This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Qualifications / Disqualifications´ Facts: The petitioner Philip Romualdez, is a natural born citizen of the Philippines. Sometime in the early part of 1980, the petitioner, in consonance with his decision to establish his legal residence at Barangay Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte, caused the construction of his residential house therein. He soon thereafter also served as a Barangay Captain of the place. In the 1984 Batasan Election and 1986 ³snap´ Presidential Election, Romualdez acted as the Campaign Manager of the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) in Leyte where he voted. When ³EDSA People¶s Power Revolution of 1986 took place on 21st to the 24th of February, 1986, some relatives and associates of the deposed President, fearing for their personal safety, ³fled´ the country. Petitioner Romualdez, for one, together with his immediate family, left the Philippines and sought ³asylum´ in the United. While abroad, he took special studies on the development of Leyte-Samar and international business finance. In the early part of 1987, Romualdez attempted to come back to the Philippines to run for a congressional seat in Leyte. When Romualdez arrived in the Philippines, he did not delay his return to his residence at Malbog. During the registration of voters conducted by COMELEC for the Synchronized National and Local Election scheduled for 11 May 1992, petitioner registered himself anew as a voter at Precinct No. 9 of Malbog. The Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors, who had known Romualdez to be a resident of the place and, in fact, an elected Barangay Chairman of Malbog in 1982, allowed him to be registered. Private respondent Donato Advincula filed a petition for exclusion with the MTC of Tolosa, Leyte. Issue: Whether or not the respondent court erred in finding the petitioner to have voluntarily left the country and abandoned his residence in Malbog, Tolosa, Leyte. Held: The political situation brought about by the ³People¶s Power Revolution´ must have truly caused great apprehension to the Romualdezes, as well as a serious concern over the safety and welfare of the members of their immediate families. Their going into self-exile until conditions favorable to them would have somehow stabilized is understandable. Certainly, their sudden departure from the country cannot be described as ³voluntary´, or as ³abandonment of residence´ at least in the context that these terms are used in applying the concept of ³domicile by choice.´ We have closely examined the records, and we find not that much to convince us that the petitioner had, in fact, abandoned his residence in the Philippines and established his domicile elsewhere.
Soul-Lana Singh fact, in 1995 the Texas Legislature amended the Texas Education Code to include parent rights and responsibilities. According to Chapter 26 of the Texas Education Code §4.001, ³Parents will be full partners with educators in the education of their children (Walsh, Kemerer, & Maniotis, 2007). The state cannot require all students to attend public schools, thus enabling the parents to right to choose where their children will be educated. Parents may send their children to public, private, or home schools. For the purpose of this report, we will present the case that relates to granting parents the right to choose which institution of learning their children will attend. The findings are intended to be informative and beneficial in understanding the precedent set forth for parent rights and responsibilities regarding the education of their wards. Case One United States Supreme Court PIERCE v. SOCIETY OF SISTERS 268 U.S. 510 LITIGANTS Plaintiffs-Appellants: Walter Pierce, Governor of Oregon Isaac H. Van Winkle, Attorney General of Oregon Defendant-Appellee: Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Hill Military Academy
On November 7, 1922, the voters in Oregon passed an initiative to amend the Compulsory Education Act. The amendment was aimed at creating a common American culture by eliminating any dogmas that may negatively influence the established norms of American society. All children
between the ages of eight and sixteen were required to attend public school. Children who were mentally disabled, lived three miles from the nearest road and had already completed the eighth grade were excluded from attending school. To enforce the law parents who did not send their children to public school were fined and faced 30 days in jail. The initiative also targeted parochial schools, specifically Catholic schools, because the thought was that such parochial schools hindered assimilation. Since the Society of Sisters worked with mainly orphaned and disadvantaged children they challenged the fairness of the Act. FACTS The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with power to care for orphans, educate and instruct the youth, establish and maintain academies or schools, and acquire necessary real and personal property. The Society's bill alleges that the enactment
conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that, unless enforcement of the measure is enjoined the corporation's business and property will suffer irreparable injury. DECISION JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court. The challenged Act, effective September 1, 1926, requires every parent, guardian or other person having control or charge or custody of a child between eight and sixteen years to send him "to a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year" in the district where the child resides, and failure so to do is declared a misdemeanor. The manifest purpose is to compel general attendance at public schools by normal children, between eight and sixteen, who have not completed the eighth grade. And without doubt enforcement of the statute would seriously impair, perhaps destroy, the profitable features of appellees' business and greatly diminish the value of their property. The Society's bill alleges that the enactment conflicts with the right of parents to choose schools where their children will receive appropriate mental and religious training, the right of the child to influence the parents' choice of a school, the right of schools and teachers therein to engage in a useful business or profession, and is
accordingly repugnant to the Constitution and void. And, further, that, unless enforcement of the measure is enjoined the corporation's business and property will suffer irreparable injury. No question is raised concerning the power of the State reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare. DICTA Under the doctrine of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, we think it entirely plain that the Act of 1922 unreasonably interferes with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control: as often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the State. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. IMPLICATIONS
The Society s suit against Pierce was successful in establishing that the parents and guardians of students had a right to choose their children s educational setting. The ruling set the precedent for parents right to choose privately run schools and relieved parents from being forced, through penalties, to have their children educated in public schools.