Privacy of Correspondence (1998)

No VII. - The police had suspicions that Juan Samson, member of the subversive New Proletarian
Army, was using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining new adherents to its cause. The Chief
of Police of Bantolan, Lanao del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all mail
addressed to and coming from Juan Samson in the interest of the national security. Was the order of
the Chief of Police valid? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid, because there is no law which authorizes him to order
the Postmaster to open the letters addressed to and coming from Juan Samson. An official in the
Executive Department cannot interfere with the privacy of correspondence and communication in the
absence of a law authorizing him to do so or a lawful order of the court. Section 3(1), Article III of the
Constitution provides:
"The privacy of communication andcorrespondence shall be inviolableexcept upon lawful order of the
court, orwhen public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."

#2 article 47 crim law

Article 3 sec 19 (1) consti

3. article 26 par (2) family code

4. 1169

Police Power; Abatement of Nuisance (2004)

(9-b) The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the City Mayor, assisted by the police,
to remove all advertising signs displayed or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being
offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many
of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the
destroyed billboards at their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public
purpose of city beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for
damages arising from the taking of his property without due process nor
just compensation. Will AM prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)

FIRST ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The suit of AM will not prosper. The removal of the billboards is not an exercise of the power of
eminent domain but of police power (Churchill v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580 [19150- The abatement of a
nuisance in the exercise of police power does not constitute taking of property and does not entitle
the owner of the property involved to compensation. (Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 [1989]).

SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The removal of the billboards for the purpose of beautification permanently deprived AM of the right
to use his property and amounts to its taking. Consequently, he should be paid just compensation.
(People v. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 443
11958])