PGC: Homework for Article III

1. A Chinese woman found herself in a tight situation as she threw her drink to a

local policeman. This in turn led to a case against her before the Bureau of

Immigration. Although she appealed that China and the Philippines has a good

relationship, the decision went against her favor. She then filed for a

consideration, stating that she was denied of due process, being unable to defend

herself when the case was being heard. In the case of the Chinese woman, she

is simply exercising her right to due process. This situation is best shown in

Article III Section I. The woman is somehow correct, because it is specifically

provided in Article III Section I that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty,

or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal

protection of the laws”. Under the Constitution, a person may be deprived by

the State of his/her life, liberty, or even property provided due process of law is

observed. It is also rightfully stated in the Article III Section I of the 1987

Constitution that any deprivation of life, liberty, or property by the State is with

due process if it is done under the authority of a law that is valid or of the

Constitution itself, and after compliance with fair and reasonable methods of

procedure prescribed by law. In her case, she was clearly not given any chance

to defend herself while the case was being heard in court, considering she is

other party to the case and explain her side as to what really transpired. What

the Chinese woman did was despicable, especially considering that the incident

happened outside her homeland. But even then she must be given the right to at

least defend herself in order to create a just conclusion on both parties.

2. Allan M., a prisoner serving his sentence in Muntinlupa doesn’t eat meat, as he

belongs to a religious sect that has to have a meatless diet. With this, he asked

the Director of Prison that he be served with a meatless diet. The prisoner,

although rightfully deserving of his own rights, was denied of his rights to a

meatless diet. This led to Allan M. suing the director for violating his religious

freedom. Allan M. ex only expressing his right to exercise his Freedom of

religion. This is stated in Article III Section V, which is the right to Freedom of

religion. If I were the judge, I will decide in favor of the prisoner, because by

the refusal of the director of prison to observe and respect the preference of the

prisoner, in consideration of his religion, his religious beliefs shall be respected

because of the provision on the Article III Section V.

3. Jackblack, a black man, was stopped at a checkpoint along his way to Manila

from baguio. The checkpoint was set up based on intelligence reports that

vehicles travelling from up north were being used as transportation for

delivering illegal drugs. Along with this is the information that a black man is

in possession of illegal substance from Sagada. Provided this information, the

police decided to take action upon seeing an unusual bulge in Jackblack’s waist,

which turned out to be actually marijuana. This eventually led to more proof of

illegal substances in his luggage bag. He then claimed that what the police did

was illegal. With this, he expresses his right against illegal search and seizure.

This is stated in Article III Section II. It says in Article III Section II that “the

right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
 purpose shall be inviolable,”. Although correct, it also states in the latter that

“no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause

to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or

affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and

particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be

seized”. This means that the police has the right to arrest Jackblack, given the

validity of the circumstance. If I were the judge, I will decide in favor of the

validity of the search and seizure done to Jackblack on the ground that what he

possessed was illegal substance in the first place. And the police had a valid

reason for what he did. He need not wait for the escape of Jackblack and be

issued a valid search warrant from a judge. There was already a suspicion on

the part of the police that a crime is about to be committed, which is the

exception to the general rule when it comes to the right against illegal search

and seizure, even without a warrant, the search was valid.

4. Robin was arrested by SPO1 Batman upon the issuing of the warrant of arrest

of Judge Joker. SPO1 Batman immediately searched Robin for any possible

firearm inside. Robin then refused to be search, as according to her, SPO1 does

not have a search warrant. Robin is exercising her right against illegal search

and seizure. This is stated in Article III Section II. If I were the judge, I will

decide in favor of the legality of the search done by the SPO1. This is because

of the reason that the policeman seeks to avoid possible harm towards him and

to the people around. By searching Robin, it is in accordance with pertinent

laws. There was already a valid warrant of arrest, thus it would only be proper

for him to be searched after his arrest.