Constitutional Law 2

GENERAL INSTRUCTION: Consistent with the instruction of the SOL Dean, all my
students are required to answer these questions with basis, guided by our syllabus on
the subject concerned. Submit individual papers (answers only/max of 3 pages) via
email (to be collected and compressed by the beadle) not later than 6 PM of 30 April
2020. - RAP

1. Is home/community quarantine/lockdown/stay-at-home order and any other form of

travel restriction to prevent the spread of the virus violative of the constitutional right
to travel?
2. Is the penal clause of the Bayanihan Law against spreading of fake news violative of
freedom of expression?
3. Is the Japan embassy violating the constitutional right to due process when it
decided to unilaterally cancel all visas previously issued to foreigners, including
Filipinos, to avoid the spread of the virus?
4. Is the DoJ’s electronic inquest (e-inquest) proceeding (or the determination of
probable cause through videoconferencing instead of the usual face-to-face
encounter between the fiscal and the respondent with the arresting officer) violative
of the constitutional rights to public trial and due process?
5. May Mayor Vico Sotto be held liable for violation of the Bayanihan Law for acts done
by him prior to its effectivity?
6. Is the President’s shoot-to-kill order for quarantine violators valid?
7. Is the Bayanihan Law unconstitutional due to its provision authorizing the President
to direct, under pain of penalties, all banks, lending companies and other financial
institutions, public or private, to implement a 30-day grace period for payment of all
loans, including credit card obligations, without incurring interests or penalties?
8. Is the Philippine Medical Association violating the Constitution in its public statement
urging the COVID-19 patients to “voluntarily waive the confidentiality of their medical
condition and forthwith inform those they have been in close contact with” so that
the Government, particularly the DOH, may “prudently use and promptly share
(their) medical information” for “precautionary and remedial measures”?
9. Is the DOLE-POEA’s deployment ban of Filipino healthworkers in countries with high
incidents of Covid-19 violative of right to travel and non-impairment of (employment)
contracts?
10. Is there violation of right against self-incrimination if a person, who is facing criminal
charges for allegedly falsely claiming himself to be with COVID-19 to generate panic
in his community, is ordered by the criminal court to undergo testing for such virus?
11. Can a person be held criminally liable for cyberlibel for criticizing the President for
what he perceived to be lack of sense of urgency in addressing the pandemic?
12. Is it violative of right to privacy if the location features of Google and Apple apps are
used to help in contact tracing of persons who had close contact with COVID-19
patients?
13. Is right to privacy violated by a law (RA No. 11332) requiring mandatory reporting of
notifiable diseases like COVID-19?
14. May detainees be temporarily released en masse based on humanitarian
considerations to avoid contracting the coronavirus in congested prison cells

1.) No. According to Sec.4 of Bayanihan Law, Authorized Powers – Pursuant to Article VI,
Section 23 (2) of the Constitution, the President is hereby authorized to to exercise
powers that are necessary and proper to carry out the declared national policy. The
President shall have the power to adopt the following temporary emergency measures to
respond to crisis brought by the pandemic.
One of the powers that is granted to the President is to regulate and limit the operation
of all sectors of transportation through land, sea or air, whether private or public.
According to Article 3, Sec 6 of Bill of Rights, neither shall the right to travel be impaired
except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law. In this case, the Philippines is trying to slow down, or avoid the spread
of the COVID-19 virus. Therefore, it does not violate our constitutional right to travel.

2.) No. Freedom of expression is not absolute notwithstanding that the language of the
guaranty, unlike some of the provisions in the Bill of Rights, is unqualified. It is subject to
the police power and may be properly regulated in the interest of the public. The
government is protecting us, the citizens of the Philippines, to avoid people from
panicking during this pandemic.

3.) No. They did not violate the constitutional right to due process because according to the
exceptions of Due Process, the abatement of nuisances is objectionable under any and
all circumstances because it presents immediate danger to the welfare of the
community. This means that they temporarily suspended the visas of foreigners,
including Filipinos, to protect their citizen and to avoid the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

4.) No. The judge can still conduct and determine the probable cause and it doesn’t always
need to do it face-to-face encounter between the fiscal and the respondent with the
arresting officer. After all, Probable cause is to be made personally by the judge.

5.) No. The Bayanihan to Heal as One Act, was implemented on March 24, 2020 and Mayor
Vico Sotto said in an interview that he cannot be held liable for the violation because the
Bayanihan to Heal as One Act was not yet implemented when he tried to ask the
government to allow tricycles to operate in the city of Pasig. (Retroactive effect pacheck
heheheh)

6.) No. ((((WALA PA ‘TO))))

7.) No. Police Power will be exercised in this situation because Police Power may be
exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some
relevance to the public welfare. During this pandemic, some Filipinos can Work From
Home and some cannot because the field of their work is not related to the usage of
technology. Hence, it is not unconstitutional because it protects the public welfare of the
Filipinos.

8.) No. Article 3, Sec. 7 states that “The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized.” In this case, the statement of Philippine Medical
Association doesn’t mean to threat the Filipino citizens but to help and reduce or avoid
 the spread of the COVID-19 virus. It will be beneficial for the DOH so that they can plan
and take precautionary and remedial measures.

9.) No. DOLE-POEA’s deployment ban of Filipino health workers in countries with high
incidents of COVID-19 is not violative of right to travel and non-impairment of contracts.
They are doing their part to protect the Filipino citizens
the right to travel is not absolute. Two requirements must be met for a valid restriction on
the right to travel.
First, the right may be restricted only in the interest of any of the following — national
security, public safety, or public health. No other reason may be invoked to validly impair
the right. An economic crisis, for instance, is not a valid ground to restrict the right to
travel.
Second, there must be a law enacted by Congress which allows travel restriction based
on any of the three aforementioned grounds. No other basis is valid.

10.) There is no violation if a person thinks he/she has the virus. According to the
Scope of Self-Incrimination, a person may be compelled to submit to a physical
examination of his body to determine his involvement in an offense of which he is
accused. A person will be tested if he falsely claimed that he has the COVID-19 virus.

11.) No. Everyone has the right to criticize. It is a valid exercise of freedom of speech.
In this case, Filipinos criticize the government for their lack of urgency vs the COVID-19
virus.
12.) No. Contact tracing of persons who had close contact with COVID-19 patients
using the location features of Google and Apple applications would be helpful to the
Government all over the world. It is a helpful tool to save lives and protect their people.
13.) No. The aim of R.A. No. 11332 also known as “Law on Reporting of
Communicable Diseases”, is to inform everyone who resides in the Philippines and
avoid dangerous diseases that could end the life of a person. In this case, the
government is trying to avoid the spread of COVID-19 virus and it does not violate the
right to privacy because it is everyone’s right to know and be informed about this
pandemic to avoid or decrease the number of deaths that this disease have caused.
14.) They can be temporarily released. People in prisons are deprived of their liberty.
They are also the most vulnerable to various diseases and conditions because our
prisons are congested already and it may cause a domino effect if it’s not prevented or
taken action in this particular case.