Bradwell. In the pursuit of happiness all avocations. they must be admitted as such by its order. in the protector and defender. was regarded as an almost contains privileges and immunities which belong to a axiomatic truth. DISSENTING: a judicial court. had adopted the Common Law system of England in which female attorneys were JUSTICE MILLER. being a married woman and on the ground of her sex. like the clerical profession and that of medicine. Question: Does admission to the bar belong to that class of privileges which a state may not abridge. duly qualified in respect of age. 14th Amendment: It executes itself in every state of Judgement affirmed the union. It contains a class of privileges that a state may not abridge. Constitutional amendment: women as citizens to engage in any and every profession. imprisonment. the U. claim. and that being bound by her express or implied contracts which the in the protection of these rights all are equal before the law law upholds between attorney and client. In regard to that amendment counsel for plaintiff claims apply. which declares that no state shall make or Yes. Judgement affirmed. Timidity and delicacy belong to the state of his adoption. 2) The court should not admit any persons or class of persons who are not intended by the legislature to II. and execute the laws. DISSENTING: unknown. According to the Chicago statute. the State Supreme Court relied the court and not of the United states.S. even though their exclusion is not they might make with her because of her expressly required by the statute. Court believes that the practice of law is a privilege many years. is an advocation open to This discretion is subject to two limitations: every citizen of the United States. Man is woman’s enjoyed in his native state. which he belonged by the laws of such adopted state. are alike open to every one. Furthermore. provided by any county court. or expulsion from the bar. The legislature may 1) The terms of admission must promote the proper prescribe qualifications but may not discriminate a class of administration of justice citizens from admission to the bar. The court concentrated on the second limitation. and learning. citizen of the U. It argued that at the time of the establishment of at law against her. to such privileges and female. God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action. This kind of malpractice may be punishable by practice of law would be exercising authority conferred to fine. Conclusion: The profession of the law. Missouri: all men have certain inalienable The Supreme Court refused to issue Bradwell a license for rights. ISSUE: WON a female. Their destiny is to become wives and mothers. but was entitles. all the reason that her marital status would prevent her from honors.S. individual is allowed to practice law without obtaining a license from two justices of the state supreme court. Ex Parte Garland: Attorneys and counselors are officers of In providing its decision. The founders of the common law believed that a immunities as were enjoyed by the class of citizens to woman had no legal existence apart from her husband. Difficulty of clients in enforcing the contracts be admitted. under the fourteenth amendment. courts of a state is one of those powers which are not transferred for its protection to the Federal government. practicing law without a license obtained from two Therefore. assumes that the RATIO: practice of law is one of the privileges and immunities of I. judgement reversed enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the U. the privilege of earning a livelihood by practicing at the bar of JUSTICE BRADLEY. The right to control and Mrs. Her them in a manner different from what the legislature clients would not be compelled to resort to actions intended. the practice of law has never depended on the concept of citizenship. They are not on an existing state statute prohibiting persons from appointed in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. or . character. no which belong to a citizen of the United States.S. contemplating that admitting women to engage in the . Cases: Cummings vs.This was accompanied by an affidavit claiming that she that class of political rights as to which a state may was born in Vermont and was formerly a citizen of that discriminate between its citizens? state. she is now both a citizen of the United States and the state of Illinois after residing in Chicago for . Original: A citizen emigrating from one state to another Civil law has recognized wide differences in the spheres carried with him. not the privileges and immunities he and destinies of man and woman. The claim that under the 14th amendment of the DECISION: constitution. Supreme Court justices.. However. this statute. the issuance of a upon evidence of their possessing sufficient legal learning license requires a certificate of good moral character and fair private character.

Michigan could. This inevitable result of ISSUE: the classification belies the assumption that the statute was motivated by a legislative solicitude for the moral and WON the Equal Protection of the Laws Clause of the physicial well-being of women who. Nor is it unconstitutional for Michigan to withdraw from women the occupation of bartending because it allows women to serve as waitresses where liquor is dispensed. forbid all women from working behind a bar. dissenting. Michigan evidently believes that the he can also get additional benefits of $12 per day). certainly. that men have long practiced. condition that triggers the obligation to pay benefits though. A female owner of the wives and daughters of the owners of liquor may neither work as a barmaid hereself nor employ her establishments. Mr. he can receive a “weekly benefit amount” to be females other factors are operating which either eliminate paid on the eighth day of disability. Weekly oversight assured through ownership of a bar by a benefit amounts for one disability are payable for 26weeks barmaid's husband or father minimizes hazards that may so long as the total amt paid doesn’t exceed one-half of the confront a barmaid without such protecting oversight. If he is hospitalized. in placed in the Unemployment Compensation Disability the allowable legislative judgment. Michigan has not violated its duty to afford The individual employee is insured against the risk of equal protection of its laws. etc. We cannot cross-examine disability from a no. may barmaids and at the same time make an exception in favor employ his wife and daughter as barmaids. The fact that that pays benefits to persons in private employment who women may now have achieved the virtues that men have are temporarily unable to work because of disability not long claimed as their prerogatives and now indulge in vices covered by workmen’s compensation for almost 30 years.) which requires an employee to contribute one percent of his salary ($85 max. or reduce the moral and social problems otherwise calling the payment would be on the 1st day of hospitalization and for prohibition. of mental or physical illness(es) and either actually or argumentatively the mind of Michigan mental or physical injuries. denying an injunction to restrain the The statute arbitrarily discriminates between male and enforcement of the Michigan law. CLEARY which a man's ownership provides control. No benefits are paid for a single disability beyond 26 weeks or for a disability resulting from individual’s . Nothing need be added to what was said below as to the other grounds FACTS: on which the Michigan law was assailed. A male owner. Justice MURPHY join. the statute daughters of non-owners. HELD: No. is mandatory unless the The Constitution does not require situations 'which are employees are protected by voluntary private medical different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though plans approved by the State. such matters as the regulation of the liquor traffic. Michigan cannot forbid females generally from being although he himself is always absent from his bar. daughter in that position. the legislature need not go to the full length of In the event a participant employee suffers a compensable prohibition if it believes that as to a defined group of disability. This is so despite the vast changes California has administered a disability insurance system in the social and legal position of women. Justice DOUGLAS and Mr. It is not every disabling legislators nor question their motives. give rise to moral and Fund. The case is here on direct appeal from an order of the District Court. Since there could be no other classification the State has made between wives and conceivable justification for such discrimination against daughters of owners of liquor places and wives and women owners of liquor establishments. but for the law. 1974 oldest and most untrammeled of legislative powers. by the Michigan legislature. Such participation. This wages received during the base period while additional Court is certainly not in a position to gainsay such belief benefits are for a max of 20days. As part of the Michigan system for controlling the sale of **What if it’s a female owner? Gender classification. even if a man is always present in the establishment to keep order. and the regulation of the liquor traffic is one of the Gudeldig. Justice RUTLEDGE. does not preclude the States This is funded from contributions deducted from the from drawing a sharp line between the sexes. GEDULDIG vs. social problems against which it may devise preventive measures. would Fourteenth Amendment barred Michigan from making the be employed as barmaids. These contributions are they were the same. The District Court has sufficiently indicated the reasons that may have influenced the legislature in allowing women to be waitresses in a liquor establishment over GOESART vs. annually). beyond question. should be held invalid as a denial of equal protection. is the basis of distinction? but no female may be so licensed unless she be “the wife or daughter of the male owner” of a licensed liquor Heigthened establishment. with whom Mr. v Aiello et al. What liquor. AIELLO RATIO: (The Fourteenth Amendment did not tear history up by the roots.' Since bartending by women may. The claim is that female owners of liquor establishments. If it is entertainable. in wages of participating employees. bartenders are required to be licensed in all cities. as we think it is.

disability that accompanies normal pregnancy and childbirth. drug addict or sexual the selection of risks insured worked to discriminate psychopath. also excludes disabilities resulting from pregnancy. By singling out for less favorable treatment a gender-linked disability peculiar to women. consistent with the Gudelgig. the Director of the California Dept of Human Equal Protection Clause. neglecting others.” incomes. Where the insurance concepts. The Court has held previously that. To order the State to pay benefits for disability accompanying normal pregnancy and delivery is to order MISSISSIPPI UNIV. 2626 of Unemployment Insurance Code against any definable group or class from the program. page 2488 of case. 8 will not interpose their judgement as to the appropriate Gudelgig applied 2626 of UIC to preclude the payment of stopping point. initially 8 See meaning of disability as defined in 2626 of Unemployment offering a 2-year associate degree. “the Court is not free to percent contribution bears a close and substantial sustain the statute on ground that iot rationally promotes relationship to the level of benefits payable and to the legitimate govtl interests. that such would inevitably require state subsidy or some other measure. the Mississippi Legislature created the challenged in this case relates to the asserted Mississippi Industrial Institute and College for the “underinclusiveness” of the set of risks that the State has Education of White Girls of the State of Mississippi. addressing itself to the phase of the problem program. the appellees were ruled ineligible for disability benefits and are now suing to enjoin With respect to how a change of the variables would result its enforcement and are challenging the constitutionality of in a more comprehensive program. These variables represent a July 1. No. employees. school instituted a 4-year baccalaureate program in . This is sex discrimination. JUSTICE O'CONNOR California doesn’t discriminate with respect to persons or FACTS: groups which are eligible for disability insurance protection under the program. the Court expressed such provision. became entitled to benefits it has legitimate concern in maintaining the contribution under the program and their claims have since then been rate at a level that won’t unduly burden participating paid. now selected to insure. has from its inception limited its participating employees. legislature may select one phase of field and apply a Three of the appellees’ disabilities are attributable to remedy there. 1982 policy determination by the State. It never drew on general state State employs legislative classifications with reference to revenues to finance disability or hospital benefits. MUW established a School of Nursing. requires such policies to be sacrificed in order to finance compensation is denied for disabilities suffered in the payment of benefits to those whose disability is connection with a “normal pregnancy” – disabilities attributable to normal pregnancies. The Court held that the State has a Because of the Rentzer v Calif Unemployment legitimate interest in maintaining the self-supporting Insurance Appeals Board and the revised administrative nature of its insurance program and in distributing the guidelines that resulted from it. SCHOOL for WOMEN vs. The classification In 1884. three of the appellees available resources in such a way to keep benefit whose disabilities were attributable to causes other than payments at an adequate level for disabilities covered. Over the years. In 1971. it said that here is nothing in the Consti that requires the State to subordinate or Issue : WON the California disability insurance program compromise its legitimate interests solely to create a more invidiously discriminates against Jaramillo and others comprehensive social insurance program that it already similarly situated by not paying insurance benefits for has. benefits to appellees. The State has not chosen to insure all the oldest state-supported all-female college in the United risks of employment disability and this decision is reflected States. the Insurance Code. Plus. use of feasible. One set of rules is applied to females while insurance program to function in accordance with another to males. Moreover. Brennan’s dissent: \Underlying Issue: WON the Equal Protection Clause Despite the Code’s broad goals and scope of coverage. so long as the line pregnancies while Jaramillo experienced a normal drawn by the State is rationally supportable. the Courts pregnancy. rather such classifications can disability risks insured under the program. which is the sole cause fo her disability. known today as Mississippi University in the level of annual contributions exacted from for Women (MUW).” Particularly with abnormal complications encountered during their respect to social welfare programs. “a State may take one step at a Resources is responsible for the administration of this time. suffered only by women. be sustained only when the State bears the burden of California has been committed to not increasing the demonstrating that the challenged legislation serves contribution rate above the one-percent level. Also normal pregnancy and delivery. became pregnant and suffered which seems acute to the legislative mind…The employment disability as a result of their pregnancies. gender-linked disability risks. The school.court commitment as a dipsomaniac. Aiello et al. less drastic means. It has overriding or compelling interests that cannot be achieved sought to provide the broadest possible disability by more carefully tailored legislative classification or by the protection that would be affordable by even those with low. Three years later. the max benefits allowable and other variables affecting the solvency of the program. The one. Thus. there is no evidence that enrollment to women. the State has created a double standard for disability California intended to establish this benefit system as an compensation. HOGAN them to make reasonable changes in the contribution rate.

have emphasized that "the mere recitation of a benign. we conclude that the State has fallen far short of establishing the "exceedingly Care must be taken in ascertaining whether the statutory persuasive justification" needed to sustain the gender- objective itself reflects archaic and stereotypic notions.nursing and today also offers a graduate program. a gender-based classification Hogan applied for admission to the MUW School of favoring one sex can be justified if it intentionally and Nursing's baccalaureate program. should females does not exempt it from scrutiny or reduce the become nurses. Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. we next joins. The state's argument. often inaccurate. Thus. women earned 94 percent of the nursing distinction." used by the State. MUW's admissions policy lends discriminates against males rather than against credibility to the old view that women. Since 1974. is a registered nurse but does not affirmative action. we the party seeking to uphold a statute that classifies conclude that. claiming the purposes underlying a statutory scheme. MUW's policy of excluding males from We begin our analysis aided by several firmly established admission to the School of Nursing tends to perpetuate principles. the city in which MUW is located. That this statutory policy than it does to men. dissenting. determine whether the requisite direct. if the statutory objective is to exclude or "protect" policy of denying males the right to enroll for credit in members of one gender because they are presumed to its School of Nursing violates the Equal Protection suffer from an inherent handicap or to be innately inferior. Nor is respondent significantly disadvantaged by MUW's all-female tradition. The Of the State's 8 universities and 16 junior colleges. we consistently of Nursing solely because of his sex. Joe Hogan. At least two other that the validity of a classification is determined through Mississippi universities would have provided respondent reasoned analysis rather than through the mechanical with the nursing curriculum that he wishes to pursue. the labor force reflects the same predominance of opportunities to enter nursing. about the proper roles of men and women. he we find the State's argument unpersuasive. Hogan sought injunctive and declaratory compensatory purpose to justify an otherwise relief. Although he was directly assists members of the sex that is otherwise qualified. considering both the asserted interest and the discriminatory means employed" are "substantially related relationship between the interest and the methods to the achievement of those objectives. was percent of the degrees earned nationwide. However. Accordingly. therefore. The The State's primary justification for maintaining the School of Nursing has its own faculty and administrative single-sex admissions policy of MUW's School of officers and establishes its own criteria for admission. JUSTICE POWELL." it failed to establish that the burden of showing an "exceedingly persuasive alleged objective is the actual purpose underlying the justification" for the classification. that the policy baccalaureate degrees conferred in Mississippi and 98. In limited circumstances. with whom JUSTICE REHNQUIST If the State's objective is legitimate and important. although the State recited a "benign. discriminatory classification only if members of the gender benefited by the classification actually suffer a Issue disadvantage related to the classification. as well as compensatory damages. As one would "unpersuasive" since women traditionally have not lacked expect. not men. The burden is met discriminatory classification." single-sex admissions policy of MUW's School of Nursing violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth It is readily apparent that a State can evoke a Amendment. By assuring that Mississippi allots more is subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of openings in its state-supported nursing schools to women the Fourteenth Amendment. women in nursing. relationship between objective and means is present. based classification. substantial . we hold that MUW's Thus. Nursing is that it compensates for discrimination against women and. As applied to the School of Nursing. individuals on the basis of their gender must carry the compensatory purpose. constitutes educational Respondent. Because the challenged policy expressly the stereotyped view of nursing as an exclusively discriminates among applicants on the basis of gender. he was denied admission to the School disproportionately burdened. in Yes The Court held that the state did not provide an 1970. Our decisions also establish that a field for women a self-fulfilling prophecy. only by showing at least that the classification serves "important governmental objectives and that the Thus. His constitutional complaint is based . assumptions other male has joined in his complaint. hold a baccalaureate degree in nursing. has worked as a nursing supervisor in a medical center in Columbus. Ratio Rather than compensate for discriminatory barriers faced by women. the objective itself is illegitimate. In fact. all purpose of requiring that close relationship is to assure except MUW are coeducational. compensatory purpose is not an automatic shield Hogan filed an action in the United States District Court which protects against any inquiry into the actual for the Northern District of Mississippi. the year before the School of Nursing's first class "exceedingly persuasive justification" for the gender-based enrolled. and makes the assumption that nursing is standard of review. No application of traditional.6 constituted educational affirmative action for women. In 1979. it woman's job. Mississippi has WON the state statute which prevented men from enrolling made no showing that women lacked opportunities to in MUW violate the Equal Protection Clause of the obtain training in the field of nursing or to attain Fourteenth Amendment positions of leadership in that field when the MUW School of Nursing opened its door or that women Holding currently are deprived of such opportunities.

increased medical risk injury from sexual intercourse. • Because the Equal Protection Clause does not The issue in this case is whether a State transgresses the demand that a statute necessarily apply equally to Constitution when it seeks to accommodate the legitimate all persons or require things which are different in personal preferences of those desiring the advantages of an fact to be treated in law as though they were the all-women's college. a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who. which a male plaintiff. • Petitioner. In my view. substantial deterrence to young females. suspect so as to be subject to the “strict scrutiny” speak up more in their classes." In no previous case have we applied it to invalidate • One of the purposes of the California state statute state efforts to expand women's choices. Aside from the fact that the statute • Canvassing the tragic costs of illegitimate teenage could be justified on the grounds that very young pregnancies. suffers few of the FACTS: consequences of his conduct. medical. emotional. petitioner sought to set aside the • There is no merit in petitioner’s contention that information on both state and federal the statute is impermissibly underinclusive and constitutional grounds asserting that the statute must. in order to pass judicial scrutiny. mentors among women teachers and administrators. female is under 18” On underinclusivity/overbroadness • Prior to trial. a statute will be upheld where the gender by assuming that the equal protection standard classification is not invidious. where the “equalize” the deterrents on the sexes. The trial court and CA denied whether the statute is drawn as precisely as it petitioner’s request for relief and petitioner sought might have been. but whether the line chosen by review in the SC of California. ." The traditional minimum rationality test applies. Because virtually all of the significant harmful & identifiable consequ3ences of teenage pregnancy MICHAEL M. That standard was designed to free similarly situated in certain circumstances. as in this case. On age consideration ." RATIO: The arguable but recognized benefits of single-sex colleges On the proper test must also be considered.upon a single asserted harm: that he must travel to attend ISSUE: the state-supported nursing schools that concededly are WON California’s statutory rape law violates the Equal available to him. In any event. hold more positions of but will be upheld if they bear a “fair and leadership on campus. court the scope of the statute to older teenagers and concluded that the State has a compelling interest exclude young girls. They provide an element of • Gender-based classifications are not “inherently diversity. dramatically over the last 2 decades. The relevant inquiry is not thereunder. be unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender broadened so as to hold the female as criminally since men alone can be held criminally liable liable as the male. the risk of pregnancy itself constitutes a with violation of California’s statutory rape law. . It justified the limitations. and have more role models and substantial relationship” to legitimate state ends. The Court characterizes this injury as Protection Clause. Protection Clause. then a 17 ½ yr old male. incapable of becoming become pregnant” pregnant. the California Legislature is w/n constitutional • California SC upheld the statute. had the choice Teenage pregnancies. have significant social. found that the classification was “supported not • Nor is the statute impermissibly overbroad by mere social convention but by the immutable because it makes unlawful sexual intercourse with fact that it is the female exclusively who can prepubescent females. It enforcement since a female would be less likely to subjected the statute to strict scrutiny stating that report violations of the statute if she herself would it must be justified by compelling state interest. It be subject to prosecution. Nor are there in which the State has a strong interest is the prior sex discrimination decisions by this Court in prevention of illegitimate teenage pregnancies. physical. but rather generally applicable to sex discrimination is realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not appropriate here. On the legitimate state interest . by nature. in preventing such pregnancies. No which defines unlawful sexual intercourse as “an similar sanctions deter males. women from "archaic and overbroad generalizations . SUPERIOR COURT fall on the female. vs. and economic By applying heightened equal protection analysis to this consequences for both the mother and her child. and psychological consequences are particularly severe. NO one of "inconvenience. the Constitution associated with teenage pregnancies. the Court errs seriously same. was charged • Moreover. which have increased of an equal benefit. a gender-neutral statute gender classification because only females may be would frustrate the State’s interest in effective victims and only males may violate the section. and [an environment in which women] generally. including the large number of females are particularly susceptible to physical teenage abortions. case. It prohibits the States from providing • The statute protects women from sexual women with an opportunity to choose the type of intercourse and pregnancy at an age when the university they prefer. the Court frustrates the liberating spirit of the Equal and the State. & the social does not require the California Legislature to limit consequences of teenage child-bearing. A criminal sanction act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a imposed solely on males thus serves to roughly female not the wife of the perpetrator.

in armed forces to become veterans. However." qualifying for a civil service constitutional. consideration for the best Mass civil service jobs thus 2) Whether or not the adverse effects reflects denying women the equal protection of laws. Just because Does the Veterans Preference Statute violate equal few women become veterans does not mean that the protection by discriminating against women? veteran preference statute was intended by the state to discriminate against women. male or female). The district court panoply of sex-based laws to favor the employment of men reaffirmed their judgment. The statute does not rest on such an The Mass Veterans Preference statute was a measure assumption. notgender-based. v Feeney (1979) classification is supposedly neutral. no women were in the prevented. not violate equal protection solely because it results in a racially disproportionate impact. it must be traced to a The 1st contention presumes that the state incorporates a purpose to discriminate on race. including a nurse. who. She competed in other civil service exams during her 12 year The appellee acknowledged and the district court found career to avail herself of a better job and promotion. But veteran preference is not discriminatory to women and the appellee ISSUE: and district court contradicts itself that a limited hiring preference for veterans could be sustained. over 98% of the veterans at that time consisted of men. This formula excludes women from neutral. was under gender discrimination and the law does not reflect a 18 at the time of the sexual intercourse. when the older men of inflicting the harm sought to be 1st such statute was promulgated. so that the district court can consider it in light of the 2) the impact of absolute lifetime employment is too Washington V Davis ruling that states a neutral law does inevitable to be unintended. She that the distinction between veterans and non-veterans is consistently passed and was ranked quite high in some not a pre-text for gender discrimination. though in 1884. position. like the girl involved. presumptively invalid and can only be upheld upon extraordinary justification. In 2 impact is a starting point but it is purposeful discrimination that She passed her first civil service exam for the position of offends consti. even if that Personnel Administrator of Mass. like race. but she was always passed over by lower ranked veterans. Statute does not disproportionate amount of males being preferred because violate the Equal Protection Clause. Facts: Neutrals laws that have a disparate affect on minorities Helen Feeney is a nonveteran. who was honorably discharged from the US Armed Forces after at least 90 days of active service. there must least one day in wartime. women can be veterans. She alleges that the traditionally victims of discrimination may have an Massachusetts Veterans Preference Statute is unconstitutional purpose. It has been conceded by the appellants that the civil positions open for competition resulted in a HELD: US SC affirmed California SC. But equal protection means unconstitional. The distinction between further competing in civil sercice exams is useless vetern and non-veteran is not gender based. certain classifications are. the case was remanded reserved for men. If a neutral law has a disproportionate effect on a minority then it ponente: Stewart J unconstitional only if there can be traced a discriminatory purpose. The age of the man is civil service. It is written in gender neutral language (the irrelevant since the young men are as capable as use of person. it is still or female. armed forces. must be considered for be a two-fold inquiry: appointment to a civil service position ahead of any 1) Whether or not the statutory classification is indeed qualified nonveterans. So long as there is no preference to veterans by requiring that "any person male discrimination in the formulation of a law. The statute grants an absolute lifetime equal laws. The legislative classification between vets and non-vets has . She lost her job when it was abolished and concluded that Veteran is a gender-neutral word. Senior Clerk stenographer and was promoted. but is an attempt to prevent designed to ease the transition from military to civil life by illegitimate teenage pregnancy by providing an veterans and to attract loyal and well-disciplined people to additional deterrent for men. not equal results. Men and because the veterans would always get ahead of her. Equal protection does not take away the ability of the state to classify as long as it is rationally based though the PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATOR vs. invidious gender-based discrimination. at When a gender neutral statute is challenged. The district Court agreed with her saying that it had a The appellee and district court contends that severe exclutionary impact on women hiring. on the purpose to discriminate then it is constitutional asserted ground that the statute presumes in such RATIONALE: circumstances that the male is the culpable aggressor. • And the statute is not unconstitutional as applied When a distinction drawn by a statute is not a pretext for to petitioner. FEENEY effects may be uneven. In the 1st 1) there is gender bias because it pefers a status generally appeal to the US Supreme Court. There must be discriminatory RULE: intent but the state is simply Preferring veterans not men.

discern the purpose of a facially neutral policy. . that he has an identifiable national origin. need for readjustment. some people (Caucasians) were still allowed to operate their business provided DISSENT: Marshall w/ Brennan that they secure a permit which was given by the police officer at his discretion. the impact on women is result of this. critical constitutional inquiry is not  He applied for an entry level job as a Civil Service whether an illicit consideration was the primary cause but Clerk at the City’s Division of Motor Vehicles and rather whether it had an appreciable role in shaping a Licensing. purpose. under which theory To 1st objective. given time. However. The majority of those who currently normally alleged to have “treated a person less enjoy the system have long been discharged and have no favorable than others because of the person’s race. the employer is permanent preference. the statute is overinclusive because of it's this case was brought under. it discriminated against those who used CONCURRING: Stevens w/ White fire-operated laundry machines for business (mostly Chinese) and those who Disadvantaged males are almost as large as disadvantaged used them at home. given legislative enactment.  4 factors in McDonnell Douglas test: 1. The appellee presumes that a person intends the natural and foreseeable consequences of his voluntary actions. HELD: No evidence of unlawful discrimination was found The appellants contend that the statute: but it is Fragrante’s lack of the occupational requirement 1) assists veterans in their readjustment of being able to communicate effectively with the public to civilian life that was the reason for his being denied the job. Also it bestows benefits equally on those who volunteered and those who were drafted. adverse reviewer. rewarding veterans does not adequately 2. he was not chosen for the job and he undisputed. religion. Here. that he was rejected despite his qualifications. The Veteran preference would necessarily place more men on YICK WO vs.” o Plaintiff has the initial burden of proving To 2nd objective. The burden of proof should be on the state to was so notified by mail. Effects on an identifiable group. The reson of the State was to prevent another great fire. Just because the objective of a statute is to prefer one group does not always mean that it does not have another purpose to disadvantage another. prove that sex-based considerations played no part. The legislation cant be sustained 3. the court  Following the interview. "discriminatory purpose" implies that the legislature selected a particular course "because ** no digest for this case so I copied the digest from another of". it was noted by the two must consider the degree. There is discriminatory intent because the statutory scheme bears no substantial relationship to a legitimate FRAGRANTE vs. SC struck down the statute because it violated judgment reversed the equal protection clause on 2 grounds: 1. HOPKINS civil service positions than women and the legislature is aware of this. To 3rd objective. as a reasonably available. ISSUE: W/N unlawful discrimination on the basis of To survive a challenge under equal protection clause. females. influenced reenlistment. it does not actually induce reenlistment by preponderance of evidence a prima and there is no proof to be found that the statute facie case of discrimination.not been disputed to be illegitimate. sex or national origin. of important govt objectives. The veteran preference was not shown to be enacted because of gender Petitioners are Chinese businessmen engaged in the discrimantion against women. national origin was the reason for denying employment to statutes must be substantially related to the achievement Fragrante. CITY & COUNTY of HONOLULU government objective. inevitability and foreseeability of interviewers that he had a very pronounced accent any disproportionate impact as well as the alternatives and was difficult to understand and therefore. subject to discrimination. color. RATIO:  In disparate treatment cases. that he applied and was qualified for a job which justify visiting substantial hardships on another class long the employer was seeking applicants. Fragrante immigrated to Hawaii. therefore. Here there are less policies of the US armed forces may be gender biased but discriminatory means available to effect the Compensatory that is not the issue here. 2. laundry business who question the statute prohibiting the operation and maintenance of fire-operated laundry DISPOSITION: machines.  Fragrante scored the highest among 721 test takers in the written examination and was rank There is no reliable evidence for subjective intentions so to first on a list of eligibles for two clerk positions. 2) encourage military reenlistment 3) reward those who have served their country. FACTS: Nobody can ever know what the legislature is thinking at a  At the age of 60. not "in spite of". The Enlistment unless carefully tuned to alternatives.

Strict judicial scrutiny is applied when legislation Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of impinges on fundamental tights. characteristics of a national origin group… an EP tests whether the classification is properly drawn. by virtue of which no person ought to be deemed discrimination. 53 Empl.fundamental as established in Griffin v. o The oral ability to communicate effectively in English is reasonable related to the Standards of Judicial Review normal operations of the clerk’s office who There must be a sufficient degree of relationship between must often be able to respond to the the perceived purpose of the law and the classification public’s questions in a manner in which which the law makes. it will be subjected to EP analysis. of government which is not prohibited by the Const. not merely because it will be upheld if it bears a rational relationship to an end he had such an accent. 888 F.Ct. while adverse employment decision may be procedural due process tests the process to find out predicated upon an individuals accent when it whether an individual falls within or without a specific interferes materially with job performance. the first tier consists of the rational Case below.  employer person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the still has degree of freedom of choice given laws”. Provides “nor shall any person be denied o Employer then has burden of “articulating the equal protection of the laws” which it got from the some legitimate. 108 L. threshold question is whether similarly situated or indirectly. fundamental rights are: Denied. 1811. gender-dependent and illegitimacy-dependent that the employer was more likely classifications are now generally disfavored. but it should closely scrutinize the relationship between the classification and purpose. beyond the two-tiered level of review. a plaintiff may establish morally inferior to any other person” where race-dependent a pretext either directly.Supp. deleterious effect of his Filipino accent on his The old EP doctrine applies the rational relationship test- ability to communicate orally. Amendment “no state shall… deny to any reason” for the adverse action. and applies the CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU.2d 591. non-discriminatory American Const. 1990 Two-tiered standard of review Under this. Dec. the Court should accept the articulated purpose No. the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications. The Phil.“fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race 494 U.fundamental rights protected by the first 8 amendments DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO ARTICLE (The “New” Equal Protection) . classification. Manuel T. reflects whether the Court will assume the power to  In sum. 110 S. April 16. Thompson e. by showing the individuals are being treated differently. Gunther of Stanford. According to Prof. it would be subjected to due process analysis. Therefore the motivated by a discriminatory reason. (BNA) political rights” 848.Ed.Prac. by showing . 699 F. interstate travel. According to American cases. Consti. 52 Fair b. it will require that it is pursuing a compelling end. it was substantive due process instead of EP which was used to justify court intervention with state  While Fragrante was able to establish a prima economic legislation but in the 1960s the Warren Court facie case since jurisprudence and the guidelines went further where it used EP as a far-reaching umbrella of the Equal Employment Oppurtunity for judicial protection of fundamental rights not specified Commission has defined discrimination to include in the Const. employer's proffered reason is unworthy of credence. Prac. The choice of a standard of review they can understand. or implicates suspect Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. relationship test and the second tier the strict scrutiny test. marriage and procreation. The new EP doctrine applies the strict scrutiny test. P 39. other constitutional rights. It will not accept every permissible governmental purpose as to Supreme Court of the United States support a classification. of which race is a paradigmatic burden of proving intentional example.started with the landmark decision in Shapiro v. 1429.796 c. et al intensified means test. after his rejection. fair administration of justice.Cas.S. 1081. a. or whether it will Fragante was passed over because of the limit the concept of a unique judicial function. FRAGANTE. 4. The newer EP doctrine of the past 10 years has gone v. 89-1350 of the legislation. there are some o To succeed in carrying the ultimate traits and factors.“although to him not every person is the moral equal others. classes (classification based on race or ethnicity). EP is generally based on moral equality. the record conclusively shows that override democratic political process. In the US.2d 942. Illinois END OF DOCUMENT d. petitioner. voting. that. basis that a person has the linguistic otherwise. One difference is that if the governmental act denial of equal employment opportunity on the classifies persons.“preservative of other basic civil and Empl.

they should compute: Notwithstanding such criticisms. appropriate the necessary amount). In the Phil. he was saying “classifications Texas (discriminatory effect test) which are either based upon certain “suspect” criteria or His model is based upon the prescribed balance between affect “fundamental rights” will be held to deny EP unless discriminatory effect and governmental justification: justified by a compelling governmental interest (calling it 1) courts should first decide whether the individual the compelling interest doctrine). health. Vera where it necessary since the Const. guaranteed against state infringement by the Federal 2) Whether the disadvantage to the affected interest Const. He was also saying that the fundamental right is 3) Next is ascertaining whether the interest informing unfortunate and unnecessary since it creates an exception the classification is compelling. Sec.neutral whenever it treats in favor of racial or ethnic minorities? It was addressed in persons in a dissimilar manner on the basis of the case of Regents of the University of California v. the ideal limit of a. who was review to cases involving social discrimination. of the relationship between means and ends. of Criticized by Justice Harlan. employment. alienage. ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex. or non-existent character legislature. reasonableness is reached when the public mischief US “all legal restrictions which curtail the civil sought to be eliminated is interchangeable with the trait. promote full employment. then there is no need for any resort to the EP is total. was implicity to reduce social discrimination. the judiciary in the name of and end the constitution must select the areas in which quality is to be imposed. Neutral classifications. It is not applying the strict scrutiny test in People v. He was saying that if interest affected by the classification before them classification is based upon the exercise of rights is fundamental. suspect-prohibited classification. Benign a state interest capable of withstanding analysis.established in the case of In re Griffiths take: a. welfare and social security…” . Models for an open-ended standard Suspect classes include: Under the traditional approach. of review apply to government action which discriminates b. “it benefits of probation if the provincial board failed to shall afford protection to labor. the US has the traditional EP. race or national origin. The Phil.whenever a Benign classifications and affirmative action classification burdens persons on the basis of The US SC has held that racial classifications which their race. the court upheld the Act necessary to extend the two-tiered standard of judicial which made it unlawful for any native of the Phil. Art. or unlawful rule. insignificant. of scrutiny” Illinois for determining the approach that the Court should the case of Korematsu v. The Philippine Experience The Phil. rights of a single racial groups are immediately as the defining characteristics of the legislative suspect. significant. the court would invalidate the law discriminate against minorities are inherently “suspect” unless the legislature can prove that the and will be subject to strict scrutiny and upheld only if classification is necessary to achieve a compelling necessary to promote a compelling state interest. Thee state interest. SC continues to apply the permissive criteria of With the advent of the new legal equality. Court while ostensibly declared it the duty of government to take positive action applying the rational relationship test. Probation Act was unconstitutional “the state shall promote social justice to ensure dignity. traditions. “shall maintain and ensure appropriations for probation officers by the provincial adequate social services in the field of education. Nowak of the Univ. (it has long as there is any conceivable basis upon which only to show rational relationship in order to survive the classification could bear a rational relationship judicial challenge) to the state end. employ a prohibited or neutral classification as the and interests of national cultural minorities in the basis of dissimilar treatment. That is not to say that all such classification. In the Phil. classification and affirmative action does not necessarily c.. Permissive classification. The from past unlawful discrimination but is still open to court should validate a statute only if the means questions (intermediate or strictest standard) as to what used bear a factually demonstrable relationship to level of standard to applied. Appraisal of the Two-tiered standard Another model drawn by Prof. clause. Gary Simson of Univ. the Warren Court gave Nature of the affected interest x magnitude of disadvantage crucial support saying that since total equality is Nature of the state’s interest x relationship between means impossible and undesirable. boards (since residents of a province could be denied of the housing. This standard will be almost question of benign classification is will the same standard impossible to meet. In extending the compelling interest rule to all such 4) Courts should also determine the necessary.whenever legislation fall under EP. It was held . Bakke some inherent human characteristic or status where they held it is not prohibited if discrimination (other than racial heritage) or limit the exercise of remedies disadvantages of members of a group resulting a fundamental right by a class of persons. courts must subject them to the most rigid There are 3 models drawn by Prof. which threatens to swallow the standard equal protection insignificant. significant. Problems only arise when it is under- restrictions are unconstitutional. Therefore in the Phil. significant. It is to say that inclusive or over-inclusive. cases would go far toward making the Court a super. or insignificant. significant. race or creed”. It is specified in the Const. it will be upheld as formulation and implementation of state policies”. it will not always be In an unfortunate development. makes the positive commands: held that the Phil. or insignificant. After all the factors. a member of non-Christian tribe to possess or drink intoxicating liquors other than native liquors. because application of the statute depended upon salary welfare and security”. 11 treats classes in a dissimilar manner but does not “the state shall consider the customs. beliefs. XV.

they take into consideration 1) domicile 2) home economy BOARD of DIRECTORS vs. as well as the Labor Code. in In a new collective bargaining agreement. It then goes further to say that this is even worse when the discrimination is done in the In the Phil. relationship test would consider this distasteful. of equal rewards. transportation. Rotary International. and perhaps the formulation of “benign” Constitution. adopting strict judicial scrutiny in cases where the laws seek to restrict fundamental rights or to classify on the They also point to international law. is an Before ending. ISSUE: The lengthy search in Phil. Pointing again to the Constitution. Article 7 talks about the certain fundamental rights by the Filipino people. ISA educators reversing a lower court decision. particularly the Article on Social Justice and classifications. the equal protection clause. Their When the Duarte chapter of Rotary International salaries are also higher by 25%. the “new” equal protection could prove to discrimination in terms of wages. As foreign hires. either. abroad. which likewise looks basis of suspect criteria. Filing a strike. HELD: Scenario for the “new” equal protection Yes it is. opportunity for all. Respondents claim. housing. the court points first to the 1987 government. the other forms of compensation are enough.. Article 248 declares such be a useful and equitable technique of judicial analysis. The school gives 2 violated club policy by admitting three women into its reasons: 1) dislocation factor and 2) limited tenure. they assert after the American model. In the resolution of Article 135 of the Labor Code looks down on these problems. that this is not so as a number of their foreign educators There are still other cases such as the Laurel v. foreign diplomats and other temporary residents. phrased as it is workplace. and DOLE secretary Quisumbing denied the motion for reconsideration. The school’s claimed need to entice these foreign hires is FACTS not a good defense. Acting secretary Trajano decided in act prohibiting sexual discrimination. taxes. down on discrimination. however. active membership its charter was revoked and it was expelled. the court says. As such. and most fundamentally of the extent of compatibility of political liberty and economic equality. so the presumption is that INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE vs. however. pursuant to PD 732. may pose problems of legislative that it promotes “equality of employment opportunities to and administrative classifications. 1987 JUSTICE POWELL The problem lies in the salary of the be reasonable because it was designed to insure peace Petitioner claims that the point-of-hire classification is and order among non-Christian tribes but the rational discriminatory to Filipinos. however. that the foreign educational institution targeted towards dependents of and local hires are not part of the same bargaining unit. victims of legislative classification or in the exercise of Social and Cultural Rights. favor of the school. shipping costs. of linkages between all”. There is no evidence of the foreign hires being 25% more efficient. QUISIMBING all the employees are performing at equal levels. found that Rotary contested this difference in salary. by against. To indicate whether they are foreign hires or local hires. These include. The tired slogan of Filipino politicians “those who have less RATIO: in life should have more in law” should be taken on a serious level as an affirmative action on the part of the In deciding the case. "an organization of business and professional men united worldwide who provide . Misa are in fact local-hires. as the category of cases calling for strict judicial scrutiny. jurisprudence can be abbreviated by adopting the category which the American Whether or not the 25% difference in salary is Court labeled under the two-tiered standard of judicial discriminatory. as well as fair and equal wages justice constituency. DOLE International's action violated a California civil rights assumed jurisdiction. nor is there any showing of an attempt to consolidate the they hire their teachers both from the Philippines and from two. As for compensation. the hands of a SC sentient to the continuing need to prevent invidious discrimination against disadvantaged Also cited is the International Covenant on Economic. The California Court of Appeals. where the court failed to use the strict scrutiny test and was considered unworthy of emulation. In this case. review. they are accorded benefits that local hires do not FACTS: have. and home leave travel allowance. there is no evidence in a difference of workload nor of performance. in a practice unfair. International School Inc. Contemporary developments argue for Human Rights. which the court says this discrimination is expanding the contours of constitutional equality. ROTARY CLUB 3) economic allegiance 4) was the school responsible for bringing the individual to the Philippines. May 4. and remuneration. which ensure equal legal and socio-economic opportunity. as a ensuring of remuneration.

and personal or private to warrant constitutional protection. and receive awards. The clubs therefore are instructed to "keep a flow concluded that admitting women to the Duarte Club would of prospects coming" to make up for the attrition and not seriously interfere with the objectives of Rotary gradually to enlarge the membership. slight encroachment on the rights of Rotarians to Women are however. religious activities." club's members was not of the intimate or private variety which warrants First Amendment protection. the Court Rotary International citing that neither Rotary has upheld the freedom of individuals to associate for International nor the Duarte Club is a "business the purpose of engaging in protected speech or establishment" within the meaning of the Unruh Act. In particular. It was many of Rotary's activities are conducted in the presence testified that the exclusion of women results in an "aspect of strangers. United States Jaycees. there was membership. constitutional protection. Rotary against First Amendment challenge a Minnesota statute International's board of directors revoked the charter of that required the Jaycees to admit women as full voting the Duarte Club and terminated its membership. the court rejected appellants' all vocations. but he. After an internal hearing. that is enjoyed by the present male prevent the club from carrying out its purposes. each local Rotary United States Jaycees. Even if there were a in foreign countries with varied cultures and social mores. Rotary International notified the Duarte Club that admitting women members is contrary to In Roberts v. Application of the Act to local Rotary Clubs does not In 1977 the Rotary Club of Duarte. and are sexual discrimination. In "businesslike attributes" of Rotary International. personal. that minimal infringement would be justified speeches. free to adopt its own rules and procedures for admitting new members. First. Rotary International has promulgated HOLDING: Recommended Club By-laws providing that candidates for membership will be considered by both a "classifications No. including determining whether a particular association is sufficiently its complex structure. Young women between 14 and 28 years of age may join Interact or RATIO Rotaract. It held that both The Court has recognized that the freedom to enter into Rotary International and the Duarte Rotary Club are and carry on certain intimate or private relationships is a business establishments subject to the provisions of the fundamental element of liberty protected by the Bill of Unruh Act. large staff and budget. In turn. The Court found that the relationship among the committee" and a "membership committee. Women relatives of Rotary since it "serves the State's compelling interest" in ending members may form their own associations. The Duarte Club and two of its women members filed a the Court has held that the Constitution protects complaint in the California Superior Court. The court also held that membership in Rotary There is no upper limit on the membership of any local International or the Duarte Club does not give rise to a Rotary Club. encourage high ethical standards in International. The purpose of . may propose an additional active member.humanitarian service. permitted to attend meetings. rather than to International. who must be in ISSUE: the same business or professional classification. The court ordered appellants to Club is a member of International. Because Membership in Rotary Clubs is open only to men. The court held that the trial consider factors such as size." and also allows Rotary to operate effectively no violation of associational rights. the court noted that members receive copies of the Rotary magazine and numerous other The evidence in this case indicates that the Rotary publications. Individuals are reinstate the Duarte Club as a member. Civ. unsuccessful. The complaint against unjustified government interference with an alleged that appellants' actions violated the Unruh Civil individual's choice to enter into and maintain certain Rights Act. admitted interfere unduly with club members' freedom of Donna Bogart. and Rosemary Freitag to private association active membership. member is admitted for each classification. and help build goodwill and peace in the argument that their policy of excluding women is protected world." The court further year. and may attend conferences that teach kind of intimate or private relation that warrants managerial and professional techniques. selectivity. Mary Lou Elliott. Cal." WON a California statute (Unruh Act) that requires California Rotary Clubs to admit women members violates Subject to these requirements. Roberts provides the framework for analyzing Duarte Club's appeal to the International Convention was appellants' constitutional claims. Such relationships may take various forms. Code The court ruled in favor of intimate or private relationships. Finally. and court had erred in finding that the business advantages whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the afforded by membership in a local Rotary Club are merely relationship incidental. The Court of Appeal identified several Rights. each local Rotary Club is the First Amendment. are entitled to wear and display the relationship among Rotary Club members is not the Rotary emblem. and permanently admitted to membership in a Rotary Club according to a enjoined them from enforcing or attempting to enforce the "classification system" The general rule is that "one active gender requirement against the Duarte Club." Individual members belong to a local Rotary Club by the First Amendment principles set out in Roberts v. The California Court of Appeal reversed. the court upheld the Rotary constitution. About 10 percent of the membership of a "continuous. The members. give associate. California. As observed in Roberts. purpose. authorized to wear the Rotary lapel pin. organizations sponsored by Rotary International. we extensive publishing activities. and because women members would not of fellowship. our cases have afforded constitutional protection to freedom of association in two distinct senses. and social" relationship that "takes typical club moves away or drops out during a typical place more or less outside public view. in turn. Second. The size of local Rotary Clubs ranges from fewer than 20 to more than 900.

WON Boy Scouts is an expressive of the organization's viewpoint.YES violate the right of expressive association afforded by the First Amendment. RATIO: . that capacity for service." In this case. like the Minnesota public accommodations law we ISSUES: considered in Roberts. Moreover. it Rotary Clubs will affect in any significant way the revoked his adult membership in the Boy Scouts existing members' ability to carry out their various of America (BSA) because the organization forbids purposes. WON applying New Jersey’s public leadership skills and business contacts as well as accommodations law in the way applied tangible goods and services. DALE (2000) meetings." In Roberts we recognized affect its expression. To be sure. The Court also has recognized that the right to engage in he was very active in gay and lesbian issues. rather than carrying on their activities in an atmosphere of privacy. It held that the Rotary Clubs are likely to obtain a more representative Boy Scouts was a place of public accommodation cross section of community leaders with a broadened subject to the public accommodations law. The court denied not violate the First Amendment right of expressive the petition without opinion. It is well settled that this Court will not community. religious. state system. DALE Club to their meetings. and that the Even if the Unruh Act does work some slight Boy Scouts violated the law by revoking Dale’s infringement on Rotary members' right of expressive membership based on his avowed homosexuality. Rotary Clubs. and cultural ends. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the business and professional women in the community. The decision it require them to abandon their classification system or was affirmed by the NJ Appellate Division. ." Appellants did not present the issues squarely to the state courts until they filed their petition Application of the Act to California Rotary Clubs does for rehearing with the Court of Appeal. and enabling the club to be a true cross that these contentions were not properly presented to section of the business and professional life of the the state courts. . In sum. educational. James Dale was a former Eagle Scout who also became an assistant scoutmaster. the organization was not exempt from the law under any of its express exceptions. association. While in college. not exclusive. membership to homosexuals. social. it does not suggest the kind of as a whole shows either expressly or by clear implication private or personal relationship to which we have accorded that the federal claim was adequately presented in the protection under the First Amendment. however. wide variety of political. by opening membership to leading 4. Many of the Rotary Clubs' central activities are carried on in the presence of strangers. Nor does granted judgment in favor of Dale. association. Indeed. But the Unruh Act does not require the on his sexual orientation.YES that the State's compelling interest in assuring equal access to women extends to the acquisition of 2. makes no distinctions on the basis 1. We conclude local occupations. that infringement is justified because it serves the State's compelling interest in eliminating 5. The NJ Superior Court clubs to abandon or alter any of these activities. 1. As a matter of policy." We therefore conclude that application of the Unruh Act to local Rotary Clubs does not interfere FACTS: unduly with the members' freedom of private association. seek to (ponente: Chief Justice Rehnquist) keep their "windows and doors open to the whole world. We therefore hold that application Boy Scouts’ right of expressive of the Unruh Act to California Rotary Clubs does not association. The Unruh Act plainly by the NJ Supreme Court violates the serves this interest. On its face the Unruh Act. He activities protected by the First Amendment implies "a even became the copresident of his university’s corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a Gay/Lesbian Alliance. discrimination against women. BSA raised the issue in the US Supreme Court. Dale filed a complaint against the BSA in the on "public questions. Rotary Clubs engage in a variety of had violated New Jersey’s public accommodations commendable service activities that are protected by the statute by revoking his membership based solely First Amendment.. Members are encouraged to invite business associates and competitors to BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. public association and that the forced accommodations laws "plainly serve compelling state inclusion of Dale would significantly interests of the highest order." However beneficial this is to the members review a final judgment of a state court unless "the record and to those they serve. When the Boy Scouts of America learned that he is evidence fails to demonstrate that admitting women to an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist.Rotary "is to produce an inclusive. judgment of the Appellate Division. Rotary Clubs are required to admit any member of any other Rotary BOY SCOUTS of AMERICA vs. appellants contend that the Unruh Act is membership. making possible the recognition of all useful unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Finally. admit members who do not reflect a cross section of the community. the 2. Rotary Clubs do not take positions 3. economic." including political or international New Jersey Superior Court alleging that the BSA issues.

” 6. the statute also includes places that often may not carry with them open invitations to the public. requirement through the application of its public accommodations law. so that the to those terms very different meanings. presupposes a freedom not to associate. The constitution behavior. retail shops. For example. and they do not. And the fact that an idea may be embraced and 8. archery. “Freedom of association … plainly place of public accommodation’ ” is extremely broad. protects expression. Dale’s presence in the Boy homosexuality in this country has changed. Many on the list are 2. The state interests embodied the courts may not interfere on the ground that they in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not view a particular expression as unwise or irrational. and public libraries. homosexual conduct. The Boy 10. the statute includes as to come within its ambit.” The term is said to “include. public or . that the Boy Scouts accepts argument for denying protection to those who homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of refuse to accept these views. is one of a group of gay Scouts who have “become leaders in their 12. some form of expression.’ ” The Boy Scouts to believe that a given group is the target of asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent discrimination. instructing and engaging them applied its public accommodations law to a private in activities like camping. In this case. force the it appears that homosexuality has gained greater organization to send a message. justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ As we give deference to an association’s assertions rights to freedom of expressive association. The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are “based on” those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. by his own admission. Associations do not have to associate for the advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the “purpose” of disseminating a certain message in more reason to protect the rights of those who wish order to be entitled to the protections of the to voice a different view.” a list of over 50 types of places. communication produced by the private organizers through its official written statements. But this is scarcely an members and the world. bars. Different people would attribute participate in petitioners’ speech. of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong. like 3. to membership organizations such as the Boy transmit such a system of values engages in Scouts. Scouts would. The Boy Scouts seeks to instill values in young summer camps and roof gardens. as a general matter. both to the youth societal acceptance. It is not the role of the courts to reject a group’s 11. The terms “morally straight” and “clean” are by no individuals with a message would have the right to means self-defining. the people by having its adult leaders spend time with New Jersey Supreme Court went a step further and the youth members. particularly with the values represented by the that in that case “the Massachusetts [public terms “morally straight” and “clean. It seems commercial entities. New Jersey’s statutory definition of “ ‘[a] express. But private. we said that public Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law accommodations laws “are well within the State’s provide “a positive moral code for living. and only those views. entity without even attempting to tie the term “place” During the time spent with the youth members. 4. but not be limited to. A state requirement that the Boy Scouts retain Dale expressed values because they disagree with those as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly values or find them internally inconsistent. . Forcing a group to accept certain members may enacted to prevent discrimination in traditional impair the ability of the group to express those places of public accommodation–like inns and views. State public accommodations laws were originally 1. An association must merely engage in expressive activity that could be impaired in order to 13. Indeed. at the very least.” accommodations] law has been applied in a peculiar way” because “any contingent of protected 5. as we must not be. guided by our views be entitled to protection. But we went on to note Law. we must also being the case. In the Hurley case. . believes that would be shaped by all those protected by the law engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being who wish to join in with some expressive “morally straight” and “clean. and indisputable that an association that seeks to hotels. The constitution’s protection of expressive what one would expect to be places where the public association is not reserved for advocacy groups. public accommodations laws and the constitutional rights of organizations has increased. that it intends to trains. Justice Stevens’ dissent makes much of its community and are open and honest about their observation that the public perception of sexual orientation. they are a usual power to enact when a legislature has reason list of ‘do’s’ rather than ‘don’ts. the potential for conflict between state expressive activity. That regarding the nature of its expression. 7. As is burden the organization’s right to oppose or disfavor true of all expressions of constitutional freedoms. 9. we hold that the constitution give deference to an association’s view of what would prohibits the State from imposing such a impair its expression. with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and violate the First Amendment. But is invited. whether it be public or restaurants. As the definition of “public scoutmasters inculcate them with the Boy Scouts’ accommodation” has expanded from clearly values–both expressly and by example. The BSA. and fishing. Dale. the to a physical location. be it of the popular variety or not. We are not. a group must engage in places of public accommodation taverns. constitution.” demonstration of their own. such as restaurants.

t h r e e p l a i n t i f f s w a s y e a r s o l d . l i c e n s e f e e s . t h e y " t h e e x c l u o n s i c o m p l e t e d o f t h e p l a i n t i f f n o t i c e s o f c o u p l e s a n d i n t e n t i o n t o o t h e r q u a l i f i e d m a r r y o n f o r m s s a m e . e a c h o f t h e 2 0 0 1 . b e n e f i t s . 7 . a n d l i c e n s e s . I n however enlightened either purpose may strike the e a c h c a s e . A m o n g p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e m a r e c i v i l m a r r i a g e H i l l a r y i n G o o d r i d g e .f o u r y e a r s d e n y i n g o l d . c o m m i s s i o n e r A s r e q u i r e d s e e k i n g a u n d e r G e n r a l j u d g m e n t a t t h L a w s c . t o g e t h e r organization’s expressive message. 2 0 0 1 . w h o t a n t a m o u n t t o h a d b e e n i n a d e n y i n g t h e m c o m m i t t e d a c c e s s t o c i v i l r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r m a r r i a g e i t s e l f . t h e government. t h e p l a i n t i f f p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d c o u p l e s s u i t i n t h e a t t e m p t e d t o S u p e r i o r C o u r t o b t a i n a a g a i n s t t h e m a r r i a g e D e p a r t m e n t o f l i c e n s e f r o m a P u b l i c H e a l t h c i t y o r t o w n a n d t h e c l e r k ' s o f f i c e . s e e a c c e s s t o G . it is not free to interfere with f o r m s a n d speech for no better reason than promoting an m a r r i a g e approved message or discouraging a disfavored one. a n d J u l i e m a r r i a g e G o o d r i d g e . M a s s a c h u s e t t s . § m a r r i a g e 2 0 . o l d d a u g h t e r . f o r t y . of PUBLIC HEALTH a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e t o t h e c o u p l e o n t h e P o n e n t e : C J g r o u n d t h a t M a r s h a l l M a s s a c h u s e t t s d o e s n o t F A C T S : r e c o g n i z e s a m e - s e x m a r r i a g e . c . judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization’s f o r m s t o a expression does not justify the State’s effort to M a s s a c h u s e t t s compel the organization to accept members where t o w n o r c i t y such acceptance would derogate from the c l e r k .” c l e r k e i t h e r r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e n o t i c e o f i n t e n t i o n t o m a r r y o r d e n i e d GOODRIDGE vs. O n A p r i l 1 1 . “While the law is w i t h t h e free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of r e q u i r e d h e a l t h harmful behavior. a n d p r e s e n t e d t h e s e t h e l e g a l a n d . l i c e n s e s t o t h e f o r t y . 2 0 7 . T h e p n t i f f l a i s B e c a u s e a r e u r t e e f o n o b t a i n i n g a i n d i v i d u a l s m a r r i a g e f r o m f i v e l i c e n s e i s a M a s s a c h u s e t t s n e c e s s a r y c o u n t i e s . a n d o b l i g a t i o n s . t h i r t e e n y e a r s a l o n g w i t h i t s a n d l i v e d w i t h s o c i a l a n d l e g a l t h e i r f i v e y e a r p r o t e c t i o n s . s e x p r o v i d e d b y t h e c o u p l e s f r o m r e g i s t r y . DEPT. I n M a r c h a n d A p r i l . L .

L . h o l d i n g s e c o n d . f o r d e n y i n g p r e c l u d e d t h a t c i v i l m a r r i a g e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . d e f e n d a n t s . s u m m a r y t o u c h i n g n e a r l y j u d g m e n t e v e r y a s p e c t o f e n t e r e d f o r t h e l i f e a n d d e a t h . p r o t e c t i o n s . I S SU E : a s w e l l a s t h e W O N t h e p r o t e c t i o n s . 2 0 0 2 . e n o r m o u s a n d t h a t t h e p r i v a t e a n d M a s s a c h u s e t t s s o c i a l D e c l a r a t i o n o f a d v a n t a g e s o n R i g h t s d o e s n o t t h o s e w h o g u a r a n t e e " t h e c h o o s e t o f u n d a m e n t a l m a r r y . h e The Court concluded t h a t i t d i s m i s s e d t h e m a y n o t . M a s s a c h u s e t t s b e n e f i t s a n d S t a t u t e m a y o b l i g a t i o n s o f d e n y t h e m a r r i a g e . t h e s e c o n c r e t e . i s c r e a t e d a n d f r e e d o m . a n d M a s s a c h u s e t t s o b l i g a t i o n s l a w . o r t h r o u g h d u e p r o c e s s e x e r c i s e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f p o l i c e p o w e r . " c o n f e r r e d b y c i v i l m a r r i a g e T h e S u p e r i o r t o t w o C o u r t j u d g e i n d i v i d u a l s o f r u l e d f o r t h e t h e s a m e s e x d e p a r t m e n t . T h e w o r d i n g o f G . d e f e n d a n t s h a v e c . T h e r i g h t t o m a r r y b e n e f i t s a p e r s o n o f t h e a c c e s s i b l e o n l y s a m e s e x . v i o l a t e s b e n e f i t s . I n w h o w i s h t o a m e m o r a n d u m m a r r y . " b y w a y o f a A f t e r t h e m a r r i a g e c o m p l a i n t w a s l i c e n s e a r e d i s m i s s e d a n d e n o r m o u s . I t b e t w e e n p e r s o n s f o r b i d s t h e o f t h e s a m e c r e a t i o n o f s e x . t h e M a r r i a g e a l s o M a s s a c h u s e t t s b e s t o w s C o n s t i t u t i o n . a s w e l l f a i l e d t o a s t h e w o r d i n g i d e n t i f y a n y o f o t h e r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y m a r r i a g e a d e q u a t e r e a s o n s t a t u t e s .c l a s s t h a t t h e p l a i n c i t i z e n s . t h e I t i s p l a i n t i f f s u n d o u b t e d l y f o r a p p e a l e d . t o s a m e . s e x H e a l s o h e l d c o u p l e s . T h e p l a i n t i f f s ' M a s s a c h u s e t t s c l a i m t h a t t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n m a r r i a g e a f f i r m s t h e s t a t u t e s s h o u l d d i g n i t y a n d b e c o n s t r u e d t o e q u a l i t y o f a l l p e r m i t m a r r i a g e i n d i v i d u a l s . t h a t t h e m a r r i a g e RATIO: e x c l u s i o n d o e s n o t o f f e n d t h e C i v i l m a r r i a g e l i b e r t y . o f d e c i s i o n a n d o r d e r d a t e d M a y HELD: 7 . 2 0 7 . r e g u l a t e d e q u a l i t y .s o c a i l s t a t u s o f c i v l i m a r r i a g e .

r a c e d e v a l u e s T h e i n d i v i d u a l t h e m a r r i a g e o f l i b e r t y a n d a p e r s o n w h o e q u a l i t y m a r r i e s s o m e o n e s a f e g u a r d s o f o f h e r o w n t h e r a c e . I t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l a l s o r e q u i r e s . f u r t h e r s t h e t h a t t h e a i m o f m a r r i a g e e x e r c i s e o f t h e t o p r o m o t e S t a t e ' s s t a b l e . n a y F e d e r a l m o r e a t h n C o n s t i t u t i o n . " t w o l e g i t i m a t e S t a t e i n t e r e s t s T h e p l a i n t i f f s t h e d e p a r t m e n t s e e k o n l y t o b e h a s i d e n t i f i e d : m a r r i e d . t o s p h e r s e o f l i f e t h e e x c l u s i o n a n d " f r e e d o m o f a l l o t h e r s . o r m a r r i a g e h a s a n y o f t h e l o n g b e e n o t h e r g a t e - t e r m e d a " c i v i l k e e p i n g r i g h t . M a s s a c h u s e t t s R e c o g n i z i n g t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n r i g h t o f a n p r o t e c t s i n d i v i d u a l t o m a t t e r s o f m a r r y a p e r s o n p e r s o n a l l i b e r t y o f t h e s a m e s e x a g a i n s t w i l l n o t g o v e r n m e n t d i m i n i s h t h e i n c u r s i o n a s v a l i d i t y o r z e a l o u s l y . r e g u l a t o r y e x c l u s i v e a u t h o r i t y n o t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . M a s s a c h u s e t t s C o n s t i t u t i o n C i v i l m g ea r r i a p r o t e c t b o t h i s o w n " f r e e m d o f r o m " c o n s t r u e d t o u n w a r r a n t e d m e a n t h e g o v e r n m e n t v o l u n t a r y u n i o n i n t r u i o ns i n t o o f t w o p e r s o n s p r o t e t e d c a s s p o u s e s . o p p o s i t e . r e a r i n g a n d T h e y d o n o t c o n s e r v i n g w a n t m a r r i a g e S t a t e a b o l i s h e d . r e c o g n i z i n g h t e e v e n w h e r e b o t h r i g h t o f a n C o n s t i t u t i o n s i n d i v i d u a l t o e m p l o y m a r r y a p e r s o n e s s e n t i a l l y t h e o f a d i f f e r e n t s a m e l a n g u a g e .r e a s o n s . t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e . a n d d i g n i t y o f o f t e n m o r e s o . a s d o n o t a t t a c k w e l l a s f o r i t s t h e b i n a r y i n t i m a t e l y n a t u r e o f p e r s o n a l m a r r i a g e . b e " a r b i t r a r y o r I t a d v a n c e s t h e c a p r i c i o u s . i n j u r y a n d a t a m i n i m u m . T h e y r e s o u r c e s . " p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e m a r r i a g e T h e l i c e n s i n g l a w . I t . t o " p a r t a k e i n T h i s b e n e f i t s r e f o r m u l a t i o n c r e a t e d b y t h e r e d r e s s e s t h e S t a t e f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c o m m o n g o o d . s e x t h a n d o e s t h e m a r r i a g e . c o n s a n g u i n i t y t h a t c i v i l p r o v i s i o n s . n o t t o p r o v i d i n g a u n d e r m i n e t h e s t a b l e s e t t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n o f f o r c h i l d c i v i l m a r r i a g e .

had been elected could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to public office in the Phil Islands to FPJ. With regard to petitioner Fornier’s petition. there was no such term as “Philippine citizens” but “subjects of Spain” or “Spanish subjects. 2.l e a v e s i n t a c t Rule 64 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure as well t h e as § 7. elect Phil marriage to Bessie Kelley. § 1973 Consti. was a Spanish national. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Phils alien mother (Allan F. the Comelec. and 3) an inhabitant who obtained • Jan 9. Art III: The following are citizens of the Phils: Kelley Poe. Allan F. Poe and Bessie disqualification cases may be reviewed by the SC per Kelley . a Spanish subject 2. Under this organic act. granting that Allan F.” among other qualifications. the 1935 Consti brought an end to made a material misrepresentation in his COC by any such link with common law by adopting jus sanguinis claiming to be a natural-born Filipino when in truth: or blood relationship as the basis of Filipino citizenship: 1. m a r r i a g e . In his COC. Citizenship: Brief Historical Background During the Spanish regime. WON the Court has jurisdiction over the petitions  The Case of FPJ YES. except for subsection 3: 4. While there Comelec a petition to disqualify FPJ and to deny due were divergent views on WON jus soli was a mode of course or to cancel his COC upon the claim that FPJ acquiring citizenship. Poe. 1973 of Filipino mothers. he before the adoption of this Consti. The petition was aptly L e g i s l a t u r e ' s elevated to and could well be taken cognizance by the b r o a d CS. Even if no such prior citizenship marriage existed.” 1. Those born in the Phils of foreign parents who. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Phils and marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez before his upon reaching the age of majority. the native inhabitants of FACTS: the Phils ceased to be Spanish subjects. The term Filipino citizen “natural-born citizens” is defined to include “those who are citizens of the Phils from birth without having to perform RATIO: any act to acquire or perfect their Phil citizenship.) Subsection 4 of the above provision resulted in • Jan 23: Comelec dismissed the petition for lack of discriminatory situations that incapacitated women from merit. 2004) 1st categorical enumeration of who were Spanish citizens. as we know. a “citizen of the of President of the Republic of the Philippines under Philippines” was one who was an inhabitant of the Phils. The FPJ represented himself to be a natural-born citizen of term “inhabitant” was taken to include 1) a native-born the Phils with his date of birth to be Aug 20. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a corrected this by adding the provision: COC. 2) an inhabitant who was a native of his place of birth in Manila. The 1973 Consti “§ 78. par. 1939 and inhabitant. but only with regard to Fornier’s petition Sec 2. 2004: petitioner Victorino Fornier filed with the Spanish papers on or before 11 April 1899. Bessie “Sec 1. and a Spanish subject on the 11th day of April 1899. Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of or to cancel a COC may be filed by any person the Phils exclusively on the ground that any material 3. was an American and his father. the Court Considering the reservations made by the parties on the recognizes its own jurisdiction under § 78 of the veracity of the evidence. The term “citizens of the Philippines” first appeared in the Phil Bill of 1902. who elect Phil citizenship upon reaching the age of majority” ISSUES  HELD: 1. Allan 1. Vitug Upon ratification of the Treaty of Paris and pending legislation by the US Congress. Those who elect Phil citizenship pursuant to the misrepresentation contained therein as required provisions of the 1935 Consti” under § 74 hereof is false. subsequent MFR was denied transmitting their Filipino citizenship to their legitimate • Petitioner Fornier invokes § 78 of the Omnibus children and required illegitimate children of Filipino Election Code: mothers to still elect Filipino citizenship. et al.” The natives. COMELEC denoting a lower regard for the inhabitants of the archipelago. being the son of of the adoption of this Consti Lorenzo Pou. Poe contracted a prior 4. and r e g u l a t e hence.” TECSON vs. The Civil Code of Spain came out with the (March 3.” The 1987 Consti generally adopted the provision of the • Petitioners Tecson. Art IX of the Consti. Their decisions on 1. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law” only a year after the birth of respondent. – A verified petition seeking to deny due course “2. and Velez invoke Article VII. the parents of FPJ were Allan F. Ponente: J. the only conclusions that could be Omnibus Election Code in consonance with the drawn with some degree of certainty are that: general powers of the Comelec. were called “indios. hence. 2. the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino. Those who are citizens of the Phil Islands at the time F. his parents were foreigners – his mother. Poe married Bessie Kelly 5. Poe was a Filipino citizen. WON FPJ made a material misrepresentation in his may be elected President unless he is a natural-born COC  NO. he is indeed a natural-born citizen of the Phils. which d i s c r e t i o n t o refers to a contest in a post-election scenario. as opposed to that of petitioner Tecson’s. the latter being an illegitimate child of an 3. Those born before Jan 17. Peninsular Spain. 7 of the Consti in assailing the jurisdiction of “3. Art VII of the 1987 Consti states that “No person 2. not applicable in this case. 2003: respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe (FPJ) the 1st comprehensive legislation of the US Congress on filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for the position the Phils. • Dec 31.

Amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas. There being no will public office is to punish him for the indiscretion of apparently executed by decedent Allan F. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of duly notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelly Mangahas.J. speech. categorized recognition of illegitimate children into protection clause and must be reprobated. that the place of distinction. at the time of his death on 11 Sept 1954. it would make an illegitimate that he was born sometime in 1870 when the Phils was distinction between the illegitimate child of a still a colony of Spain. 4 alien to personal and family relations. . Why deprive him of the fullness of voluntary) was required to establish filiation or paternity. There is neither justice nor rationality other proof of voluntary recognition remained to be “some in that. C. (He then other on 16 Sept 1940 proceeds to discredit all the cases cited by petitioner. liberalized the rules. not to prejudice or discriminate against him. III. it should be sound to real differences alone do not justify invidious conclude. remains and should remain only in the fathers are citizens of the Phils” regardless of whether sphere of civil law and not unduly impede or impinge such children are legitimate or not. It was to help the inheritance of titles and wealth strictly according to child. Allan F. among the citizens of the Phils are “those whose however. as found in as taking after the citizenship of its mother. FPJ was born to them on 20 Aug 1939 the lis mota. These distinctions between legitimacy and the 1935 Consti can never be more explicit than it is. and second. The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining his citizenship status should thus be deemed independent from and not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil IV. however. The Hence. it would make an illegitimate The death certificate of Lorenzo Pou would indicate that he distinction between a legitimate and illegitimate died in San Carlos. where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child Family Code. acknowledgement (judicial/compulsory or had illicit liaison. In fact. or compulsory. it would not be a decision but a mere obiter 3. the Section 4. an action to claim acknowledgement could only be brought during the lifetime of the presumed parent. Real differences may justify distinction residence of a person at the time of his death was also for 1 purpose but not for another purpose. the only his parents. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION law purposes. FPJ’s citizenship A. illegitimacy were thus codified in the Spanish Civil Code Providing neither conditions nor distinctions. nowhere in the document was the an illegitimate child from holding an important signature of Allan F. Bessie Kelley.” The 1950 Civil Code. as 4. but if it was irrelevant to Near v Minnesota (06/01/31) Hughes. legal. the father of Allan F. First. he failed to show that Lorenzo Pou was at The distinction between legitimate children and any other place during the same period.” voluntary. relationship with FPJ (i. or at least to presume. it states that and later survived in our Civil Code. 2. living together with Bessie Kelley and their children in 1 house and as 1 family). But any evidence to the contrary. Poe found. then it transgresses the equal hand. MINESOTA on the lis mota. on the domain of political law. The Civil Code or Family Code provisions of proof of filiation or paternity. an PRIOR RESTRAINT American citizen. the benefit of the child. sec. Petitioner argues that Lorenzo Pou Filipino father and the illegitimate children of a was not in the Phils during the crucial period of 1898 to Filipina mother.e. would exercise parental authority and had the Spanish family and property laws that sought to distribute duty to support her illegitimate child. Lorenzo pronouncement would have no textual basis in the Pou was 84 years old Consti. considering there was no existing record about such fact. Protected Speech Petitioner argues that. Such discrimination may be traced to the custody. Poe. do not have preclusive effects on matters Consti. or of the press. he followed the citizenship of his mother. since FPJ was an illegitimate child. Art. However. although good law. might be accepted to prove the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government acts of Allan F. The ordinary rules on evidence could well and should govern. Poe recognizing his own paternal for redress of grievances. 173 and 175 re: filiation. It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for the illegitimate child of an alien father in Civil law provisions point out to an obvious bias against line with the assumption that the mother. Unlike an action to claim legitimacy which would last during the lifetime of the WOOHOO! Nai-imagine ko si Father Bernas… child. it did so for Articles 172. who had illegitimacy. his residence before death. bloodlines. Such distinction. of expression. In the absence of illegitimate children rests on real differences. Pangasinan. or the right of the sister of Bessie Kelley Poe. 1902. SJ states: “If the pronouncement of the Court on jus sanguinis was NEAR vs. Aside from the fact that such a 5. It could thus be assumed child. And if there is neither justice nor rationality other public document. it would be a decision constituting doctrine under stare decisis. Poe was Lorenzo Pou being obiter dicta). on the other in the distinction. it would also violate the Equal Protection Clause TWICE. Thus. What possible state interest can there be for Proof of Paternity and Filiation disqualifying an illegitimate child from being a public Under the Civil Code of Spain until the effectivity of the officer? It was not the child’s fault that his parents 1950 Civil Code. which did not establish doctrine. political rights for no fault of his own? To disqualify In FPJ’s birth certificate. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married to each dictum.

& scandalous if it circulates charges of Petitioner (Near): reprehensible conduct. may maintain an action in the district court of Amendment. or against him in a suit or prosecution for libel. there shall be available the defense that the truth was published 1. & of the press.statute violates the due process clause of the 14th & to constitute a public scandal. but with the suppression will follow unless he is prepared with legal "business" of publishing defamation. of a because charges are made of derelictions which constitute "malicious. gross neglect of duty & graft for failing to the historic conception of the liberty of the press & quell the city''s gangster problem. the court has failure to expose & punish them. & that this abatement & -the statute deals not with publication per se. which upheld the decision. however it might be applied derelictions. publications. whether criminal or otherwise. scandalous & defamatory Mayor. or which publishes the same. It was under welfare of the people. including the Mayor of Minneapolis. publishing & circulating a business which. The judgment in this case proceeded upon the nuisance. It is apparent that under the supreme court. generally speaking." as a public matter. In the present instance. In the county in the name of the State to enjoin perpetually maintaining this guarantee. livelihood (appellant sees the decision as a bar against his malfeasance in office. or of any stock or interest in any scandal which tends to disturb the public peace & to corporation or organization which owns the same in whole provoke assaults & the commission of crime or in part. & findings of fact which followed the allegations of the that. 2nd The statute is Amendment as it deprives him of liberty (his right to free directed not simply at the circulation of scandalous & speech & liberty of the press) & property (his publication) defamatory statements with regard to private citizens. or any other name. magazine or other periodical. & the statute requires the allegation. orders & judgments provided for in the Act. Ownership. undertaking to that appellant's sole attack was upon the constitutionality conduct a campaign to expose & to censure official of the statute. scandalous & defamatory newspaper. "chiefly devoted to malicious. constitutes a public nuisance prosecutions for libel. publisher of a newspaper or periodical. Whitney enforcement officials. are not presented for review.that no question either of motive in the publication." Under this statute. of -the statute is designed to prevent the circulation of any such periodical. in accordance with familiar principles. but a whether the decree goes beyond the direction of the determination that his newspaper or periodical is a public statute. in whole or in part. & devoting his publication principally to that purpose. involves more than malicious. but at an existing customarily producing. The reason for the Defendants: enactment is that prosecutions to enforce penal statutes -insists that the questions of the application of the statute for libel do not result in "efficient repression or to appellant's periodical. health. Participation in such . before injunction business shall constitute a commission of such nuisance issues. is before the court nuisance to be abated. the SC notes that the liberty of the press is under statute also provides that the County Atty. scandalous & defamatory newspaper. a judgment of the trial court. evidence to prove the truth of the charges & also to satisfy . "the said publication" "under said name of The Saturday that the publication was "malicious. Near now statute the publication is to be regarded as defamatory if it appeals to the US SC. 1st The statute is not aimed at the redress of articles" concerning the individuals named.District Court decision violates the due process clause of at the continued publication by newspapers & periodicals the 14th Amendment as it deprives him of any future of charges against public officers of corruption. through these available & unaffected." It is alleged. but this power is to be determined this statue that the County Atty filed an action against with appropriate regard to the particular subject of its Near (herein petitioner) for allegedly publishing & exercise. & the State may punish its abuse. The District Court made regard to substance. "did engage in the business of regularly & "is not directed at threatened libel. The To start. directly or indirectly. as distinguished from malice entered adjudging that "the newspaper." Judgment was thereupon the State of malice in fact. or serious neglect of duty. Session Laws 1925) -the constitutional freedom from previous restraint is lost provides for the abatement. Remedies for libel remain further found that the defendants. w/n the statute is unconstitutional for being violative of with good motives & for justifiable ends & in such actions the due process clause the plaintiff shall not have the right to report to issues or Held: YES editions of periodicals taking place more than three months before the commencement of the action. & not to mere matters of form. Whitney v California. shall constitute Issues: such participation. v. the inquiry is as to of inefficiency. must face not simply the possibility of a verdict . & the publication is thus deemed to invite public reprobation . but .the publisher is is permitted to show.morals & general from further committing or maintaining it. is also not an circulating a periodical that charged public & law absolute right. that the matter published is true & is published and render the participant liable & subject to the with good motives & for justifiable ends proceedings.Facts: A Minnesota statute (Chap285. In actions brought under above. [702] crimes. as in Press. as a public nuisance. or any citizen of the ambit of "liberty" which is guaranteed by the 14th the county. said the state court. Gitlaw v NY. The articles made whether the statute under review violates the essential serious accusations against the public officers named & attributes of that liberty. The court individual or private wrongs. & of the construction of the suppression of the evils of scandal. 3rd The establishing any further business involving publication) object of the statute is not punishment but suppression of the offending newspaper or periodical. Henderson v. others in connection with the prevalence of crimes & the In passing upon constitutional questions. the State has the power to the persons committing or maintaining any such nuisance enact laws to promote the safety." But. the statute complaint & found that the editions in question were must be tested by its operation & effect. The statute. "is hereby abated." & that libel. Near appealed to State mere proof of publication. magazine & inferred from the mere publication of the defamatory periodical known as The Saturday Press. Liberty of speech. injures reputation. there is no requirement of proof by under the laws of the State. California.

the matter was re: the constitutional freedom from previous restraint is published with good motives & for justifiable ends. Colorado. ISSUE: . it some of its inhabitants may violently disagree with it. United States These limitations are not applicable here. unless the owner or publisher is able & & for justifiable ends: If such a statute. the constitutional protection war. violent reactions becomes greater with effective The protection even as to "previous restraint is not organization of defiant groups resenting exposure.S. whose FACTS: character & conduct remain open to debate & free discussion in the press. "the main scandal which tends to disturb the public peace & to purpose of such constitutional provisions is "to prevent all provoke assaults & the commission of crime: Charges of such previous restraints "upon publications as had been reprehensible conduct. as the privilege so limited would be newspaper or periodical before a judge upon a charge of of slight value for the purposes for which it came to be conducting a business of publishing scandalous & established defamatory matter -. violation of the "court's order. his newspaper or periodical the legislature to provide that at any time the publisher of is suppressed & further publication is made punishable as any newspaper could be brought before a court & required a contempt. This case was publish. & in particular of official practiced by other governments. This is of the essence of censorship. for approximately one hundred & fifty years. & of his motives. & restrain publication constitutional protection.For whatever wrong the more serious public evil would be caused by authority to appellant has committed or may commit by his prevent publication. The fact that. the operation & effect of the statute is that enactments. & provides for no punishment. except in case of contempt for resent its circulation by resorting to physical violence. Nor are we now concerned with "questions as to the extent of authority to prevent publications in NEW YORK TIMES vs. the circulation of a newspaper for no reason other than that statute in question "does not deal with punishments.the court that. there has been almost an entire absence of attempts to impose previous restraints upon publications Voting: 5-4 relating to the malfeasance of public officers is significant of the deep-seated conviction that such restraints would violate constitutional right. that is. it cannot be Co. It would be but a step to a complete system of universally. Statute declared unconstitutional be endured so long as men fight. that the consists of charges against public officers of official matter published is true & is published with good motives dereliction -. considered that it is the chief purpose of the censorship. It is inconsistent with the reason which public authorities may bring the owner or publisher of a underlies the privilege. but subsequent "punishment of such as may be deemed the theory of the constitutional guaranty is that even a contrary to the public welfare. But the limitation has been consideration warranted legislative interference with the recognized only in exceptional cases: "When a nation is at initial freedom of publication. it would be equally permissible for motives & for justifiable ends. is that the charges are true & are published with good constitutionally valid. The President argued that prior restraint was defamation: If the publisher has a constitutional right to necessary to protect national security. & not in proceedings to restrain Times and Washington Post from publishing materials the publication of newspapers & periodicals. or stand proceedings in restraint of publication is consistent with enjoined. & that no Court could regard them as protected by any "constitutional right. If this can be done." The danger of injunction. but to put the publisher under an restraint has never been regarded as limited to such effective censorship. or of what The question is whether a statute authorizing such he intended to publish. Cutting through mere details of animadversions as lay outside the range of penal procedure. but with the "business" of publishing Vietnam. an edition of his decided together with United States v. it has been generally if not accordingly. authorizing disposed to bring competent evidence to satisfy the judge suppression & injunction on such a basis. & if this absolutely unlimited. but for suppression & there is no limit to what may be prohibited. before injunction issues. unquestionably create a public scandal. Washington Post newspaper charging official derelictions.&. without previous restraint. that the matter re:is permitted to show. Nolan." Schenck v. for restraint upon publication. the legislature may provide the conception of the liberty of the press as historically machinery for determining in the complete exercise of its conceived & guaranteed. such a hindrance to its effort that their "utterance will not Judgment particular. in addition to being true." & they do not prevent the malfeasance. 4th. In determining the extent of the discretion what are justifiable ends. belonging to a classified Defense Department study re: defendant's contention that the statute deals not with regarding the history of United States activities in publication per se. to produce proof of the truth of his publication. guaranty to prevent previous restraints upon publication. As has been noted. denied that he may publish subsequent editions for the same purpose. US order to protect private rights according to the "principles governing the exercise of the jurisdiction of courts of 403 U. As was said in New Yorker Staats- publications the State "appropriately affords both public & Zeitung v. lost because charges are made of derelictions which The statute not only operates to suppress the offending constitute crimes: The freedom of the press from previous newspaper or periodical. re:the statute is designed to prevent the circulation of This Court said. in Patterson v. many things that might be said in time of peace are would be reduced to a mere form of words. Public officers. find their remedies for false In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case."If the township may prevent the private redress by its libel laws. 713 (1971) equity." the accusations in actions under libel laws providing for Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York redress & punishment.

authority as Commander-in-Chief. sections in the chapter on espionage and censorship.S. the same to any person not entitled to the great bulwarks of liberty. . concurring. require. the First Amendment was not is a party. During the debates in disclosure would endanger the national security stems the Senate the First Amendment was specifically cited and from two interrelated sources: the constitutional power of that provision was defeated. as one of communicates . 793 (e) provides that "[w]hoever having DOUGLAS joins. of Rights. the President over the conduct of foreign affairs and his The Act of September 23. Thus it is apparent that Congress was capable of and did distinguish between publishing and communication in the The Solicitor General stated: various sections of the Espionage Act. fully aware of both the need to defend a new RATIO: nation and the abuses of the English and Colonial governments. with whom MR. or communicates . . prohibit the publishing or communicating of. not the governors. . safety of American forces. . in time of war. furnishes. JUSTICE should not be used "to abrogate the fundamental law BLACK joins. publishes. JUSTICE DOUGLAS. . transmits." Justice Brennan reasoned that since publication would not cause an There is no statute barring the publication by the press of inevitable. Both the history and language of the First collects. "[t]he authority of the Exec Dept to protect defense which. or to publish States or to the advantage of any foreign nation. national defense which information the possessor has one of which proclaimed: "The people shall not be deprived reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United or abridged of their right to speak. writing . and I would seek to The other evidence that 793 does not apply to the press is persuade the Court that is true. 1950. . is of such character that it the nation against publication of information whose is or might be useful to the enemy. JUSTICE Title 18 U.) the Vietnam War. and immediate event imperiling the the material which the Times and the Post seek to use. Only a free and "communicates. There are eight abridge the people's freedoms of press. The Framers of the First Amendment. religion.". or from threat of such a war. by proclamation. with intent interpreted to limit and restrict the guarantees of the Bill that the same shall be communicated to the enemy. 799. access to.Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the publication of what it termed "classified information" expense of informed representative government provides violate the First Amendment?  YES no real security for our Republic." free to publish news. shall be inviolable. or information relating to the Madison proposed the First Amendment in three parts. sought to give this new society strength and In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the security by providing that freedom of speech. Justices Black and Douglas argued that the vague word "security" MR. . . in amending 18 U. or both. or control over any document." general powers granted to the branches of gov’t." and. government did not overcome the "heavy presumption religion. embodied in the First Amendment." 793 states in 1 (b) that: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize. in his judgment. . against" prior restraint of the press in this case. direct. records. Section 797 applies to whoever "reproduces. The press was to Section 798 relating to cryptography applies to whoever: serve the governed. 2 govt.S. or publishes" the described material. In revealing the workings of government that led to (Emphasis added. First Amendment gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its role in our democracy. [T]here are other parts a rejected version of 793 which read: "During any national of the Constitution that grant powers and responsibilities emergency resulting from a war to which the United States to the Executive.C. the President may." . to write. or gives away" photographs of defense installations. . . [the Amendment support the view that the press must be left disposition of armed forces]. or the attempting to publish or And the Government argues that in spite of the First communicate any information relating to the national Amendment. In three of those eight "publish" is specifically mentioned: Solicitor General argues that the general powers of the Gov’t adopted in the original Constitution should be 794 (b) applies to "Whoever.000 or amendments were offered to curtail and restrict the imprisoned not more than ten years. or otherwise makes unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in available . without censorship. The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new The Government suggests that the word "communicates" is charter under which no branch of government could broad enough to encompass publication. . whatever the source. "… `no law' does not mean `no law'. intended to make it impossible for the Executive to by proclamation. unauthorized possession of. JUSTICE BLACK. . injunctions. willfully their sentiments. press. declare the existence of such emergency function or to protect the security of the United States.C. speech. ." The receive it . 792- and assembly. sells. with whom MR. the newspapers nobly did precisely that which the Founders hoped and trusted they would do. or establish military or To find that the President has "inherent power" to halt the civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon publication of news by resort to the courts would wipe out freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the the First Amendment and destroy the fundamental liberty Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall and security of the very people the Govt hopes to make be promulgated hereunder having that effect. or prior restraints. and . and assembly should not be abridged. [s]hall be fined not more than $10." "secure. publishes. MR. and the freedom of the press. concurring. prior restraint was unjustified. .

there can be but one judicial resolution of the issues before us. That matter must await protect the values of democratic government. "The fact that the liberty of the press may be abused by miscreant purveyors of scandal does not make any the less I cannot say that disclosure of any of them will surely necessary the immunity of the press from previous result in direct.] There is a single. A truly effective internal The power to wage war stems from a declaration of war. and practical considerations would dictate Government if when the Executive Branch has adequate that a very first principle would be an insistence upon authority granted by Congress to protect "national avoiding secrecy for its own sake. disclosure. transports or the number and location of troops. during which times no one would question but so far as to inhibit publications by the press. concurring. Secrecy in government is fundamentally anti-democratic. obviously not limited to that threatening "grave and irreparable" injury to the United States. I am quite unable to agree that be overridden. and the system power of a court to enjoin the threatened conduct. perpetuating bureaucratic errors. The . and to be manipulated by those intent on self- protection or self-promotion. concurring. I am not. saying present in other areas of our national life." Nation or its people. based on its own the First Amendment's ban on prior judicial restraint may investigations and findings.So any power that the Government possesses must come becomes one to be disregarded by the cynical or the from its "inherent power. JUSTICE BRENNAN. concurring. Also. Constitution gives the Executive a large degree of unshared power in the conduct of foreign affairs and the It would. only when credibility is truly maintained. the public of prohibited activities" and to be consonant with due process. robust. JUSTICE MARSHALL. 19. restraints in circumstances such as these. directly. Open debate and discussion of public issues are vital to our national health. That being so. United States has not satisfied the very heavy burden that MR. immediate. information "connected with the national defense" is WHITE joins. JUSTICE Gorin. In that event.and to be "sufficiently definite to apprise an interim restraining order. however. JUSTICE On public questions there should be "uninhibited. the only effective that either of these newspapers has yet committed a crime restraint upon executive policy and power may lie in an or that either would commit a crime if it published all the informed and critical public opinion which alone can here material now in its possession. In neither of these actions has the Govt presented or even In Gorin v. Much of the that a govt might prevent actual obstruction to its difficulty inheres in the "grave and irreparable danger" recruiting service or the publication of the sailing dates of standard suggested by the US. political. JUSTICE WHITE. Minnesota: and natl defense. damage to the basic concept of these co-equal branches of Moral. But be that as it may. and immediately cause the connotations. It has apparently been satisfied to rely on criminal sanctions and their deterrent effect on the responsible as In the absence of the governmental checks and balances well as the irresponsible press. JUSTICE STEWART. at least in the absence of express and restraints of the press predicated upon surmise or appropriately limited congressional authorization for prior conjecture that untoward consequences may result. and irreparable damage to our restraint in dealing with official misconduct. be utterly inconsistent with the concept maintenance of our national defense. referring to the military and naval occurrence of an event kindred to imperiling the safety of a establishments and the related activities of national transport already at sea can support even the issuance of preparedness" .a "generic concept of broad must inevitably. But that is the Executive is to protect the confidentiality necessary to no basis for sanctioning a previous restraint on the press. with whom MR. STEWART joins. the alleged that publication of items based upon the material words "national defense" as used in a predecessor of 793 at issue would cause the happening of an event of that were held by a unanimous Court to have "a well nature. recognizing that secrecy can best be preserved Nowhere are presidential wars authorized. There would be a similar security necessary to exercise that power successfully. The Executive is endowed with power in the two related areas of nat’l defense and int’l relations. resolution in the context of a criminal proceeding if one is instituted by the United States.S. as construed by the Court in MR. 28 (1941). 312 U. it is clear to me that it is the constitutional duty of These disclosures 3 may have a serious impact. security system would be the maximum possible The Constitution gives Congress power to declare War. of course. with whom MR. and wide-open" debate. United States. If the MR. the issue of The successful conduct of intl diplomacy and the guilt or innocence would be determined by procedures and maintenance of an effective natl defense requires both standards quite different from those that have purported confidentiality. Only gov’tal allegation and proof that publication understood connotation" ." careless. carry out its responsibilities in the fields of intl relations As stated by Chief Justice Hughes in Near v. it must meet to warrant an injunction against publication The First Amendment tolerates absolutely no prior judicial in these cases. extremely narrow class of cases in which In the absence of legislation by Congress. For when everything is security" it can choose instead to invoke the contempt classified. The responsibility must be where the power is. then under the of separation of powers for this Court to use its power of Constitution the Executive must have the largely unshared contempt to prevent behavior that Congress has duty to determine and preserve the degree of internal specifically declined to prohibit. to govern these injunctive proceedings. concurring. Such cases may arise only when the Nation the inherent powers of the Executive and the courts reach is at war. MR. then nothing is classified.

The great issue. since the newspaper could anticipate the Government's objections to release of Congress has on several occasions given extensive secret material. to give the Government an opportunity to consideration to the problem of protecting the military and review the entire collection and determine whether strategic secrets of the United States. spans a period ending in 1968. The doctrine against enjoining conduct in violation judge knew all the facts. If the Government had attempted to show that there was In order to decide the merits of these cases properly. Moreover. was to report forthwith. courts and the Executive Branch can "make law" without regard to the action of Congress. has resulted in the enactment of statutes making it a if security was not in fact jeopardized. WON the threat to publish highly secret documents is would have clearly given the President the power he seeks of itself a sufficient implication of natl security to here and made the current activity of the newspapers justify an injunction regardless of the contents of the unlawful. and was not warranted. WON the threatened harm to the natl security or the Govt's possessory interest in the documents justifies MR. disclose. We do not know the facts of the cases. JUSTICE HARLAN. still the basic provisions of 793. dissenting. The precipitate action of this Court aborting trials not yet completed is not the kind of The power to evaluate the "pernicious influence" of judicial conduct that ought to attend the disposition of a premature disclosure is not lodged in the Exec alone. since it publish certain documents. with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE there is a conspiracy to commit future crimes. to There has been no attempt to make such a showing. 1. much of the crime to receive. It did has held up publication for purposes it considered proper not provide for government by injunction in which the and thus public knowledge was delayed. photographs.C. It is hardly believable that appliances. entitled Espionage simple duties of every citizen with respect to the discovery and Censorship. abandonment of judicial control. Title 18. During all of this time. This consideration agreement could be reached on publication? Stolen or not. 7. 4. it would or all of the following questions should have been faced: have had to show that there is no arguably applicable statute. Constitutional considerations forbid a complete during which it has had its expert analysts studying them. presumably . or possession of stolen property or secret government documents. restraints on publication. and MR. Would it have been unreasonable. and material could no doubt have been declassified. WON weight should be given to the opinion of high seeks in this case. judiciary must review the initial Exec determination to the point of satisfying itself that the subject matter of the It is not disputed that the Times has had unauthorized dispute does lie within the President's foreign relations possession of the documents for three to four months. documents. The bulk of these statutes is a newspaper would fail to perform one of the basic and found in chapter 37 of U. dissenting. it is clear that serious threat to national security. and all the facts. here unlawful and given the President the power that he 5. That duty. some no effective remedy under traditional criminal law. The extent to which the materials at issue have apparently already been otherwise disseminated.." President execute laws. No District Judge knew all the facts. In 1917 during the debate over the officers in the Exec Branch of the Govt with respect to original Espionage Act. instruments. and that the newspapers received them with knowledge that they had been feloniously acquired. communicate. Congress has specifically rejected passing legislation that 3. WON the newspapers are entitled to retain and use the of war or threat of war authority to directly prohibit by documents notwithstanding the uncontested facts that proclamation the publication of information relating to the documents were stolen from the Govt's possession national defense that might be useful to the enemy. No member of this Court knows of criminal statutes. JUSTICE BLACKMUN join. power. The strong First Amendment policy against prior immediate reason. No Court of Appeals b. WON the Atty Gen is authorized to bring these suits in the name of the US. WON the First Amendment permits the federal courts good faith bring criminal prosecutions against the New to enjoin publication of stories which would present a York Times and the Washington Post. and courts interpret laws. Congress rejected a proposal to give the President in time 6. and information. the issuance of an injunction against publication in light of – These cases are not simple for another and more a. Even if it is determined that the Government could not in 2. The responsible public officers.Constitution provides that Congress shall make laws.S. Solicitor General does not even mention in his brief whether the Government considers that there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed or whether MR. withhold. It is plain to me that the scope of the judicial function in It seems reasonably clear now that the haste precluded passing upon the activities of the Exec Branch in the field reasonable and deliberate judicial treatment of these cases of foreign affairs is very narrowly restricted. WON the unauthorized disclosure of any of these On at least two occasions Congress has refused to enact particular documents would seriously impair the natl legislation that would have made the conduct engaged in security. the Times. questions 3 and 4. c. the in its capacity as trustee of the public's "right to know. the judiciary presumably digesting them and preparing the material for may properly insist that the determination that disclosure publication. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER. The haste is due in large part to the manner in which the Times proceeded from the date it obtained the documents.

vs. lend. thus. it preparation of briefs. Art." Holmes observation certainly has pertinent application: “The NY Times secretly devoted a period of 3 months to • State concedes that the picture does not violate the examine the 47 volumes. in the presence of such person. It immediately properly submitted. time and manner provided for taking appeal to the Court of Appeals." The administration of a censorship system for motion pictures presents J. WON the CA was correct in using the doctrine in Times Film Corp. Ann. Chicago as precedence in this case. 2. subject generally to the MR. and if appealed from. JUSTICE BLACKMUN. a censorship FACTS: proceeding puts the initial burden on the exhibitor or distributor. WON the statute lacks sufficient safeguards thus about 3 years ago. lease. and the Times itself took 3 months to resulting to a delegation of excessive admin discretion formulate its plan of procedure and. but on a schedule permitting the question quite distinct from that passed on in Times Film. expression. Once publication of a violation of the statute started. exhibit or use any motion picture film or view in the State of Maryland unless the said film Only a judicial determination in an adversary proceeding or view has been submitted by the exchange. lessee of the film or view and duly approved and only a procedure requiring a judicial determination licensed by the Maryland State Board of Censors. circumstances. by two or more members of the Board. oral argument. Even the newspapers question tendered for decision was "whether a prior concede that there are situations where restraint is restraint was necessarily unconstitutional under all constitutional. 1957. the censor's determination may in practice be final. Unlike a prosecution for obscenity.of the subject matter would irreparably impair the natl Sec 19 : (if the film is disapproved/ eliminations security be made by the head of the Exec Dept. hereinafter in this article called the Board. Code." ISSUE: The District of Columbia case is much the same. And if it is made unduly onerous. but the appellant was still convicted assumed hectic pace and character. of the material. There has been much writing about the law and little 2. the court upheld a requirement of submission Branch power over the conduct of foreign affairs and the of motion pictures in advance of exhibition. statutory standards & would have received a license if the NY case now before us emerged. and with the because. suffices to impose a valid final restraint. such film or view will probable impact of disclosure on the national security. Because the censor's business is to censor. from the decision of the Baltimore City Court to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. Yes. much less that owing to a co-equal Baltimore City. Once it had begun publication." ." Appellant presents a expeditiously. 66A. There shall be a further right of appeal branch of the Govt. to seek judicial Md. and the I can see no indication in the opinions of either the DC or same finally approved or disapproved promptly after the CA in the Post litigation that the conclusions of the such re-examination. a State is not free to adopt whatever procedures it pleases for dealing with FREEDMAN vs. of course. already 3." The Court quoted the statement from Near v. But the responsibility for the Nation's safety. The CA was misplaced in relying on the Times Film. WON the Maryland statute presents a danger of unduly knowledge and less digestion of the facts. owner or ensures the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression. 2: "It shall be unlawful review. From then on. dissenting. Minnesota that "the protection even as to previous therefore would remand these cases to be developed restraint is not absolutely unlimited. it is said. every delay was abhorrent and was unconstitutionally impaired freedom of expression. Constitution. orderly presentation of evidence from both sides. to be deemed violative of the First Amendment and of the public's "right immediately to know. MARYLAND obscenity… without regard to the possible consequences for constitutionally protected speech. with the He argues that it constitutes an invalid prior restraint use of discovery as authorized by the rules. 1. Art II of the great document vests in the Exec In that case. deprived its on the part of the Board of censors. No. Brennan peculiar dangers to constitutionally protected speech. public for that period. in the context of the remainder of the statute. to sell. the material could not be made public fast • Appellant’s contention: statute in its entirety enough. by reason of delay or otherwise. The most recent suppressing protected expression. • Appellant exhibited the film "Revenge at Daybreak" at there inheres the danger that he may well be less his Baltimore theatre without first submitting the responsive than a court to the constitutionally protected picture to the State Board of Censors as required by interests in free expression. HELD & RATIO: The First Amendment is only one part of an entire 1. with the right of appeal from the Exec were given even the deference owing to an decision of the Board to the Baltimore City Court of administrative agency. ordered) "the person submitting such film or view for examination But in my judgment the judiciary may not properly go will receive immediate notice of such elimination or beyond these two inquiries and redetermine for itself the disapproval. Under the 14th Amendment. be promptly re-examined. and court opinions of presents a danger of unduly suppressing protected a quality better than has been seen to this point. dates no later than 1968.

the appellate court by majority vote held as a question of In Kingsley Books. First. The distributor. a citizen of that municipality. without such difficulties. Sorsogon. WON article 256 of the Penal Code. The exhibitor's stake in any sedition. may be equally unwilling to accept the Enforceability of Art. Helbig. Mr. The Crime Committed . so much of article following notice and an adversary hearing. it may take very little to deter 2. of the Penal Code having to statutory provision for judicial participation in the do with contempt of ministers of the Crown or other procedure which bars a film. Particularly in 1. Helbig was prosecuted under article 256. No. WON the appellant committed libel Without these safeguards. and though the case was What they can do: eventually sent back to the court of origin for a new trial. Maryland’s scheme fails to provide adequate In the film industry: allow the exhibitor or distributor to safeguards against undue inhibition of protected submit his film early enough to ensure an orderly final expression. exists and must be enforced. it may prove too burdensome to HOLDING: seek review of the censor's determination. however. nor even assurance of persons in authority. thus rendering the requirement of prior disposition of the case before the scheduled exhibition date submission of films to the Board an invalid previous . he has seeking a license. in order to proceed effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films. the exhibitor meet on the morning of April 1. however Governor-General Wood. is still enforceable appellate review. Inc. should get a bolo and cut off the head of exhibition is prohibited pending judicial review. termination of the hearing.3. myself. and convicted thereof. 2. for we are told that only the effect that article 256 of the Penal Code is no longer in four States and a handful of municipalities have active force. censorship laws. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected considerably more prompt than has been the case under expression must rest on the censor. 1922. on the RATIO: other hand. the of the Crown or to writings coming under the Libel judge must hand down his decision within two days after Law. Trial court decision affirmed with modification one picture may be insufficient to warrant a protracted and onerous course of litigation. the statute would have to require adjudication 1. FACTS: The Maryland procedural scheme does not satisfy these Isaac Perez. the requirement cannot be PEOPLE vs. YES. appellant could have been a bad administration in these Islands and has not convicted if he had shown the film after unsuccessfully made a good recommendation." Charged in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon is imposed for completion of Board action. he was guilty of a portion of treason and exhibition in a given locality. once the Board has acted against a film. While the State may require advance submission of all films. we have not obtained independence Third. and became engaged in a discussion regarding the proceedings and of persuading the courts that the film is administration of Governor-General Wood. There is no with a violation of article 256." SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMNENT 2. Perez has prompt judicial review. like Second. Yes the case of motion pictures. he can freely exhibit his film in The first error assigned by counsel for the appellant is to most of the rest of the country. in the only reported case indicating the length of time required to ISSUE: complete an appeal. even though no court had ever ruled on asassinated the independence of the Philippines and the obscenity of the film. for this reason. the court upheld a New law that article 256 is still in force. criteria. the provision taken four months and final vindication of the film on allegedly violated. six months. Failing such a scheme or sufficiently early submission under such a How can prior submission of films avoid infirmity? scheme. 256 burdens and delays of litigation in a particular area when. on the contrary. as is borne out by experience. Due process the Maryland statute. once the censor disapproves the film. the initial judicial determination has 1. Risk of delay is built into the appealed the case to this court. in the presidencia of must assume the burden of instituting judicial Pilar. the municipal secretary of Pilar. advertise the opening on a normal basis. in Perez shouting a number of times: "The Filipinos. J constitutes protected expression. Maryland procedure. Brown. and Fortunato Lodovice. There is no time limit that off. which resulted protected expression.far enough in advance so that the exhibitor could safely restraint. because he has recommended protracted. York injunctive procedure designed to prevent the sale of obscene books. The statute 256 of the Penal Code as does not relate to ministers provides for a hearing one day after joinder of issue. PEREZ administered in a manner which would lend an effect of finality to the censor's determination whether a film MALCOLM. that until against sale until a judicial determination of obscenity otherwise decided by higher authority. Under the statute. That procedure postpones any restraint It may therefore be taken as settled doctrine. it is Maryland statute provides no assurance of and the head of that Governor-General must be cut prompt judicial determination. requires that the State bear the burden of persuasion to show that the appellants engaged in criminal speech. In the case of United States vs. v.

violates which tends to instigate others to cabal or meet together the First and Fifth Amendments because of for unlawful purposes. and the I agree in that the accused should be sentenced to suffer Judiciary. He has commotions or disturbances 'in the State. and the existence of the had the intention of inciting others to gather for an illicit State. as amended by Act No. the 256 of the Penal Code. or. as will later practices from the constituted authorities. he constitution and the laws. or who shall write. violates Government of the Philippine Islands. shall be appear. US than a figure of speech was intended. J. the authority of the purposes. which could easily produce (1951) disaffection among the people and a state of feeling FACTS: incompatible with a disposition to remain loyal to the Government and obedient to the laws. in the discretion of the court. under the provisions of article the intention and effect of the act is seditious. constitutional guaranties of freedom of speech and 292. we think that the words of the accused did not punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars so much tend to defame. or which suggests or incites indefiniteness. The fugitive flame of disloyalty. no matter concurring and dissenting: how severe. or construed and applied in the instant case. but not under section 8 of Act No. The offenses which suggested and incited rebellious conspiracies. but rather instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful against the existence of the State. or who shall print. the foundations of Government. the Legislature. on the Executive. 292 of the Philippine Commission. or the subversion of the While our own sense of humor is not entirely blunted. or the general public peace. appears to have been In this certiorari they assail the constitutionality of this placed on the statute books exactly to meet such a said act alleging that it violates their freedom of speech situation. the person maligned by the accused is the Chief of the Government Executive of the Philippine Islands. WON either s 2 or s 3 of the Act. He created and defined in Act No. In the words of the law. In criminal law.C. More DENNIS vs. Eugene Dennis and others were convicted of conspiring to General is the representative of executive civil authority in organize the Communist Party of the United States as a the Philippines and of the sovereign power. 292 are distinctly of this has made a statement and done an act which tended to character. we Constitution. both. or who shall knowingly conceal such evil Treason and Sedition Law. nevertheless entertain the conviction that the courts should be the first to stamp out the embers of It is of course fundamentally true that the provisions of insurrection. two months and one day of arresto mayor with costs. violation of the conspiracy provisions of the Smith Act-- sec 2 and 3 of the Smith Act. must be dealt with firmly before it freedom of speech and the right of the people peaceably to endangers the general public peace. Perez has uttered seditious words. with whom concurs AVANCEÑA.A. is within the range of liberty of speech. But in this instance. utter or make any statement. a person in United States currency or by imprisonment not exceeding authority. or speech.  no .. Criticism is permitted to penetriate even to VILLAMOR. Section 8 of Act No. ISSUES: "Every person who shall utter seditious words or speeches. showing that when the accused constituted authority. it is our opinion that the law infringed in this the peace of the community or the safety or order of the instance is not this article but rather a portion of the Government. the First Amendment and other provisions of the write. Among them is sedition. or which tends to disturb Code. yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws. The accused should not be convicted of the crime of press and of assembly and petition must yield to sedition because there is no allegation in the complaint punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of nor proof in the record. or to incite any conspiracy or rebellion. which is the raising of stir up the people against the lawful authorities. abuse. A seditious group to teach and advocate the overthrow of the attack on the Governor-General is an attack on the rights Government of the United States by force and violence in of the Filipino people and on American sovereignty. publish or circulate scurrilous libels 1. There is a seditious tendency in the words used. 1692. inherently or as officer in executing his office or in performing his duty. In other words. lighted by an Act No. This section reads as follows: and that it is void for indefiniteness/vagueness. as they did to raise a disturbance in the two years. WON sec 2 or 3 of the Smith Act inherently or as against the Government of the United States or against the construed and applied in the instant case.Accepting the above statements relative to the rebellious conspiracies or which tends to stir up the people continuance and status of article 256 of the Penal against the lawful authorities. 18 U. The Governor. Though the made a statement and done an act which tended to ultimate object of sedition is a violation of the public peace disturb the peace of the community and the safety or order or at least such a course of measures as evidently of the Government. there are a variety of offenses which are He has made a statement and done an act which tended to not directed primarily against individuals. publish. But when imposed by the court a quo. 292 must not be interpreted so as to abridge the irresponsible individual. or insult." community. assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. Criticism. do any act which tends to disturb or obstruct any lawful 2.S. the supremacy of the uttered the words that gave rise to these proceedings. or Bill of Rights no. J. or to disturb the peace of the community or the safety and order Here. His official position seems rather to invite abusive attacks. engenders it. purpose.. He has made a statement and done an act Government. the attack on the Governor-General passes the furthest bounds of free speech and common decency. as unless the intention and effect be seditious.

to print. Territory. The countries. or • Congress did not intend to eradicate the free the 1st and 4th amendments for indefiniteness. Court have recognized that this is not an unlimited. Rather Congress was concerned with the the overthrow of the government of the US by force and very kind of activity in which the evidence showed violence created a clear and present danger. • The constitutionality of the statute is adjudged y edit. advise. the term a clear and present danger that a substantial ‘government in the United States’ means the public evil will result therefrom. or assembly of persons. or publicly whether or not it is reasonable. or • Justice Holmes stated that the ‘question in every teach the duty. case (courts) must ask whether the gravity of the ‘evil. or to be or become a member of. 3. or teaching the duty. or possession of the United the legislature when its judgment. for if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed • The general goal of the communist party is to internal attack. desirability. ‘(1) to knowingly or willfully advocate. this is the ultimate value of any society. speech Government of the United States. interpreted the phrase as follows: ‘In each violence. It shall be unlawful for any person to attempt to overthrow of the Government by force and violence commit. • This case warrants a restriction of speech because ‘Sec. or by the to create a clear and present danger that they assassination of any officer of any such government. or propriety of case is whether the words used are used in overthrowing or destroying any government in the such circumstances and are of such a nature as United States by force or violence. issue. 2. that it stifles ideas and is contrary to all touch-and-go relationship of the US with other concepts of a free speech and a free press. any of the acts is certainly a substantial enough interest for the prohibited by the provisions of * * * this title. group. Since it was display any written or printed matter advocating. Court is convinced that these satisfy . It requires that one be permitted to advocate what he will unless there is ‘(b) For the purposes of this section. value of speech must.HELD: court held that the language of the Smith Act is directed at advocacy not discussion. revolution and terrorism. First) Amendment requires that one be permitted knowing the purposes thereof. be ‘(a) It shall be unlawful for any person-. unqualified right. or affiliate **861 • Court’s interpretation of the 1st amendment: ‘(The with. Chief government not from change by peaceable. Petitioners discussion of political theories. propaganda will answer propaganda. government in the United States by force or violence. the government of is not an absolute. subject to States. Indeed.’ However. there was inflammable nature of world conditions. government in the United States by force or violence. or to conspire to commit. but that the societal ‘Sec. any of them. Convictions these petitioners engaged. ‘(3) to organize or help to organize any society. Sections 2 and 3 of the Smith Act do not violate the 1st amendment and other provisions of the Bill of Rights. group. publish. circulate. • Purpose of the statute: to protect the existing court adopts the rule by Chief Justice Hand. above and beyond control by any State. advocate. • In this case. or it was necessary to show that the speech created assembly of persons who teach. it must follow that no subordinate achieve a successful overthrow of the existing value can be protected. free debate of RATIO: ideas will result in the wisest governmental 1. any such society. the government of the District of Columbia.’ ‘(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any government in the United States. or the ‘clear and present danger’ of the substantive encourage the overthrow or destruction of any evil which the legislature had the right to prevent. will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.’ existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. is that certain kinds of speech are so the *497 government of any political subdivision of undesirable as to warrant criminal sanction.’ discounted by its improbability. affirmed. itself from violent overthrow the statute was or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any perforce reasonable. distribute. necessity. or review here. entirely reasonable for a state to attempt to protect advising. on occasion.’ Government to limit speech. sell. abet. justifies • argument that there is a ‘right’ to rebellion against such invasion of free speech as is necessary to dictatorial governments is without force where the avoid the danger. but from change by below. the requisite danger existed the petitioner’s activities were from 1945-48 • Petitioners contend that the Act prohibits (formation of a highly organized conspiracy) when academic discussion of the merits of Marxism. Leninism. order by force and violence • As to the meaning of clear and present danger. to believe what he will. desirability. to destroy the intended to overthrow the Government of the US as traditional rights of Americans to discuss and speedily as the circumstances would permit. • Re free speech: basis of the First Amendment is the hypothesis that speech can rebut speech. necessity. Sections 2 and 3 of the Smith Act provide as follows: policies. lawful Judge Learned Hand. • wherever speech was the evidence of the violation. writing for the majority and constitutional means. subordinated to other values and considerations. Conspiracy to evaluate ideas without fear of governmental organize the Communist Party and tot each and advocate sanction.

etc). etc]. sedition. stands on a higher level than substantive economic or other liberties because it is the indispensable condition of ISSUES: nearly every other form of freedom. [freedom of expression. sense. It is the existence of the conspiracy WON my beautifully written ponencia will go to waste? which creates the danger. Further. But the people have the right to be informed too there was a violation of the Espionage Act. to defeat US military plans in Europe. He further said that intent must be clearly shown. The clear and immediate reason was resentment caused by the US gov’t present danger rule must take this into account. necessarily under stricter supervision than written media. we should not seek too DISPOSITION: much certainty from rules. I am still going to submit my concurring opinion for Gutierrez’ Radio Station DYRE was summarily closed on grounds of ponencia but with an added prefatory statement. and revolution speech clauses. mathematical formulary. ponente. The rule does not have an all-embracing character for all Five plaintiffs were charged and convicted of conspiring to utterances in every form. maybe even nasty. But the petitioners would have won. reviewer. and used in a strict and accurate Moot and academic. Debate on public issues should be wide open. But petitioners themselves The cardinal requirements for an administrative contend that the verbalization. Relations (hearing. for pulling off the clear and present to coverage of public events and airing programs geared danger rule as the standard for limiting “preferred” rights towards public affairs. The gov’t sending troops into Russia as a strategic operation against has a right to protect itself against broadcasts which incite the Germans on the eastern battle front. nat'l security. convictions. case. concurs: FACTS: Because cut and paste did not actually exist in 1985. If they say words that are used in such circumstances and ABRAMS vs. Moot freedom of expression is a preferred right and therefore and academic. DANS Oooh. Although there is no precise and controlling definition of due • Court has attempted to sum up the factors that process. OTHERS: Fernando CJ. riots. we cannot bind the Government to wait until the catalyst is added. It was alleged that DYRE was used to incite people to sedition which arose because they were shifting Good job. which discussed the thory that the constitution is a mer experiment. Good job too in Salonga vs Before court could promulgate it's decision. Petitioner raises freedom of speech. They claim that it’s their confront people in public and private. Note the Holmes dissent. No dammit! I'll use cut and paste to make a guideline for • Re vagueness: arguments by petitioners are inferior courts thus my glorious role in protecting freedom nonpersuasive of speech will be enshrined in SCRA forever! BWAHAHAHA! • We agree that the standard as defined is not a neat. Men must be and obsequious programming will not serve. HELD: 2. The representative democracy. unlike written media intention to prevent injury to the Russian cause. which criticized Radio and TV are easily accessible in the country and the US War Program in Russia. Gutierrez Jr J Teehankee J. screw them. and to be accountable for. Broadcast media is violate the provisions of the Espionage Act. in the US. ‘clear and present proceeding was already laid down in Ang Tibay v Industrial danger’ is the proper standard. Like all RATIO: verbalizations it is subject to criticism on the score of indefiniteness. and distributed pamphlets in NY. concurs: EASTERN BROADCASTING vs. the petitioner Paño[!] which went back to fundamentals and states: suddenly withdrew its petition because DYRE was bought citizen’s right to be free from arbitrary arrest. guidelines are good. the to comment on public affairs is essential to the vitality of a effects which their acts were likely to have produces. since it was not shown that petitioners did. Broadcast media as the most possible effect of their acts was the defeat of the US war popular and convenient info disseminators around deserve program. The SC held that sedition. printed. substantial evidence. attack the government. it does furnish an unavoidable standard to which are included within its scope gov’t action must conform before depriving a persons rights. in fact. nor does the buying company have an interest. the plain purpose of their propaganda special protection by the due process and freedom of was to excite dissatisfaction. even if the case is moot and (1985) [2nd last Marcos year] academic. The freedom held to have intended. All forms of media are entitled to freedom of speech as long as they pass the clear and present danger rule. They wrote. however. their that some people can’t afford nor read. as long as . punishment by another company and it had no more interest in the and unwarranted prosecution is more impt than crimproc. US are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that a ** no digest for this case so I copied the digest from another lawmaker has a right to prevent.

and is issued a Notice of constitutional limitations would become obnoxious to Classification. and reevaluate furtherance of that interest. Congress added to 1948 Act the Abad Santos J: provision punishing also one who "knowingly destroys. it furthers an important or substantial gov’tal interest. and it does not punish only destruction engaged in for the purpose of expressing views. A crowd. reopen. the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment "so that other people would reevaluate their positions with freedoms is no greater than is essential to the Selective Service. the right to assembly becomes a delusion. When "speech" and members of the crowd began attacking O'Brien and his "nonspeech" elements are combined. it is within the const’l power of the Govt For this act. CA held the 1965 constitutionally convicted for violating it. WON the 1965 Amendment to 462 (b) (3) abridges deprive it’s license. constitutionally protected activity. Broadcast media deserve the preferred freedom of speech. He stated 3. WON the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him. the gov’tal interest is unrelated to the suppression of in argument to the jury that he burned the certificate free expression.S. CJ demonstration against the war and against the draft. (nonpossession) After five years of closure. He is assigned a Selective Service expression. sentenced in the US DC for the District of Mass. witnessed the event. An FBI agent ushered O'Brien to safety inside important governmental interest in regulating the the courthouse. Teehankee and Ang does not abridge free speech on its face. Primicias v Fugoso: disorderly conduct by individual members is not an excuse Under 12 (b) (3) of the 1948 Act. In addition. it deals with Tibay. convicted. and 2. FACTS: Even on the assumption that the communicative element David Paul O'Brien and 3 companions burned their in O'Brien's conduct is sufficient to bring into play the Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of First Amendment. fundamental principles of liberty. After the burning. knowing that he was violating federal law. vs. my dissent: to require a citizen to assert his their registration and classification certificates in their rights and to go to court is to render illusory his rights. and publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. or knowingly mutilates" a certificate. The 1965 Amendment Everybody should read the ponencia. and there is nothing necessarily expressive about such conduct." All requirements met therefore O'Brien can be The DC rejected O'Brien's arguments. 4. with the armed forces. Amendment unconstitutional under the First Amendment as singling out for special treatment persons engaged in O'Brien's argues that once the registrant has received protests. People certificate He is also assigned a classification denoting his v Rubio: commendable zeal if allowed to override eligibility for induction. to hopefully consider my position. he is required by the Universal speech is a safety valve that allows parties to vent their Military Training and Service Act of 1948 to register with a views even if contrary to popular opinion. O’BRIEN certificate was protected "symbolic speech" within the First Amendment. O'Brien was indicted. II. In this case the ponente restates basic and established ISSUE: constitutional principles. tried.  NO “SPEECH PLUS”: SYMBOLIC SPEECH O'Brien argues that his act of burning his registration U. "or in any manner" change a certificate. German v regulations of the SSS required registrants to keep both Barangan. citizens can participate number. to characterize the assembly as seditious.  NO right of free press and speech. The Amendment does not distinguish between public and private destruction. Public officials do not possess absolute power to summarily close down a station or I. conduct having no connection with speech. at all times. O'Brien stated to FBI agents that he had nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on burned his registration certificate because of his beliefs. It prohibits the knowing destruction of certificates issued by the SSS. Free When a male reaches 18. it does not necessarily follow that the the South Boston Courthouse. on the ground that conduct under the 1965 notification there is no reason for him to retain the Amendment was already punishable since a Selective certificates. a sufficiently companions. Freedom of expression which the First Amendment guarantees includes all modes of 1968) "communication of ideas by conduct. assembly and petition. By the 1965 Amendment. O'Brien notes that most of the information on Service System regulation required registrants to keep a registration certificate serves no notification purpose at . If that is so then alter. it was unlawful to forge. personal possession at all times. Govt regulation is sufficiently justified if: 1. including several destruction of a registration certificate is agents of the FBI. and within 5 days he is issued a registration not only during elections but in every facet of gov’t. First Amendment freedoms. Through free local draft board." and that his conduct is within this definition because he did it in WARREN. their place in the culture of today. It is in the interest of society to have a full discussion of public affairs.the debate or the words do not lead to the violent their registration certificates in their personal possession overthrow of gov’t.

• They reach different classes of wrongdoers. House. the statute itself is constitutional. in West Virginia v Barnette. a schoolhouse gate sufficient governmental interest has been shown to justify . multiple punishment? TINKER vs. an alleged illicit legislative motive. expressive. decided to join a meeting at the Eckhardt residence. not only with the 3. There they decided to publicize their Nonpossession vs. December 16 and New Years Eve. The petitioners still wore black armbands to their registrant's own certificates. both reports also indicate that this concern stemmed from an The many functions performed by SS certificates establish apprehension that unrestrained destruction of cards beyond doubt that Congress has a legitimate and would disrupt the smooth functioning of the Selective substantial interest in preventing their unrestrained Service System destruction.all. WON the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional as . FACTS: existing avenue of prosecution(nonpossession) was not 1. They filed complaints through their fathers and Both the gov’tal interest and the operation of the 1965 prayed for injunctions restraining the school Amendment are limited to the noncommunicative aspect of officials plus nominal damages. The registration certificate serves purposes in addition to The statute attacked in this case has no “inevitable initial notification: unconstitutional effect”. and because amended 462 (b) is a narrow means of protecting RATIO: this interest and condemns only the noncommunicative . it was held that a O'Brien's conviction. Congress may change or supplement a old sis) and Christopher Eckhardt (16). were all regulation. the school officials sought to punish the enacted because the alleged purpose of Congress was "to petitioners for a silent. and because the teachers shed their constitutional rights to noncommunicative impact of O'Brien's act of burning his freedom of speech or expression at the registration certificate frustrated the Govt's interest. Reports of the Senate and House Armed Services 3. and other specified destruction of so-called "draft cards" and with "open" changes in his status. The case at of school discipline. 2. the pre. The gov’tal interest and the scope of the rendered in favor of the school officials saying that 1965 Amendment are limited to preventing harm to the it was reasonable in order to prevent disturbance smooth and efficient functioning of the SSS."  NO opinion. The principals of the Des Moines schools became • Whether registrants keep their certificates in their aware of their plan to were armbands and adopted personal possession at all times. 4. unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance on the part of petitioners. Only a few The purpose of Congress is not a basis for declaring this of the 18. any issued SS certificates. facilitates communication between registrants and There was little floor debate on this legislation in either local boards. as long as they school would be asked to remove it and if he do not mutilate or destroy the certificates. refused he would be suspended until he returned • The Amendment is concerned with abuses involving without the armband. the registrant hardly needs to be told his address and down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of physical characteristics. There is no . The Court will not strike wherein only 5 were suspended. Accordingly. Mary Beth Tinker (John’s 13 yr even statutory. They therefore violate the statute but not the nonpossession did not return until the planned period for wearing regulations. is of no particular a policy that any student wearing an armband to concern under the 1965 Amendment. speech and protected by the Constitution? Because of the Govt's substantial interest in assuring the HELD: YEAH continuing availability of issued SS certificates. Court of Appeals affirmed. student may not be compelled to salute the flag III. reminders that the registrant must notify his local Committees make clear a concern with the "defiant" board of any change of address. DES MOINES SCHOOL DISTRICT it is not improper for Congress' to provide alternative statutory avenues of prosecution to assure the effective protection of one and the same interest. Destruction(new) objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands • They protect overlapping but not identical during the holiday season and by fasting on governmental interests. Here. They were sent home and suspended or mutilation of someone else's certificates would until they came back without the armbands. encouragement to others to destroy their cards. (see difference between pre-existing and new) attending high schools in Des Moines. passive expression of suppress freedom of speech.000 students wore the armbands legislation unconstitutional. it can hardly be argued that either the students or impact of conduct within its reach. The knowing destruction schools. John Tinker (15). Iowa. The nonpossession regulations does negates this interest. the armbands expired-on New Year’s Day. as proof that the individual described thereon has certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily registered for the draft. since the destruction of SS 1. bar is therefore unlike one where the alleged gov’tal interest in regulating conduct arises in some measure ISSUE: because the communication allegedly integral to the WON the wearing of black armbands is an expression of conduct is itself thought to be harmful. 2. District Court O'Brien's conduct.

undifferentiated fear or apprehension is not enough to overcome the right The court took the 2nd interpretation. they should petition. Respondent Valeraino the streets or public places for the formation. according to the court. obligations to the State. determine or specify the Coalesced Minority Parties. by means of a mandamus. This would be wrong b) No constitutional right to use public places under as it would leave decisions open to the whims of those in government control. Hilado is divided into 4 parts: a. Outside the classrooms. further. c and HELD: No it is not. giving it regulatory would have caused an “inconvenience and powers regarding the use of public places. parades. RATIO: a) Right not absolute but subject to regulation. While these rights should be regulated. the courts said of denying the use of a public place in the there there were 2 ways to interpret such an ordinance: . . That the holding of any parade or FACTS: procession in any streets or public places is prohibited unless a permit therefor is first secured from the Mayor Petitioner Cipriano Primicias is the campaign manager of who shall. FUGOSO streets or public places or portions thereof. or exercise during the celebration of national holidays in any streets or public places of the city and on the patron saint day of any district in question. place government would have sole and complete discretion as to and manner of its exercise”. whether for vehicles or saying that the legislature delegated police power to the pedestrians. the right to regulate bar. but there were no threats or to determine which areas to use to avoid confusion acts of violence on school premises. school. . looking at the ordinance Sec. a few 1) The mayor has unregulated discretion students made hostile remarks to the children 2) Applications are subject to reasonable discretion wearing armbands. route. the mandamus is just as they themselves must respect their granted. and Fugoso is the Mayor of Manila. Plaza Miranda is a public place in that it is a these rights. says that the government has the right to regulate the use of public places. compel Fugoso. d. As such. Moreover. sports. 1119 Free for use of public — The streets and officially approved. In the absence of a specific public places of the city shall be kept free and clear for the showing of constitutionally valid reasons to use of the public. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. where such athletic games. and the like. U. J. Pointing to the case at Then they discuss the other side. the court states that there is no reasonable reason fundamental rights which the State must respect to deny this public meeting. Many of substantially interfere with the requirements of these cases struck down ordinances and laws requiring appropriate discipline in the operation of the citizens to obtain permits for public meetings. to freedom of expression. Hilado moves to the case at bar and however. There is no finding and showing that engaging in To justify their stand. cases.S. but was merely one Also. Mainly says that the right to freedom of speech The court first states the importance of the right of and assembly are not absolute rights. of denying the public meeting and regulating the right to speech and assembly. he society. stating. then the Municipal or City “subject to regulation as regards the time. ISSUE: WON the denial of the permit for holding a public HILADO DISSENT: meeting is proper. b. high traffic area. for the right of assembly and power. Hilado explains that the be regulated in a reasonable manner. as respondent Fugoso has denied the request. on every such ocassion. indication that the work of the schools or any class was disrupted. to issue a finally. In our system. may be permitted by means Assembly & Petition of a permit issued by the Mayor. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are Note: SEC. After citing freedom of speech and to peacefully assemble. hours prior to the holding of such parade or procession. the court went through a series of of the forbidden conduct would materially and U. what to allow and what not to allow. etc. that these rights have their limits in that they points out that the Mayor of Manila had the “duty should not be injurious to the rights of the community or and power” to grant or deny permits. The dissent of J. students are entitled to pedestrians. That all applications to hold a parade or procession permit for the holding of a public meeting in Plaza shall be submitted to the Mayor not less than twenty-four Miranda. holding the meeting there Municipal Board of the City of Manila. and the same shall only be used or occupied freedom of expression of their views. Here. As such. for other purposes as provided by ordinance or regulation: (reversed and remanded) Provided. These powers. interfere with the right of the people in general”. and the sidewalks and crossings for the regulate their speech. events. This brings a discussion of police power. and minimize disorder . J. 1119. If these He again states that the right is not absolute. or exercises may be held: And provided. They are possessed of Lastly. that the holding of athletic games. who shall determine the PRIMCIAS vs. however. and giving unbridled action that the Mayor of Manila took was not one deciding power to the government is not reasonable. sports.S. but powers were absolute. Primicias would like to dismissal of such parade or procession: And provided. processions. cases that handled similar circumstances. are not absolute.

to punitive measures designed to maintain the prestige of constituted authority. Hilado cites section 2728 of Municipal Corporations. in front of the Congress. In this interpretation.” He suggested that they office of the government for redress of grievances. The right to freedom of assembly. Student demonstration is not unreasonable. I don’t think dean will convenient use thereof and provide adequate and proper make us enumerate them. The Mayor did not FACTS: refuse to grant the permit. without narrow. it being of the freedom of assembly. but this right is neither unlimited nor absolute. as compared to of the Mayor of Manila pointing to the high the Sunken Gardens. poses a clearer and more imminent possibility of trouble that would result from the danger of public disorders. classes suspended. When the intention and effect is seditious. specifying particular denial of the use of public place amounts to the violation objectionable actuations of the government. In this rule. he offered an alternative which Jan 26. the supremacy of the Constitution . public safety and order. breaches of peace. acting in behalf The effect of the Mayor’s ground for refusal amounts to of the Movement for a Democratic Philippines. objective and definite applying for a permit to hold a rally (at the Plaza Miranda standards to guide the licensing authority. streets or public places to be used in order to secure cases to cite as authority. Hilado goes through his own list of U. followed by a series of petitioner is not entitled to the writ. among expression is undeniable whether as a means of assuring others. d) Mandamus unavailable. dissenting: close. The refusal must be and has further offered Sunken Gardens as an arbitrary or capricious so as to warrant alternative. On the same day. He then points to certain allegations that a public rally at the Plaza Miranda. weeks. In reply to individual self-fulfillment. the constitutional guarantees of freedom of ISSUE: Whether or not there was a denial of the right to speech and press and of assembly and petition must yield freedom of Assembly. from 4:00-11:00pm). it cannot ordinarily be great disruption of the normal activities of the community compelled by mandamus. and of maintaining the balance was offered as a place of said rally. Criticism place be used for purposes of greater publicity and is within the range of liberty of speech unless the intention effectiveness. Here. There being no arbitrary refusal. employees dismissed. has temporarily adopted the policy of not issuing Right to Petition – any person or group of persons can any permit for the use of Plaza Miranda for rallies or apply. Schools. the community is placed in such a state of refusal was not capricious or arbitrary and does fear and tension that offices are closed early and not warrant a mandamus. use the Sunken Gardens and to hold the rally earlier Guide to interpretation – The spirit of our free institutions during the day in order that it may end before dark. an one of prior restraint of a constitutional right. unconstitutional. RATIO: there was no constitutional right infringed. Anyways the policing to minimize the risk of disorder and maintain summaries in the case are short. this office. many of which ended in the destruction of public and private property. conducting of the meeting. 1970. Petitioner. of attaining the truth. For the complete enjoyment of reasoned or tempered. respondent denied his request saying NOTES: that “In the greater interest of the community. workers and peasants wrote a allowable. Congress opened. However. the announced. Petitioner filed a suit contesting the Mayor’s action on the The vital need in a constitutional democracy for freedom of ground that it is violative of the petitioner’s right. the petitioner argued between stability and change. offices and many stores were forced to Castro and Fernando. NO. Mayor of Manila Antonio Villegas. rallies. 2nd ed. and transportation disrupted. whether religious or political. and effect be seditious. which is not association of students. of the contention of the responded that the permit to hold a securing participation by the people in social including rally was not being denied and in fact the Sunken Gardens political decision-making. is on Feb 26 [Tuesday]. and not of contemptuous the right. that for obvious reasons the right to peaceful assembly Limitations – any citizen may criticize his government and cannot be fully enjoyed without the corresponding right to government officials. while not unlimited is entitled to be accorded the utmost deference and respect. to the general detriment of the public. VILLEGAS The right to freedom of assembly is not denied. a specific and therefore constructive. Right of Assembly – a right on the part of citizens to meet guide by a lesson gained from the events of the past few peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs. it may be necessary that a particular public condemnation of the entire government set-up. His reason in denying the acts. storefronts boarded up. without fear of penalty.S.) The court believes in the Mayor’s appraisal mandamus. Noting that every time such assemblies are permit is that of peace and order. Villamor. to peaceably assemble and to petition. allows the broadest scope and widest latitude in public parades and demonstrations. it permits for assemblies at Plaza Miranda during weekends is stated that in the issuance of permits. Nelson Navarro. and criminal meeting taking place. if the and holidays when they would not cause unnecessarily power is discretionary. demonstrations. loss of a few lives.. Mayor possesses reasonable discretion to determine the c) Here J. marches and pickets. of a license. a (Note that the Mayor expressed his willingness to grant source of American municipal rules. concurring: NAVARRO vs. Feb 24 1970. such criticism should be use public places for the purpose and that therefore. J. to the appropriate branch or demonstration during weekdays. Laws subjecting freedoms to the prior restraint letter to respondent. and injuries to a score of other persons. As such.

Because the petitioners and their members numbering about 400 proceeded with the demonstration despite PBM EMPLOYEES vs. power. termed the sovereign “police quarrel or dispute with Management. At about 5:00 P. On March 2. It is sufficient that the Company. J. on March 4. 1969. the officers It is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect present who are the organizers of the demonstration. Danger: requires an unusual quantum of not to violate the provisions of the CBA. in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police. 875. It is not however. PBMEO confirmed the practice and were. Co. a charge FACTS: against petitioners and other employees who composed the first shift was filed in the Court of 1. to 2 P. petitioners claim that they did not by the workers in the first shift (from 6 A. absence approved by the Company. Present: imminent. who without previous leave of to incite persons to acts of force. Article XXIV: NO LOCKOUT — NO STRIKE'.M.M.” shall be dismissed. violence or unlawfulness. that the said mass demonstration was respectively). of the utterance be to bring about the substantive evil who shall fail to report for work the following morning which the legislative body seeks to prevent. prevent. to be participated in 6. 1969. to 5 P. should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of violence or unlawfulness be advocated. A against the respondent firm. 1969. because such failure is a violation This doctrine was later superseded by the “Clear and of the existing CBA and. utterance can be punished.. March 4. on March 3. considered to planned demonstration and stated that the have lost their status as employees of the respondent demonstration cannot be cancelled because it has Company.' Malacañang on March 4. third shifts should be utilized for the demonstration from 6 A. charging them with a (PBMEO) is a legitimate labor union composed of the "violation of Section 4(a)-6 in relation to Sections 13 employees of the respondent Philippine Blooming Mills and 14. another meeting will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a was convoked by the Company wherein it reiterated right to prevent. urgent and utilize the workers in the 2nd and 3rd shifts in order impending. they decided to stage a mass demonstration at Lockout. The Company warned the PBMEO such acts be advocated in general terms. would be Present Danger” rule which lays down the test: “whether amounting to an illegal strike.M. and thus utterance questioned. the words are used in such circumstances and are of a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they 4. Inc. that any demonstration for that matter necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force.and the laws and the existence of the State. These rights to do with the Company because the union has no are subject to regulation. Clear: a causal connection 1969 should be excused from joining the with the danger of the substantive evil arising from the demonstration and should report for work. The CIR found the PBMEO guilty of bargaining in bad The Company asked the union panel to confirm or faith and the leaders of the union as directly deny said projected mass demonstration at responsible for perpetrating the said unfair labor Malacañang on March 4. already been agreed upon in the meeting. and from 8 A.. PBM the pleas of the Company that the first shift workers should not be required to participate in the 1973 demonstration and that the workers in the second and Makasiar.M.) violate the existing CBA because they gave the as well as those in the regular second and third shifts Company prior notice of the mass demonstration on (from 7 A. then such words are punishable. and of the CBA providing for 'No Strike and No 1969. to 2 P. as well as Section 15. 7. meeting between the members of the union and the Company was called by the Company the next day. to 4 P. the degree of imminence extremely high before the the workers for the first and regular shift of March 4. all of Republic Act No. In their answer.M. therefore. particularly proof. The leaders of the union that on March 1.M. Nor is it representatives that workers who belong to the first necessary that the language used be reasonable calculated and regular shifts. 5. 1969 the company learned of the a declaration of strike because it was not directed projected mass demonstration at Malacañang. as a consequence. The Management informed PBMEO that the Tendency” rule is explained as “if the words uttered create demonstration is an inalienable right of the union a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized.M. speech against the alleged abuses of some Pasig policemen. and that their mass demonstration was not 2.M. 1969. PBMEO explained further that the demonstration has nothing . Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization Industrial Relations (CIR).” Criterion for permissible restriction – The “Dangerous 3. and that they informed the Company of a valid exercise of their constitutional freedom of their proposed demonstration.” It means that the evil consequence of and appealed to the PBMEO representatives that while the comment or utterance must be extremely serious and all workers may join the Malacañang demonstration.M. The union panel countered that it was rather too late to change their plans inasmuch as the Malacañang demonstration will be held the following morning. All those who will not follow this warning of the Company shall be dismissed. the Company reiterated its warning that the officers shall be primarily liable being the organizers of the mass demonstration.

utilizing only the weapons afforded them 2. and a cause for the dismissal from employment of in the rhetorical aphorism of Justice Holmes. was a matter that vitally affected petition for redress of grievances in particular their right to individual existence as well as that of before appropriate governmental agency.8. as evidence of 2. not against their employer. The rights of free expression. its employees. to the demonstrating employees. Chief Executive. The citizen is accorded declaration of a strike "as the same not rooted in these rights so that he can appeal to the any industrial dispute although there is concerted appropriate governmental officers or agencies act and the occurrence of a temporary stoppage for redress and protection as well as for the work. Herein respondent employer did WON the CIR was correct in dismissing the officers not even offer to intercede for its employees with of the union for unfair labor practice for organizing the local police. The respondent Court of suffrage but also in the administration of Industrial Relations in the case at bar concedes public affairs as well as in the discipline of that the mass demonstration was not a abusive public officers. report to work free from harassment. are not only civil rights but also political 7. 8. The mass demonstration staged by the employees rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life. Malacañang was against alleged abuses of some harassment and persecuted as they believed they Pasig policemen. of peaceful assembly and of petition. 1969 could not have been legally his happiness and to his full and complete enjoined by any court. so that they can notice of appeal with the SC. stretches unduly protect the ideas that we abhor or hate more than the compass of the collective bargaining the ideas we cherish. Because the refusal on the 4. survival. to on March 4. The pay from the date of their separation from the pretension of their employer that it would suffer service until re instated. The order of the CIR was declared null and void. against the police officers of the municipality of Pasig. The freedoms of expression and of assembly as bad faith in collective bargaining and hence a well as the right to petition are included among violation of the collective bargaining agreement the immunities reserved by the sovereign people. not against the employer. such an injunction would fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens be trenching upon the freedom expression of the can participate not merely in the periodic workers. petitioners filed a up the cudgels for. free assembly and petition. Petitioners filed with the CIR a petition for relief from they believe were police excesses. the condition in which the an exercise of their freedom of expression in employees found themselves vis-a-vis the local general and of their right of assembly and police of Pasig. The demonstration held by petitioners before pathetic situation was a stark reality — abused. it was the duty of herein private respondent failure to file their motion for reconsideration on time firm to protect herein petitioner Union and its was due to excusable negligence and honest mistake members fro the harassment of local police committed by the president of the Union and of the officers. As matter of the CIR dismissal order. expression well as their right of assembly and of petition against alleged persecution of local DECISION: officialdom. The employees' 1. minus one day's pay and loss or damage by reason of the absence of its whatever earnings they might have realized from employees from 6 o'clock in the morning to 2 other sources during their separation from the o'clock in the afternoon. or as Socrates insinuated. In seeking sanctuary behind their freedom of belong to the 1st shift to report to work. and take resolution on their petition for relief." imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees. is "a potent means of inhibiting not only to protect the minority who want to talk. The SC ordered the reinstatement of eight (8) by the Constitution — the untrammelled union leaders who were dismissed. Such apprehended loss or damage would not spell the RATIO: difference between the life and death of the firm or its owners or its management. As The demonstration was purely and completely above intimated. and pushing through with the rally at Malacañang despite the pleas of the company for workers who 5. 3. vexation or peril and as consequence perform more efficiently ISSUE: their respective tasks enhance its productivity as well as profits. even if it legally appears to be illegal establishment of the government through their picketing or strike. were by the peace officers of the municipality. agreement. It was to the interest herein private office clerk of their counsel. is a plea for the service. The respondent company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. The petitioners exercised their civil and political part of the respondent firm to permit all its rights for their mutual aid protection from what employees and workers to join the mass . free expression. 6. preservation merely of their property rights. Without waiting for any respondent firm to rally to the defense of. on the ground that their fact. the their families. with full back enjoyment of their basic human rights. the employees and laborers of herein private respondent firm were fighting for their very 1. speech" and therefore inflicts a moral as well as but also to benefit the majority who refuse to mortal wound on the constitutional guarantees of listen. To regard the demonstration against police officers.

existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive Along with other students they held a general assembly at evil that could justify the denial of a permit. application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. issuing such permit at this time and at the place applied for" b) Ordinance 7295. with alternative prayer for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Lucas & between the chancery and the gate is less than 500 feet. ISSUES: Rules on Assembly and Petition: 1. Leonero to finish their schooling Even if it were.petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies of the Constitution. Such petition for redress of grievances. the applicants must be heard on the matter. RAMENTO Convention. thus allowing the students to enroll. 7295 of the City of reports which strongly militate against the advisability of Manila. Thus if so minded. On if it be shown that there is a clear and present danger. By 10:30 they marched to RATIO: the Life Science bldg (outside of he area of the permit) & To justify limitations on freedom of assembly there must continued their rally. 1983 reached. petitioner was unaware of such a Justice Aquino (Dissenting): Voted to dismiss the petition fact as the denial was sent by ordinary mail. On October 25. Lee- with such emergency should it arise. disrupting classes that were being be proof of sufficient weight to satisfy the Clear and held. Jalos. On October 19. the petitioner filed this suit for mandamus Fernando. SC issued a TRO enjoining the respondents from mere assertion that subversives may infiltrate the ranks of enforcing the order. Reyes. sought earliest opportunity.etc) holding or staging of rallies or demonstrations within a . must be transmitted to them at the J. the public place petitioners from the service constituted an where and the time when it will take place. If it were a unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of private place. prohibits rallies or demonstrations within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery. The reason on the ground that the holding of the rally in front of the for refusing a permit was due to a)"police intelligence US Embassy violates Ordinance No. Mijares-President GAUF. . In this case. the Vet Med & Animal Sci basketball court. Thereafter. the Philippine Constitution - the last day by the International Conference for General particularly the Bill of Fights should prevail over the Disarmament. The student were notified via a memo on Sept 9 that Present Danger Test. on behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition. Lucas. in accordance with the Vienna MALABANAN vs.Araneta University Ordinance No. However. G. Araneta issued by the Court granting the mandatory injunction University Supreme Student Council who were granted a prayed for on the ground that there was no showing of the permit to hold a meeting from 8am-12nn on Aug 27. 1983 from Luneta to the US Embassy. The general rule is that a permit they were under preventive suspension. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent CJ Fernando and grave danger of a substantive evil. 1983 a minute resolution was FACTS: Petitioners were officers of the G. demonstration against alleged police abuses and The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should the subsequent separation of the eight (8) inform the licensing authority of the date. C. whether FACTS: favorable or adverse. 7295 of the City of Manila prohibiting the Foundation. Leonero. Military Bases held in Manila. Furthermore. BAGATSING condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision November 9. only the consent of the owner or the one expression. they can have a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march recourse to the proper judicial authority.L.the motion is moot & academic in light of the TRO which However. the rallyists would deliver a petition Justice Makasiar (Concurring): With the qualification to the US Ambassador based on the resolution adopted on that.invoke their right ot peaceably assemble & freedom of test. there was assurance that the police force is in a position to cope Petitioners: (Malabanan. freedom of assembly and freedom entitled to its legal possession is required. found the petitioners guilty of violating par.146(c) of the another place may be designated by the licensing authority Manual for Private Schools & suspended them for 1 yr. The Nov 16. It is an indispensable JBL REYES vs.J.object to the tenor of the speeches of the students because it still must be measured against the requirement . the demonstrators does not suffice. (05/21/84) On October 20. and rally on October 26. Once there. However. w/n the petition is moot & academic .maintain that there was no grave abuse of discretion in radius of five hundred (500) feet from any foreign mission affirming the decision of the Universirty finding the or chancery finds support in Article 22 of the Vienna students guilty Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Respondent should recognize the right of the applicants to hold their Ramento as NCR Director of the Ministry of Education assembly at a public place of their choice. not in the 2nd flr lobby where the perit stated. '82. there is students) no showing that the circumstances would satisfy such a . the ordinance would not be conclusive . in case of conflict.B. In such gathering they ISSUE/HELD: manifested in vehement & vigorous languange their Should permit be granted by the City of Manila? YES opposition to the proposed merger of the Institutes of Animal Science & Agriculture. such permit was denied. speech Respondents: (Ramento-NCR Dir. World Peace and the Removal of All Foreign Vienna Convention. there is no showing that that the distance allowed the students to enroll & for Malabanan. his decision.

only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to voter) that the enactment of RA 4880 under the guise legal possesion is required.. plus the activity except during the period 120 days immediately fact that more than 1 yr has elasped from the issuance of preceding an election (national) and 90 (local)…” the Ramento's decision. regardless of whether right to free speech & peaceable assembly or not said person has already filed his certificate or 2. 1969) imminence extremely high” before it can be Ponente: Fernando. student leaders. 4880 which was approved and took effect on 2. being goaded on by an enthusiastic crowd..not immunized by the insure a free. If it were a public elected. re: respondents objecting to the tenor of the speeches of precipitates violence and even death… resulting in the the students: "That there would be a vigorous presentation corruption of the electorate and inflicts dire of views opposed to the merger. rights in imposing diciplinary actions. the rule of declare it unconstitutional reason dictates a lesser penalty. Dangerous Tendency Rule June 17. Private respondents were within their guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution." Such a permit was sought by of regulation is but a clear and simple abridgment of petitioner-students & was granted.of a clear & present danger of a substantive evil o It is claimed by the petitioners (Cabigao was at the time w/c the state has the right to prevent. their freedom of assembly and their right to form absolved of the events. the constitutional rights of freedom of speech. w/c is identified w/ elected ot not or promote the candidacy of a person or the liberty to discuss publicly & truthfully any matter of persons to public office.. No. and for of the right to peaceably assemble & free speech any other elective public office earlier than 90 days…” 2) Limits the period of election campaign or partisan HELD: political activity 1. the R.. DISCUSSION OF THE BASIC RIGHTS INVOLVED… Petition granted. How is Free Speech & Suffrage it to be limited then? 1. implies a right on the part of committee or political group to nominate candidates for its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in any elective public office voted for at large earlier than respect to public affairs and to petition for redress . the SC held that the rights to free if unrestrained and carried for a long period before expression of the petitioners where violated. “It shall be unlawful for any political party..that materially disrupts classwork or involves the substantial disorder or  For the Legislature. 4880 would "understandable" prejudice their basic rights such as their freedom of BUT: it does not follow that the students would be totally speech. 4880 was passed to invasion of the rights of others is. orderly and honest election by regulating consitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech.was to be expected".. But the punishment should be proportionate to the transgression. consistent w/ Tinker v Des Moines. uttering extremely critical statements was ISSUE: WON the enforcement of RA No. The Court also held. Clear and Present Danger Rule GONZALEZ vs. w/n on the facts of the case there was an infringement 150 days immediately preceding an election. since they did transgress the limits associations… for purposes not contrary to law. COMELEC  Evil consequence of the comment or utterance must be “extremely serious and the degree of (April 18.A." Also. with 3 of engage in an election campaign or partisan political them doing so & the two equally entitiled to do so. that the students were assembly and the right to form associations for covered by the constitutional right to free speech & purposes not contrary to law. elections it necessarily entails huge expenditures. Election peaceably assemble & free speech are "both embraced in campaign…refers to acts design to have a candidate the concept of freedom of expression. punished  Brandeis: Evil apprehended is so imminent that FACTS: it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion  Petitioners challenge the validity of two sections now  Holmes: It is a question of proximity and degree included in the Revised Election Code under Republic Act No. J. According to Reyes v Bagatsing the right to has been nominated by any political party. Gonzales is a private individual and a registered place. if viewed solely from the fact of the TRO allowing “It shall be unlawful for any person… or any group… to the peititioners to enroll the ensuing semester. "the of filing of petition an incumbent councilor in the 4th applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform District of Manila and the Nationalista Party official the licensing authority of the date. but there is a lack of the necessary vote to discretion of the respondents is recognized.. Decision nullified & set aside. But the Court decides to tackle “Candidate refers to any person aspiring for or the questions on view of the constitutional nature of the seeking an elective public office. YES. the public place where candidate for Vice-Mayor to which he was subsequently & the time when the it will take place. The consequences upon public interests. While the HELD: Yes. political republican in form. expression. 1) Prohibits the too early nomination of candidates  Freedom of assembly… the very idea of a gov’t.” public interest w/o censorship or punishment except on a showing." using conduct determined by Congress to be harmful because this standard. YES.  Freedom of expression is not absolute… There are other societal values that press for recognition. "but conduct by the student. The Act: then such words are punishable. of their permit.2. 1967  If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent.

regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises. are ensured. They state further that the Resolution the challenged statute could have been more does not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his narrowly drawn and the practices prohibited views. it would in fact help in the gov’t drive and candidate. which is provided in Sec 90 & 92 of BP 881. Said Comelec Resolution 2167 constitutes also should not be annulled. 1990) speech. J. The for the imposition of such restriction but also assailed Resolution was promulgated to govern the that they be limited in scope. It lacks however one more • Respondent Comelec maintains that the questioned affirmative vote to call for a declaration of provision is a valid implementation of its power to unconstitutionality. Prohibition on columnists. of grievances… complements the right of free (January 29. for the purpose of soliciting media columnist. receiving • Petitioner. However. and hear. as well as campaign materials suffer from the corrosion ventilate. there is in fact an unconstitutional time and space. Art IX of necessary vote for an adjudication of invalidity. conduct of the plebiscite on the said Organic Act for  In striving to remove vagueness the statute listed the CAR. – During the plebiscite campaign period. though lacking the plebiscite periods as enunciated in Sec 4. commentator. permits or other grants issued for the operation and • They are also of the opinion that the need for transportation of other public utilities. what was granted to the Comelec implemented. holding practitioners were allowed to express their views on interviews for or against election of any party or the issue. commentaries. the Act. publication or distribution of desire to disseminate information. limitation under the clear and present danger doctrine. He may still express his views or campaign for more precisely delineated to satisfy the or against the act through the Comelec space and constitutional requirements as to a valid airtime. but it also cannot be denied that evils substantial in • RA 6766 or “An Act Providing for an Organic Act character taint the purity of the electoral process for the Cordillera Autonomous Region” mandated o But even with such evils present the clear that the City of Baguio and the provinces consisting of and present danger doctrine rightly viewed the Cordilleras shall take part in a plebiscite for the requires not only should there be an occasion ratification of said Organic Act on Dec 27.. who claims to be a newspaper columnist of contribution for election purposes is free from Overview for the Baguio Midland Courier. commentator. views soliciting votes or for campaign or propaganda and beliefs. Medialdea o Limited when their purpose is contrary to law DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED… FACTS: • Petitioner assails the constitutionality of Sec 19 of  It cannot be denied that the limitations imposed by the Comelec Resolution #2167 on the ground that it statute on the rights of free speech. soliciting. etc. down the acts included in the terms “election • Sec 19 of Comelec Resolution #2167 states: campaign” and “partisan political activity”… “Sec 19.” prohibition against giving. This is SANIDAD vs. 1989.. who is also a candidate for any elective office is required to take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period. his column obviously and conventions. #2167 is unconstitutional  YES “That simple expressions or opnions and thoughts concerning the election shall not be considered as RATIO: part of an election campaign and that nothing in the Act shall be understood to prevent any person from • Respondent Comelec relies much on Art IX of the expressing his views on current political problems or Consti & Sec 11 of RA 6646 (Electoral Reform Law) as issues or from mentioning the names of the the basis for the promulgation of the questioned candidates… whom he supports” if properly Resolution. COMELEC the reason why a columnist. press and violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of assembly and association cut deeply into their surface expression and of the press. and the right to reply for public application of its provisions. maintains constitutional infirmity… holding political that as a columnist. etc. supervise and regulate media during election or  It is the opinion of the majority. The evil sought to be avoided is the possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television time. the contains a penal provision. for the purpose of necessarily contains and reflects his opinions. . announcer or personality. a prior restraint on his constitutionally guaranteed o The majority of the Court is thus of the belief freedom of the press and further imposes subsequent that the solicitation or undertaking of any punishment for those who may violate it because it campaign or propaganda… by an individual. all sides of the issue. of invalidity. no mass associations. commentators or o No unconstitutional infringement exists announcers. insofar as the formation of organizations. on the day before and on plebiscite day. that the Consti. ISSUE  HELD: WON Sec 19 of Comelec Resolution  For the minority the provisos of the statute saying. rallies. He believes that if media making of speeches. the present action for information campaigns and forums among candidates them then is immature. the barrier to free expression becomes by Art IX of the Consti was the power to supervise and minimal and far from unwarranted. media or adjudication arises only if in the implementation of communication to the end that equal opportunity. announcer or votes or undertaking any campaign and/or personality shall use his column or radio or television propaganda for or against a candidate or party… time to campaign for or against the plebiscite issues.

abridges the freedom of speech of candidates. it candidates and issues in the election thereby is still a restriction on his choice of the forum where he curtailing and limiting the right of voters to may express his view. Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines: Sec. time for campaign or other political purposes except to the Commission as provided under Sections 90 and 92 of Batas Petition granted. amounts to censorship coz it selects and singles the COMELEC (COMELEC time & space) out for suppression and repression with criminal sanctions. WON the provisions constitute a permissible FACTS: exercise of the power of supervision or regulation of the operations of communication and Petitioners are: information enterprises during an election period 1. 2. The people b) for any newspapers. 2. media-based election or political constitutional basis: of the 1987 Constitution propaganda during the election period of 1992. 1. Feliciano 1. COMELEC space. representatives of the mass media which are prevented from selling or donating space and time HELD & RATIO: for political advertisements.• Neither Art IX of the Consti nor Sec 11 of RA 6646 can 2. declared null and void and unconstitutional. Means: prohibit the sale or donation of print space and air They maintain that: the prohibition: time "for campaign or other political purposes" except to 1. the candidates is being curtailed. equally and impartially by the Commission among all candidates Sec. The people’s right to be informed and to Sec 11(b) RA 6646 Electoral Reforms Law of 1987: be able to freely and intelligently make a decision Prohibited Forms of Election Propaganda would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of issues. Blg.No. or any person making use of the not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum mass media to sell or to give free of charge print space or air where the right to expression may be exercised. taxpayers and voters who claim that their right to reasonable nexus with the constitutionally sanctioned be informed of election issues and of credentials of objective. free of charge. Sec 19 of Comelec Resolution 2167 is Pambansa Blg. and right to expression during plebiscite periods. two (2) individuals who are candidates for office in the coming May 1992 elections. There exists a 3. • Respondent’s argument with regard to Sec 90 & 92 of would bring about a substantial reduction in the BP 881 is not meritorious. 90. Such space shall be allocated. candidates by preventing the rich from enjoying the undue 6646 invades and violates the constitutional advantage offered by political advertisements guarantees comprising freedom of expression. COMELEC time. In fact. • Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. NATIONAL PRESS CLUB vs. political propaganda except those appearing in the Therefore. 92. information and opinion. other mass media. that the suppression of media-based campaign or there are no candidates involved in a plebiscite. function and duty be construed to mean that the Comelec has been to provide adequate channels of public information granted the right to supervise and regulate the and public opinion relevant to election issues exercise by media practitioners themselves of their 3. 881. COMELEC time of radio and television broadcasts. Sec 19 of Comelec Resolution #2167 has no COMELEC space of the newspapers and on statutory basis. namely. WON sec 11(b) of RA 6646 is unconstitutional. While the limitation does quantity or volume of information concerning not absolutely bar petitioner’s freedom of expression. including the forum. only publications of a particular • Purpose is not only a legitimate one but it also has a content. 881. . — The Commission shall procure space in at least one newspaper of general circulation wherein candidates can announce their candidacy. — The Commission shall procure radio and television time which shall be allocated equally and impartially among the candidates within the area of coverage of all radio and television stations. sec 11(b) is not unconstitutional. Purpose: equalizing the situations of rich and poor Petitioners argue that : Sec 11 (b) of Republic Act No. radio broadcasting or television affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should station. COMELEC ISSUES: March 1992 J. is a derogation of media's role.P. taken together with Sections 90 and 92 of B.

handwritten extend to reporting of news or commentaries or or printed letters. size. COMELEC are Section 82 of the Omnibus Election Code • Sec 11b does not authorize any intervention and much on lawful election propaganda. being a neophyte in the field of politics stands to suffer time" and "COMELEC space" in such mass media. or other written or printed materials not other expressions of belief more than eight and one-half (8-1/2) inches in width and 3. -The following are period from Jan 12." radio broadcasting and television stations remain quite free to carry out their regular and normal information The statutory provisions sought to be enforced by and communication operations. 21(f). if he has • Sec 11b does not cut off the flow of media reporting. not being posting of decals and stickers on cars and other moving absolute. inscribe." COMELEC is then affirmatively required to allocate on a fair and equal basis. connection with the constitutional objective in equalizing during the election period. invasions of the privacy of the general electorate. and credible elections. viewed in context. leaflets. and the right to • The nature and characteristics of modern mass media. limited in its scope of application – it only covers lawful election propaganda: political ads of particular candidates & does not (a) Pamphlets... display or publicly exhibit candidates are still given equal media exposure in any election propaganda in anyplace.. 6646. their propaganda shall not exceed two (2) feet by three (3) feet in qualifications and platforms and promises. except in the COMELEC opportunities to all the candidates irregardless of common posted areas and/or billboards. that such posters or election opinion or commentary about candidates. 1992 elections assails the COMELEC's Resolution individual candidates are quite free to present within as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers in 'mobile" their respective allocated COMELEC time and COMELEC places like cars and other moving vehicles. time. Lawful Election Propaganda.— (f) To draw. reply. Section 21 (f) of the same resolution provides: among the individual candidates for elective public "SEC. including reasonable. JR. 2347 pursuant to its powers granted by the freedom of the press is circumscribed by certain Constitution. limited in the duration of its applicability & enforceability – limited only during the election Section 15(a) of the resolution provides: "SEC. the petitioner believes that with the does is to limit paid partisan political advertisements to ban on radio. nor in respect Petitioner Blo Umpar Adiong. at the campaign their financial status headquarters of the candidate or political party. That decals and purchase by or donation to the COMELEC of print stickers may be posted only in any of the authorized posting space or air time. post. and to "COMELEC he. for political Such supervision or regulation shall aim to ensure candidates to inform all and sundry about themselves. cannot be totally public information campaigns and forums among disregarded. Sec 11(b) is still within the permissible bounds of supervision –regulation of media operations during the election period. The • The freedom of speech & access to media. him such prohibition is violative of Section 82 of the • There is here no censorship. In addition. honest. in fact No. According to space. equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for GUTIERREZ. fora other than modern mass media. equal rates therefor. a senatorial candidate in the of the content of political advertisements which the May 11. Republic Acts limitations: Nos. The right of the general listening and viewing public to be ART II. Repetitive political commercials when fed candidates in connection with the objective of holding into the electronic media themselves constitute free. stickers. the COMELEC promulgated • such restrictive impact upon freedom of speech & Resolution No. without regard to the level of financial resources that one may have at one's disposal is also FACTS: an important value On January 13. which space and time areas provided in paragraph (f) of Section 21 hereof. Prohibited forms of election propaganda It is offices in the province or city served by the unlawful: newspaper or radio or television station. 6646 and 7166 and other election laws. the Omnibus Election Code.Art IX C sec 4. J. 1. its limitation bears a clear and reasonable vehicles would be his last medium to inform the electorate . paint. 15. mobile or stationary. free of charge. orderly. less control on the part of COMELEC in respect of the content of the normal operations of media. decals." and the right of media enterprises to maximize their revenues from the marketing of "packaged" candidates. • the rights of free speech and free press are not ADIONG vs. television and print political advertisements. The Commission [on Elections] may. equal opportunity. What Section 11 (b). 1992) 2. opportunity. and equal time and space. sec 26: the egalitarian demand that "the State free from such intrusions and their subliminal effects is shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public at least as important as the right of candidates to service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined advertise themselves through modern electronic media by law. organization or coalition. cards. more than one: Provided. Newspaper. peaceful. whether disguised or Omnibus Election Code and Section 11(a) of Republic Act otherwise. 2. limitation exempts from its prohibition the fourteen (14) inches in length: Provided.June 10.Yes. or at the candidate's own residential house or one of his residential houses. and space.: public office. 1992. whether public or the COMELEC time & space that shall give equal private. for especially electronic media. supervise or regulate the situations of the candidates in order to promote equal enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits . COMELEC unlimited rights for they are not the only important and relevant values even in the most democratic of polities. grave and irreparable injury with this prohibition.

public or of free speech. The prohibition unduly infringes on the citizen's cars and other moving vehicles does not endanger any fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the substantial government interest. For persons who have to resort to judicial end can be more narrowly achieved. not of arises from the fact that it is the matrix. There is no clear Constitution (Sec. purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally Commission on Elections and its companion cases subject. The carefully worded opinion of the private. by displaying it on his car. When faced with elections.All of the justify a clamp over one's mouth or a writing protections expressed in the Bill of Rights are important instrument to be stilled: but we have accorded to free speech the status of a preferred freedom. Finally. action to strike down requirements which they deem inequitable or oppressive. to should be uninhibited. regulation of election campaign activity may not pass the test of validity if it is too general in its terms or HOLDING: not limited in time and scope in its application. clean and honest. persuade is denied and taken away.that he is a senatorial candidate in the May 11. though the governmental purpose be legitimate and substantial. “priority (for freedom of speech) gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious This qualitative significance of freedom of expression intrusions and it is the character of the right. the COMELEC during the election period is granted regulatory A statute is considered void for overbreadth when "it powers.” The rational connection between It is difficult to imagine bow the other provisions of the remedy provided and the evil to be curbed. the Court had occasion to reiterate the area of protected freedoms. ISSUE: WON the Commission on Elections may prohibit the We examine the limits of regulation and not the limits posting of decals and stickers on "mobile" places. The variety of opinions expressed by the members offends the constitutional principle that a governmental of this Court in the recent case of National Press Club v. even political advertisements. in the National which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade Press Club case. 1992 he has not received any notice from any of the candidate or party and freedom to know on the part of Election Registrars in the entire country as to the location the electorate are invoked against actions intended for of the supposed "Comelec Poster Areas. However. uninhibited. furnished by a candidate but once the car owner agrees to and wide open debate. Under the clear and the kind of restriction involved in this case. The regulation strikes at the freedom of an individual to We have adopted the principle that debate on public issues express his preference and. Justice Feliciano. a court case may prove to be a The resolution prohibits the posting of decals and hollow remedy. and if the regulatory designated areas provided for by the COMELEC itself is measure bears no clear and reasonable nexus with the null and void on constitutional grounds. becomes a statement by the owner. recognize the fact that under the Constitution. 1992 opportunities may have been lost. to state regulations may not be achieved by means underscores this difficulty.There are present danger rule not only must the danger be various concepts surrounding the freedom of speech patently clear and pressingly present but the evil clause which we have adopted as part and parcel of our sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to own Bill of Rights provision on this basic freedom. and wide open. the the limitation. which the Bill of Rights and the right to free elections may be in other context might support legislation against guaranteed if the freedom to speak and to convince or attack on due process grounds. Article III) public interest threatened by such activity so as to justify the curtailment of the cherished citizen's right There is no public interest substantial enough to warrant of free speech and expression. will not suffice. primarily his own and not of anybody else. constitutionally sanctioned objective. that purpose cannot be pursued by means Another problem is the fairly limited period for that broadly stifle fundamental personal liberties when the campaigning. By the time we revoke an unallowably stickers not more than eight and one-half (8-1/2) restrictive regulation or ruling. 4. which determines what standard indispensable condition of nearly every other freedom. the petitioner states that as of February border line situations where freedom to speak by a 22. the expression if our elections will truly be free. The questioned prohibition premised on the statute in order to promote fundamental public interests or policy and as couched in the resolution is void for objectives is always a difficult and delicate task. if it The petition is impressed with merit and is granted. through Mr. The determination of the limits of the Government's power to regulate the exercise by a citizen of his basic freedoms 2. The restricts one's expression of belief in a candidate or COMELEC's probibition on posting of decals and stickers one's opinion of his or her qualifications. if it cuts off on "mobile' places whether public or private except in the flow of media reporting." maintaining clean and free elections. A sticker may be restrictions will deny to people the robust." the preferred status of freedom of expression even as it validated COMELEC regulation of campaigns through "In a series of decisions this Court has held that. We overbreadth. local officials and COMELEC should lean in favor of freedom. the generating of interest essential have it placed on his private vehicle. shows that authorized posting areas that it fixes. governs the choice. and limit their location or publication to the Court. the police. RATIO: The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like 1. including mobile places whether public or . time being of the essence to inches in width and fourteen (14) inches in length in a candidate may have lapsed and irredeemable any place. Too many convince others to agree with him. robust.

Guard suggested they may transfer to the public sidewalk at the PruneYard’s perimeter. in the exercise of police power and its interest. Appellees were vehicles. in the process. They left "Property is more than the mere thing which a person and filed this lawsuit seeking to enjoin PY from denying owns.” nothing suggests that mandated by Art 11. Sec 26 and Art XIII. is not activity will unreasonably impair the value or use of impaired by posting decals and stickers on private their property as a shopping center.private except in areas designated by the COMELEC. construed to permit individuals to exercise free speech and petition The prohibition would not only deprive the owner who rights on the property of a privately owned center to which consents to such posting of the decals and stickers the the public is invited. the “right to exclude others. the shopping center by choice of its owner is In sum. and dispose of them access to it for such purpose. the restriction as to where the decals and distributed pamphlets. The views expressed by censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution: those who come and go will not be identified with those of the owner. another cardinal rule or tenant to engage in any publicly expressive activity prescribed by the Constitution would be violated. MANILA TIMES public for purpose of encouraging the patronizing of its commercial establishments. including the circulation of petitions. asserted interest in promoting more expansive rights of free speech. the security guard no person shall be deprived of his property without due asked them to leave because they were violating PruneYard process of law. any financial commercial functions. may adopt restrictions on private property so irrefutable. in this case is a privately-owned vehicle. None of PruneYard’s patrons objected. violate the center’s property rights use of his property but more important. the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers not limited to the personal use of appellants or the on 'mobile" places whether public or private except in the owners themselves. ROBINS B. it includes the right to acquire. orderly and PruneYard could have restricted expressive activity by adopting time. NO. Tthe constitutional objective to give a rich . Appellees are hschool FACTS: students who sought to solicit support for their opposition to a UN resolution against Zionism. Second.As to a private owner’s right not to be forced by the significance. considerations behind the regulation are of marginal . There’s no danger of governmental discrimination for or against a certain message. WON Do state constitutional provisions. table in a corner of PruneYard’s central courtyard. place and manner Compared to the paramount interest of the State in regulations that would minimize interference with its guaranteeing freedom of expression. except in the common poster areas sanctioned reasonable. they set up a . State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others. The burden is not met in this case. This means that a private person cannot selected must have a real and substantial relation to post his own crudely prepared personal poster on his the obj obtained. no specific message is dictated by the State to Use of Private Property as a forum for other’s speech be displayed. 1980 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER vs.The State. which and orderly. the burden of justification on the part of the sovereign right to adopt Constitutional individual Government must be exceptionally convincing and liberties. The right to property may be subject to a greater degree of RATIO: regulation but when this right is joined by a "liberty" . One Sat. arbitrary or capricious and the means by COMELEC. Sec I in preventing appellants from prohibiting this sort of relation to Art IX (c) Sec 4 of the Constitution. Act 6646 is so encompassing and Appellants were not denied their property without due invasive that it prohibits the posting or display of process of law. whether public or test whereby the challenged law must not be private. the owners may disavow any connection with the message by simply posting signs. and his free speech rights? it would deprive the citizen of his right to free speech HELD: and information.While it is true that the 5th A guarantee against the candidate and a poor candidate equal opportunity to taking of property without just compensation includes inform the electorate as regards their candidacies. asked passersby to sign petitions stickers should be posted is so broad that it (were sent to Pres and Congressmen). that’s not directly Section 1. They failed to show that due process election propaganda in any place. use. They Verily. and the Constitution. it. regulations. In Pursuant to PruneYard’s policy “not to permit any visitor consequence of this prohibition. is not satisfied by the State’s own front door or on a post in his yard. Plus. Article III of the Bill of Rights provides that related to its commercial purposes”. in the 14th Amendment. It is a business establishment authorized areas designated by the COMELEC becomes that’s open to the public. long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any law. protects ISSUE: these essential attributes. Section 11 of Rep. They were peaceful encompasses even the citizen's private property. Unprotected Speech FACTS: Defamatory Speech PruneYard is a privately-owned shopping center open to POLICARPIO vs. 3.

” Use by Colleague” • SC: Prior to Aug 11. although the UNESCO Nat’l Commission. if no good intention & been filed by Reyes. to the effect that plaintiff comments or remarks. PCAC RAPS L. RPC provides: Pres’l Complaint & Action Commission” (PCAC) is “Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be not true. investigation. Col.” 2. legislative or other official proceedings. • Plaintiff Policarpio seeks to recover damages plaintiff was guilty and that. against the Manila Times Publishing Co. It particularly after an investigation conducted by was said that Policarpio used several sheets of the same. Pending completion. in that the offenses imputed to her were more serious turn. xxx administrative investigation. defendants Daily Mirror (Aug 13. not by the PCAC but by malversation of public funds & another complaint Reyes. 1956. except: “criminal action was initiated as a result of current 1. the Aug 11 . Alba had shown that information derogatory to the plaintiff. who Quezon and Pangasinan. Its sub-title – publication containing derogatory information ‘PCAC raps Policarpio on fraud” – printed in bold 1 must be not only true. POLICARPIO ON FRAUDS defendants had no means of knowing such Unesco Official Head Accused on Supplies. hence. 354. the statement in the 1st must be made in good faith and without any paragraph of the article. 1956 not mention that fact that the number of stencils of 2 articles or news items which are claimed to be involved in the charge was only 18 or 20. She also said that the article did 11. which are not of RATIO: confidential nature. reimbursement of supposed official expenses. The guilt is greater than when the complaints are filed other charge refers to the supposed by a private individual. libelous and false. Also. sum allegedly misappropriated by her was only • CFI dismissed the complaint on the ground that P54. Alba had already taken the testimony of witnesses. Fiscal depends partly upon the amount of the damage Sets Prelim Quiz of Criminal Suit on Aug 22” caused to the offended party. Besides. plaintiff avers that the subordinates in the Commission. fair. reimbursement were incurred in trips during the • Background: Policarpio was executive secretary of period from July 1 – Sept 30 1955. w/o • PLAINTIFF maintains that the effect of these false any comments or remarks…. she had filed trips actually were made from Jul 8-Aug 31. But. the penalty for estafa/embezzlement Charges Against Unesco Woman Official. for use of her car when she had actually made the • Newspapers must enjoy a certain degrees of trip aboard an army plane. and in the Daily Mirror of Aug 13. & caused the Aug 11 article had the effect of conveying the idea latter to be separated from the service. by reason PCAC had filed the cor