HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
CASE NAME CASE DIGEST

i. People v Cayat, GR No. L- 45987, May FACTS:

5, 1935
Cayat is a native and a member of a non-christian tribe in Baguio who
was caught possessing a liquor that is not considered as a native
wine.

This act was violative of Act 1639 which prohibits any native to
possess a liquor that is not produced by the natives. Cayat then
challenged the constitutionality of the said Act as it violates his equal
protection under the Bill of Rights.

ISSUE: Whether Act 1639 violates the equal protection law.

RULING:

NO

The court held that an act of legislation such as Act 1639 does not
violate the equal protection clause.

Provided that it is based on reasonable classification such as;

1) must rest on substantial distinctions;
2) must be germane to the purposes of the law
3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4) must apply equally to all members of the same class.

Act 1639 is based on the degree of civilization and culture of the tribe.
The term non-christians does not refer to religious group but refers to
to the geographical area, and, more directly, to natives of the
Philippines of a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal
relationship apart from settled communities. 

The prohibition "to buy, receive, have in his possession, or drink any
ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquors of any kind, other
than the socalled native wines and liquors which the members of such
tribes have been accustomed themselves is unquestionably designed
to insure peace and order in and among the non-Christian tribes.

j. Beltran v Secretary of Health, GR

133640, 133661 and 139147, Nov 25, FACTS:
2005
RA 7719 was passed into law which seeks to provide an adequate
supply of safe blood by promoting voluntary blood donation and
regulate blood banks in the country.

Thereafter, the IRR was issued. Section 7 and Section 23of the IRR
provides for the phasing out of commercial blood banks in the country.

Threatened by their imminent closure, the petitioners, comprising of

the majority of the Board of Directors of the Philippine Association of
Blood Banks, assailed the constitutionality of RA7719 because it
unduly discriminates against commercial or free standing blood banks
in a manner that is not germane to the purpose of the law.
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
k. Marcos v. Manglapus, GR 88211, Sept
15, 1989 and Oct 27, 1989
- Any power in the constitution that is not
legislative or judicial are executive
Assignment # 3
ISSUE: Whether RA7710 violates the equal protection clause
RULING:
NO
The court held that RA 7719 or The National Blood Services Act of
1994, was enacted for the promotion of public health and welfare.
It emphasized the promotion of public health being a fundamental
obligation of the State. The health of the people is a primordial
governmental concern. Basically, the National Blood Services Act was
enacted in the exercise of the State’s police power in order to promote
and preserve public health and safety.
In this case, the results of a certain study led to the passage of
Republic Act No. 7719, to instill public consciousness of the
importance and benefits of voluntary blood donation, safe blood
supply and proper blood collection from healthy donors.
FACTS:
When Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency, Pres.
Corazon C. Aquino was declared President of the Philippines under a
revolutionary government. The ratification of the 1987 Constitution
further strengthened the legitimacy of Mrs. Aquino‘s authority.
However, threats arose from various sectors ranging from the rebels
to the followers of the Marcoses and even those that were initiators of
the people power revolution.
Mr. Marcos has signified, on his deathbed, to return to the Philippines.
But Mrs. Aquino, considering the consequences to the nation of his
return, has stood firmly on the decision to bar his and his family’s
return. 
Due to this, a petition was filed on the assertion that the right of the
Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under Section 1
and Section 6 of Article III, Bill of Rights.
The petitioners claim that the President doesn’t have the power to
impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court may
do so "within the limits prescribed by law." Nor may the President
impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
They advance the view that before the right to travel may be impaired
by any authority or agency of the government, there must be
legislation to that effect.  The petitioners further asserted that under
international law, the right of Mr. Marcos and his family to return to the
Philippines is guaranteed. 
ISSUE: Whether President Aquino violated the Marcoses’ right to life,
liberty and property and right to liberty of abode.
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
RULING:

NO

The court held that the President, as a steward of the people, has
residual power to protect the general welfare of the people.

The executive power is not limited only to the specific powers

enumerated in the Constitution. Faced with the problem of whether or
not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the Philippines,
the President is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these
basic principles in arriving at a decision.

More than that, the President has the obligation under the Constitution
to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national
interest. It must be borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from
being an allocation of power, is also a social contract whereby the
people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the
common good.

Hence, lest the officers of the Government exercising the powers

delegated by the people forget and the servants of the people become
rulers, the Constitution reminds everyone that "sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority emanates from them."

l. Malcampo-Sin v. Sin, GR 1`37590 March FACTS:

26, 2001
Florence and Philipp T. Sin, a Portuguese citizen, got married at St.
Jude Catholic Parish in San Miguel, Manila. 

Later on, Florence filed a complaint for "declaration of nullity of

marriage" against Philipp due to psychological incapacity. However,
the RTC and the CA denied this petition. Hence, this appeal.

It should be noted that the Fiscal did not actively participate in the
proceedings  stating that he found no collusion between the parties.
Other than entering his appearance at certain hearings of the case,
nothing more was heard from him. Neither did the presiding Judge
take any step to encourage the fiscal to contribute to the proceedings.

ISSUE: Whether the non-participation of the Fiscal on behalf of the

State is insignificant in annulment proceedings

RULING:

NO

The court emphasized that a prosecuting attorney or fiscal shall

appear on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion
between the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed. 

As stated under Article 48 of the Family Code: 

 ARTICLE 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of
absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on
behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
m. American Bible Society v City of Manila,
GR No. L-9637, April 30, 1957
- Mayor’s permit is what need in tax???
- and other religious materials at a very minimal profit during the course
n. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, GR
No. 115455, October 30, 1995
- VAT ISSUE: Purpose is to widen
the tax base
- Issue: Freedom of expression
due to newspaper tax
- Violates due process because
the legislative didn’t interfere
with the creation of VAT (There
are no forum of discussions in
terms of VAT)
- Due process means a
proceeding to present both sides
of the controversy
Assignment # 3
the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or
suppressed
The court further held that the lack of participation of the State wasn’t
cured although the lower court dismissed the petition. Stating that “the
protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the
defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid
one as well.”
FACTS:
American Bible Society (ABS) is a religious, missionary corporation
duly registered and doing business in the Philippines by selling bibles
of its ministry.
On May 1953, the acting City Treasurer of the City of Manila informed
ABS that it was conducting the business of general merchandise
without providing itself with the necessary Mayor's permit and
municipal license, in violation of Ordinance No. 3000, as amended,
and Ordinances Nos. 2529, 3028 and 3364. They required ABS to
secure, within three days, the corresponding permit and license fees.
Issue: Whether Ordinance 2529 and 3000 violates American Bible
Society’s right to free exercise and enjoyment of the religious
profession.
Ruling:
NO
The court held that that the provisions of City of Manila Ordinance No.
2529, as amended, cannot be applied to ABS, for in doing so it would
impair its free exercise and enjoyment of its religious profession and
worship as well as its rights of dissemination of religious beliefs.
With respect to Ordinance No. 3000, as amended, the Court does not
find that it imposes any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted
by the Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. Hence,
it cannot be considered unconstitutional, even if applied to ABS.
FACTS:
RA 7716 seeks to widen the tax base of the existing VAT system and
enhance its administration by amending the National Internal Revenue
Code.
Various suits were filed challenging the constitutionality of RA 7716 on
various grounds. One is that RA 7716 did not originate exclusively in
the House of Representatives as required by Art. VI, Sec. 24 of the
Constitution, because it is in fact the result of the consolidation of 2
distinct bills, H. No. 11197 and S. No. 1630. There is also a contention
that S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings as required by the
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.

Constitution.

ISSUE: Whether RA 7716 violates Art. VI, Secs. 24 and 26(2) of the
Constitution.

RULING:

NO

The Supreme Court held that RA 7716 is not the law but the revenue
bill which is required by the Constitution to originate exclusively in the
House of Representatives.

What the Constitution simply means is that the initiative for filing
revenue, tariff or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public
debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the
House of Representatives.

On the next issue where S. No. 1630 did not pass 3 readings on
separate days as required by the Constitution because the second
and third readings were done on the same day.

It is due to the act of the President certifying S. No. 1630 as urgent.

The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not only
of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days. That upon
the certification of a bill by the President the requirement of 3 readings
on separate days and of printing and distribution can be dispensed
with is supported by the weight of legislative practice.

o. People v Doriquez, GR No. L-24444-45, FACTS:

July 29, 1968
Doriquez was charged with the offense of grave oral defamation, then
six days later, he was indicted before the same court for discharge of
firearm.

He filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the institution of the criminal

action for discharge of firearm places him in double jeopardy. That the
filing of the information for discharge of firearm has placed him in peril
of double jeopardy as he had previously been charged with the
offense of alarm and scandal

The court denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for
reconsideration. Hence, this petition. 

ISSUE: Whether Doriquez may invoke double jeopardy as he had

previously been charged with the offense of alarm and scandal

RULING:

NO.

The court held that for double jeopardy to be considered, the accused
must prove, among other things, that there is "identity of offenses.”

The court further ruled that it is a cardinal rule that the protection
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.

against double jeopardy may be invoked only for the same offense or
identical offense. A single act may offend against two (or more)
entirely distinct and unrelated provisions of law, and if one provision
requires proof of an additional fact or element which the other does
not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the information under
one does not bar prosecution under the other.

As provided in Section 9, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court

- his "conviction or acquittal or the dismissal of the case

(without his express consent) shall be a bar to
another prosecution for the same offense charged or
for any attempt to, commit the same or frustration
thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the offense charged in
the former complaint or information.

In this case, the offense of discharge of firearm is not the crime of

alarm and scandal, nor is it an attempt or a frustration of the latter
felony. Although alarm and scandal filed under article 155(1) of the
Revised Penal Code and the information for discharge of firearm
under article 258 of the same Code are closely related in fact, they are
definitely diverse in law.

- Firstly, the two indictments do not describe the same

felony - alarm and scandal is an offense against
public order while discharge of firearm is a crime
against persons.

- Secondly, the indispensable element of the former

crime is the discharge of a firearm calculated to cause
alarm or danger to the public, while the gravamen of
the latter is the discharge of a firearm against or at a
certain person, without intent to kill.

Therefore, the plea of double jeopardy cannot be accorded merit

p. Romualdez Marcos v Comelec, GR FACTS:

119976 Sept 18, 1995
Imelda Marcos running for Representative for 1st district of Leyte was
Issue: Whether Mrs. Marcos intend to abandon alleged disqualified to run for the said position as she lacked the
her domicile or liberty of abode required period. 

Another issue: right to vote and right to be voted There was also controversy when Imelda Marcos wanted to amend
for her entry in the COC from 7 months to since childhood of residency.

The COMELEC cancelled her original certificate of candidacy.

However, Imelda won the election and her proclamation was
suspended by the COMELEC. 

In the petition, Montejo claims that Tacloban was not Imelda’s

domicile of origin because she did not live there until she was eight
years old. He avers that after leaving the place in 1952, she
abandoned her residency for many years and could not re-establish
her domicile in said place by merely expressing her intention to live
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
there again.
 
ISSUE: Whether Imelda Marcos was a resident for election purposes
of the 1st district of Leyte  for a period of 1 year  at the time of the May
9,1995 elections.

RULING:

YES

The court ruled that an individual does not lose his domicile even if

he has lived and maintained residences in different places.

The absence from legal residence or domicile to pursue profession, to

study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature
does not constitute loss of residence. 

In this case, Marcos having been known to have various

residences for more than 40 years showed no intention to abandon
her domicile in Tacloban Leyte. She established residences in
Tacloban, celebrated occasions in the province and implemented
projects in her hometown. The residence of origin should be deemed 
to continue as Marcos did not abandon  her original domicile. 

The court directed COMELEC to order the  Provincial Board of

Canvassers  to proclaim Imelda as the duly  elected  Representative
of the 1st district  of Leyte.

q. Aquino v. Comelec, GR 120265, Sept FACTS:

18, 1995
Aquino filed his candidacy for the position of representative for the
Another issue: right to vote and right to be voted Second Legislative District of Makati City.
for
However, a duly registered political party and Mateo Bedon filed a
petition for disqualification of Aquino on the ground that the latter
lacked the residence qualification as a candidate for congressman
which, under Section 6, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, should be
for a period not less than one year preceding the May 8, 1995
elections.

On the other hand, Aqiono filed another certificate of candidacy

amending the certificate which indicated in item 8 that he had resided
in the constituency where he sought to be elected for one year and
thirteen days.

COMELEC declared Agapito A. Aquino as ineligible and thus

disqualified as a candidate for the Office of Representative of the 2nd
District of Makati City in the elections, for lack of the constitutional
qualification of residence.

ISSUE: Whether COMELEC's finding of non-compliance with the

residency requirement of 1 year against the Aquino is valid.

RULING:        

YES
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.

In order for a person to qualify as a candidate for a district, he must

prove that he has established not just residence but domicile of
choice. 

The Supreme Court agree with COMELEC’s contention that in order

that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the
Second District of Makati City the latter “must prove that he has
established not just residence but domicile of choice.”

In this case, Aquino in his Certificate of Candidacy, indicated not only

that he was a resident of San Jose, Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but
that he was a resident of the same for 52 years immediately preceding
that election. His certificate indicated that he was also a registered
voter of the same district. His birth certificate places Concepcion,
Tarlac as the birthplace of both of his parents Benigno and Aurora.
Thus, what stands consistently clear and unassailable is that this
domicile of origin was Concepcion, Tarlac.

The intention not to establish a permanent home in Makati City is

evident in his leasing a condominium unit instead of buying one.
Although a lease contract maybe indicative of the intention to reside in
Makati City, it does not engender the kind of permanency required to
prove abandonment of one's original domicile especially since it is
only for a period of two (2) years, and Aquino himself testified that his
intention was really for only one (l) year because he has other
"residences" in Manila or Quezon City.

r. Sanchez v People, GR 179090, June 5, FACTS:

2009
VVV is a 16 year old girl, who lives in a nipa hut with her family,
beside a fishpond that is owned by Lilio Sanchez and his wife.

One day, when VVV's father was not around, Sanchez went to the
house of VVV and asked them to immediately vacate the house due
to poor accounting and management of the fishpond of VVV's parents
as the caretaker.

VVV, together with her brother and mother defended their house
which resulted to an argument. Due to the said argument, VVV
obtained multiple bruises and scars from Sanchez.

When VVV's father found out what happened, they immediately went
to the clinic and police station to file a case of child abuse against
Sanchez under RA 7610.

ISSUE: Whether the act of Sanchez is child abuse punishable under

RA 7610 which protects the right of children in relation to Article 15,
Section 3 of the Constitution

RULING:

YES.

The court ruled that there are four punishable acts under RA 7610,
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
Section 10,

- First, the act of child abuse;

- Second, child cruelty;
- Third, child exploitation; and
- Fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to
the child’s development.

In this case, the averments in the Information clearly make out the
offense of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The
following were alleged: (1) the minority of VVV; (2) the acts
constituting physical abuse, committed by appellant against VVV; and
(3) said acts are clearly punishable under R.A. No. 7610

The court further held that RA 7610 is a measure geared towards the
implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival
of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino
children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV,
Section 3, paragraph 2, that “The State shall defend the right of the
children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and
other conditions prejudicial to their development.” 

In this case, the injuries obtained by VVV who is a minor is a clear

violation of the said RA since it has been stated in VVV's medical
record that the injuries sustained by VVV were distinguishable,
indicating that the blow was forceful, and that the force used was
strong.

s. Araneta v. People, GR 174205, June 27,

2008 FACTS:

AAA who was 17 years old at the time of the event, along with her
sisters were sitting on a bench at the waiting shed located near her
boarding house, when Gonzalo, who is incessantly courting her
approached her.

Gonzalo expressed his feelings for her and asked her to accept his
love. However, AAA did not like what she heard that’s why she tried to
hit him with a broom but the Gonzalo was able to dodge. Gonzalo
chased them into their house and forcibly hugged AAA threatening to
kill her if she refuse to accept his love.

The decision of the RTC, which was upheld by the CA, rendered the
accused Gonzalo guilty of guilty of violating Section 10(a), Article VI of
Republic Act (RA) No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act," as amended.

However, Gonzalo averred that an accused can only be successfully

convicted of child abuse under Section 10(a) if it is proved that the
victim’s development had been prejudiced. Thus, according to him,
absent proof of such prejudice, which is an essential element in the
crime charged, he cannot be found guilty of child abuse under the
subject provision.
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.
t. The Philippines is a state party to all
(except for one, Convention on the
Protection against Enforced
Disappearance) core human rights
treaties
1.  1) International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
ISSUE: Whether the acts of Gonzalo is child abuse under RA 7610.
RULING:
YES
The court held that Article VI of RA 7610 enumerates the "other acts
of abuse." Paragraph (a) of Section 10 which states:
SEC. 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and
Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development.
- (a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development
including those covered by Article Article 59 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not
covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period
Furthermore, Section 3 (b) Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, states:
- (2) Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being
Republic Act No. 7610 is a measure geared towards the
implementation of a national comprehensive program for the survival
of the most vulnerable members of the population, the Filipino
children, in keeping with the Constitutional mandate under Article XV,
Section 3, paragraph 2, that "The State shall defend the right of the
children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and
other conditions prejudicial to their development.
In this case, despite the victim’s protestation, Gonzalo followed the
victim from the waiting shed to her boarding house and even to the
room where she stayed. He forcibly embraced her and threatened to
kill her if she would not accept his love for her. Indeed, such devious
act must have shattered her self-esteem and womanhood and virtually
debased, degraded or demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity.
THE NINE CORE HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
There are nine core international human rights treaties. The nine
treaties address economic, social and cultural rights, civil and political
rights, the elimination of racial and gender discrimination, protection
against torture and forced disappearance and the rights of women,
children, migrants, persons with disabilities. 
These are:
 HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
Assignment # 3
Agot, Crystal Kate A.

Discrimination

2.   2) International Covenant on Civil Political Rights

3.   3) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

4.   4) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against

Women

5.  5) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment

6. 6) Convention on the Rights of the Child

7.   7) International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of their Families

8.   8) International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearances

9.   9) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The Philippines is a state party to eight out of nine core treaties.

The exception is the International Convention for the Protection of All

Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED). The International
Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance (ICPPED) is an international human rights instrument
of the United Nations and intended to prevent forced disappearance
defined in international law, crimes against humanity.

It has been twice re-elected to the UN Human Rights Council since

2006. It must be noted that the Philippines made a voluntary pledge to
take steps towards the signing and ratification of the CPED during its
candidature to the UN Human Rights Council in 2007. And lastly, in
2012, after years of lobbying by civil society organizations led by
Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND), the
Philippine government enacted a domestic law that criminalizes
enforced disappearance (Republic Act 10353).