This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Sandiganbayan- parallel to individual liberty is
the natural illimitable right of thestate to self preservation- Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada prosecuted under RA 7080 (AnAct Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder), he challengesthe constitutionality of the said law on the following grounds:a. it suffers from the vice of vaguenessb. it dispenses with the reasonable doubt standard in criminalprosecutionsc. it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes alreadypunishable under the RPC, all of these are clear violations of the fundamental rights of the accused to due process and tobe informed of the nature and cause of the accusation againsthim.- On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed before theSandiganbayan eight separate cases against Estrada- On April 11, 2001 Estrada f iled and Omnibus Motion f or theremand of the case to the Ombudsman for preliminaryinvestigation- It should be noted that the grounds rai sed by Estrada were onlylack of preliminary investigation, reinvestigation of offenses andopportunity to prove lack of probable case. The allegedambiguity of the charges and the vagueness of the law underwhich they are charged were never raised in his motion.- W arrants of arrest were issued to be serv ed upon Estrada, wherein he filed a motion to quash on the grounds that the factsalleged which gave way to finding a probable cause wereunconstitutionalSandiganbayan denied Estrada¶s motion- The following are the issues in this instant petition for certiorari:a. The Plunder Law is unconstitutional for being vague b. The Plunder Law requires less evidence of proving thepredicate crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rightsof the accused to due process.c. Whether plunder as defined in RA 7080 is malum prohibitum,and if so, whether it is within the power of Congress to soclassify it.We only need to tackle the first issue:
- There exists the presumption of constitutionality and the burdenof proof rests on the party who is challenging the validity of thelaw, in this case Estrada failed to prove it.As it is written, the Plunder Law contains ascertainable standardsand well defined parameters which would enable the accused todetermine the nature of his violation.- As long as the law aff ords some comprehensible guide or rulethat would inform those who are subject to it, what conductwould render them liable to its penalties, its validity is sustained.- It sufficiently guides the judge as to its application, the counsel indefending the one charged with the violation , and the accusedin identifying the realm of the prescribed conduct.- Nothing is v ague nor ambiguous in this law that may conf use thepetitioner in his defense.- Though, Estrada also contends that f ailure of the statute toprovide a definition of terms render the Plunder Lawunconstitutional for being vague and overbroad of the natureand cause of the accusation against him, hence, violating thefundamental right to due process.- But a statute cannot be rendered void merely because termswere not defined- It is a well settled principle that words of a statute will beinterpreted in their natural, plain and ordinary acceptance andsignificance if a definition is not provided.- A statute or act may be said to be v ague only if it lackscomprehensible standards that men of common intelligencemust necessarily guess its meaning and differ in its application.The doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness areanalyticial tools developed for testing ³on their faces´ statutes infree speech cases, they cannot be made to do service when whatis involved is a criminal statute.- Statutes which are f ound v ague as a matter of due processinvalidated only as applied to a particular defendant- Futher, invalidation of statutes are employed sparingly and onlyas a last resort.
DUMLAO vs. COMELEC
FACTS:A petition for Prohibition with Preliminary Injuction and/or Restraining Order filed by Patricio Dumlao a former Governor of Nueva Viscaya, seeking to enjoin Comelec from implementing section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52, for being unconstitutional, discriminatory and contrary to the equal protection rights. Petitioner Dumlao join the suit filled by petitioner Igot and Salapatan to declare the said provision as null and void for being violative of the Constitution. ISSUE:Whether or not the petition filed contains the requisite of actual case or controversy as a requisite for a review on certiorari? Whether or not paragraph 1 Section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is constitutional? HELD:It is basic that the power of judicial review is limited to the determination of actual cases and controversies. The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said provision and seeks to prohibit the respondent COMELEC from implementing such, yet the petitioner has not been adversely affected by the application of that provision. There is no ruling of that constitutional body on the matter on which the court is being asked to review on certiorari. Courts are practically unanimous in the pronouncement that laws shall not be declared invalid unless the conflict with the Constitution is clear beyond reasonable doubt. It is within the competence of the legislature to prescribe qualifications for one who desires to become a candidate for office provided they are reasonable, as in this case. The constitutionality of paragraph 1 section 4 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 is clear and unequivocal thus it does not discriminate and violate the equal protection rights of the petitioner. The first paragraph of section 4 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 52 is declared VALID
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW TITLE : Philippine Judges Association vs PradoCRUZ, J .:
FACTS :The main target of this petition is **Section 35 of R.A. No.7354. These measures withdraw the franking privilege fromthe SC, CA, RTC, MTC and the Land RegistrationCommission and its Registers of Deeds, along with certainother government offices. The petitioners are members of the lower courts who feel that their official functions asjudges will be prejudiced by the above-named measures.The petition assails the constitutionality of R.A. No. 7354(see ISSUE for the grounds stated by the petitioners). ISSUE :WON RA No.7354 is unconstitutional based on the followinggrounds:1) its *title embraces more than one subject and does notexpress its purposes;(2) it did not pass the required readings in both Houses of Congress and printed copies of the bill in its final form werenot distributed among the members before its passage; and(3) it is discriminatory and encroaches on the independenceof the Judiciary. HELD :1. The petitioners' contention is untenable. The title of thebill is not required to be an index to the body of the act, orto be as comprehensive as to cover every single detail of the measure. It has been held that if the title fairly indicatesthe general subject, and reasonably covers all theprovisions of the act, and is not calculated to mislead thelegislature or the people, there is sufficient compliance withthe constitutional requirement. In the case at bar, therepealing clause which includes the withdrawal of frankingprivileges is merely the effect and not the subject of thestatute; and it is the subject, not the effect of a law, whichis required to be briefly expressed in its title. 2. This argument is unacceptable. While a conferencecommittee is the mechanism for compromising differencesbetween the Senate and the House, it is not limited in itsjurisdiction to this question. It may propose an entirely newprovision. The court also added that said the bill in questionwas duly approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives. It was enrolled with its certification bySenate President and Speaker of the House of Representatives. It was then presented to and approved byPresident the President. Under the doctrine of separationpowers, the Court may not inquire beyond the certificationof the approval of a bill from the presiding officers of Congress. An enrolled bill is conclusive upon the Judiciary.The court therefore declined to look into the petitioners'charges. Both the enrolled bill and the legislative journalscertify that the measure was duly enacted. The court isbound by such official assurances from a coordinatedepartment of the government.3. Yes, the clause denies the Judiciary the equal protectionof the laws guaranteed for all persons or things similarlysituated. The distinction made by the law is superficial. It isnot based on substantial distinctions that make realdifferences between the Judiciary and the grantees of thefranking privilege (Pres, VP, Senators etc.). If the problemof the respondents is the loss of revenues from the frankingprivilege, the remedy, it seems to us, is to withdraw italtogether from all agencies of government. The problem isnot solved by retaining it for some and withdrawing it fromothers, especially where there is no substantial distinctionbetween those favored, which may or may not need it at all,and the Judiciary, which definitely needs it. AQUINO.BANGI.CAEG.DE GUZMAN.EBORA.GAVINO.GOZOS.HERNANDEZ.HERRERA.HIZON.ISIDR O.LAGRAMADA.LASALA.MAGRATA.MAGPANTAY.MALAMUG.MIOLE.PABLO.PACETE.POSTRADO.R AMOS.TOLENTINO.VILLANO.VILLANUEVA.YAP.YU 2010-2011
Inc. orders. use of bridges or otherwise.executive orders. Ormoc City passed a bill which read: ³There shall be paid to the City Treasurer on any and all productions of centrifugal sugar milled at the Ormoc Sugar Company Incorporated. The Corporation may continue the frankingprivilege under Circular No. the imposition actually amounts to a tax on the export of centrifugal sugar produced at Ormoc Sugar Company. Republic Acts Numbered 69. HELD: The SC held in favor of Ormoc Sugar. 265.´ And that the ordinance is violative to equal protection as it singled out Ormoc Sugar As being liable for such tax impost for no other sugar mill is found in the city. or out of the same. 2087and 5059. the act of Ormoc City is still violative of equal protection.All franking privileges authorized by law are herebyrepealed. The ordinance is discriminatory for it taxes only centrifugal sugar produced and exported by the Ormoc Sugar Company. it is true.-----------------------* "An Act Creating the Philippine Postal Corporation. 180. shall be void. Ormoc Sugar Company. 1414.POLITICAL LAW REVIEW Therefore. Sec 35 of RA 7345 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The taxing ordinance should not be singular . vs Ormoc City et al ³Equal Protection´ In 1964. 1977 andthat of the Vice President. decrees. For production of sugar alone is not taxable.´ Though referred to as a ³production tax´. under such arrangements andconditions as may obviate abuse or unauthorized usethereof Ormoc Sugar Company Inc. Repealing Clause . Ormoc Sugar paid the tax (P7.Providing for Regulation of the Industry and for OtherPurposes Connected Therewith. At the time of the taxing ordinance¶s enactment."** Sec. should be in terms applicable to future conditions as well.Defining its Powers. instructions. and any attempt to impose an import or export tax upon such goods in the guise of an unreasonable charge for wharfage. Inc. was the only sugar central in the city of Ormoc. and none other. the only time the tax applies is when the sugar produced is exported. ² All acts. 35. except those provided for under CommonwealthAct No. Inc.087. ISSUE: Whether or not there has been a violation of equal protection. 35 dated October 24. Functions and Responsibilities. in Ormoc City a municipal tax equivalent to one per centum (1%) per export sale to the United States of America and other foreign countries. The SC noted that even if Sec 2287 of the RAC had already been repealed by a latter statute (Sec 2 RA 2264) which effectively authorized LGUs to tax goods and merchandise carried in and out of their turf. upon goods and merchandise carried into the municipality. the classification. rules and regulations or partsthereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act arerepealed or modified accordingly. Still.50) in protest averring that the same is violative of Sec 2287 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides: ³It shall not be in the power of the municipal council to impose a tax in any form whatever. to be reasonable..
of the same class as plaintiff. Lao Ichong vs Jaime Hernandez 22112010 Excellent . As it is now.and exclusive as to exclude any subsequently established sugar central. he argued that he should be allowed to attend the legislative sessions and committee hearings. as the entity to be levied upon. Confinement of a congressman charged with a crime punishable by more than 6 years has constitutional foundations. Election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. even if later a similar company is set up. 2010 324 SCRA 689 FACTS: While his appeal from a conviction of rape is pending. When he was elected into office. a member of the House of Rep is privileged from arrest only if offense is punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment. it cannot be subject to the tax because the ordinance expressly points only to Ormoc Sugar Company. the accused. from the coverage of the tax. the accused would be virtually made a free man. Jalosjos November 10. Since he was reelected to his position. Under Section II. Case Digest on People v. because his confinement was depriving his constituents of their voice in Congress. a Congressman was confined at the national penitentiary. HELD: Election to high government office does free accused from the common restraints of general law. If allowed to attend the congressional sessions. Inc. Article VI of the Constitution. the voters were aware of his limitations on his freedom of action. Congress can continue to function even without all its members being present.
May 3. even if it would be assumed that a treaty would be in conflict with a statute then the statute must be upheld because it represented an exercise of the police power which.R. HELD: Yes. Ichong can no longer assert his right to operate his market stalls in the Pasay city market. . violates the equal protection clause (pacta sund servanda). Hence. David vs. under like circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities enforced´. that the equal protection clause ³is not infringed by legislation which applies only to those persons falling within a specified class. if it applies alike to all persons within such class. and. 171396. 2006 y y y "Take Care" Power of the President Powers of the Chief Executive The power to promulgate decrees belongs to the Legislature FACTS: These 7 consolidated petitions question the validity of PP 1017 (declaring a state of national emergency) and General Order No. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo G. a law may supersede a treaty or a generally accepted principle. President Arroyo issued PP 1021. While the cases are pending. and reasonable grounds exist for making a distinction between those who fall within such class and those who do not. there is no conflict at all between the raised generally accepted principle and with RA 1180. In this case.´ For the sake of argument. No. being inherent could not be bargained away or surrendered through the medium of a treaty. The equal protection of the law clause ³does not demand absolute equality amongst residents. Prof. it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike. according to him. Until in June 1954 when Congress passed the RA 1180 or the Retail Trade Nationalization Act the purpose of which is to reserve to Filipinos the right to engage in the retail business. 5 issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.Treaties May Be Superseded by Municipal Laws in the Exercise of Police Power Lao Ichong is a Chinese businessman who entered the country to take advantage of business opportunities herein abound (then) ± particularly in the retail business. declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to exist. He said that as a Chinese businessman engaged in the business here in the country who helps in the income generation of the country he should be given equal opportunity. Ichong then petitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground that it contravened several treaties concluded by the RP which. ISSUE: Whether or not a law may invalidate or supersede treaties or generally accepted principles. For some time he and his fellow Chinese businessmen enjoyed a ³monopoly´ in the local market in Pasay. Randolf S.
O. in effect. he will. lifting PP 1017. 17. neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify President Arroyo¶s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.O. But can President Arroyo enforce obedience to all decrees and laws through the military? As this Court stated earlier.´ As the Executive in whom the executive power is vested. Before assuming office. Presidential Decrees are laws which are of the same category and binding force as statutes because they were issued by the President in the exercise of his legislative power during the period of Martial Law under the 1973 Constitution. President Arroyo has no authority to enact decrees. whether or not PP 1017 and G. VI categorically states that ³the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. among others. She cannot issue decrees similar to those issued by Former President Marcos under PP 1081. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Art. including the Philippine National Police under the Department of Interior and Local Government. ³execute its laws. may employ the powers attached to his office as the Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces of the country. orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction. 2. based on Sec.´ To be sure.thereby. The specific portion of PP 1017 questioned is the enabling clause: ³to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees.O. 1. With respect to ³laws.´ In the exercise of such function. 5 arrogated upon the President the power to enact laws and decrees If so. It follows that these decrees are void and. No. cannot be enforced. bureaus and offices. Sec. No.´ Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate ³decrees. Art. 292. the President. VII: ³The President shall have control of all the executive departments.´ Is it within the domain of President Arroyo to promulgate ³decrees´? The President is granted an Ordinance Power under Chap.´ she cannot call the military to . 5 are unconstitutional HELD: ³Take-Care´ Power This refers to the power of the President to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. President Arroyo¶s ordinance power is limited to those issuances mentioned in the foregoing provision. He sees to it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his department. Book III of E. the primary function of the President is to enforce the laws as well as to formulate policies to be embodied in existing laws. he is required to take an oath or affirmation to the effect that as President of the Philippines. therefore. if needed. ISSUE: y y Whether or not PP 1017 and G.
In the present case. directed to any peace officer. documents. property or plant. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. Chief of Staff Facts: On 7 December 1982. laws on obligations and contracts and the like. as wellas numerous papers.enforce or implement certain laws.The prayer of preliminary prohibitory injunction wasrendered moot and academic when. or any other person having only atemporary right. Diokno. petitioners do not claim to be the owners of the land and/or buildingon which themachineries were placed.and to enjoin the Judge Advocate General of the AFP. receptacles. to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence. Road 3. et. from usingthe articles seized as evidence in criminal case. to search the . business addresses of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "WeForum" newspapers. judges) issued a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners &/ or the corporations of w/c they were officers. the Solicitor General manifested that said articleswould not be useduntil final resolution of the legality of the seizure of said articles. Burgos vs. "machinery.al. were searched. She can only order the military. equipment. v.on 7 July 1983. usufructuary. andoffice and printing machines. it was said that machinery which is movable by naturebecomesimmobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement. such as customs laws. Judge Ernani Cruz-Paño.issued 2search warrants where the premises at 19. butnot so when placed bya tenant. A petition for certiorari.In Davao Sawmill Co. while in fact bolted to theground. publisher-editor of the "We Forum"newspaper. under PP 1017.instruments orimplements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried onin a building or on a piece of land and which tend directlyto meet the needs of the said industry orworks" are considered immovable property. Issue: Whether or not the seized documents are considered real property and were seizedunder disputedwarrants? Held: Under Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. and784 Units C & D. Executive Judge of the then CFI Rizal.RMS Building. remain movableproperty susceptible to seizure under a search warrant Stonehill v. Project 6. Quezon City.paraphernalia. Castillo. several judges (resp. respectively. unless such person actedas the agent of the owner. Quezon Avenue. The machineries.were seized. prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory andprohibitoryinjunction was filed after 6 months following the raid to question the validity of said search warrants. Jr. prosecutors). 20 SCRA 383 (1967) F: Upon application of the officers of the govt (resp. the cityfiscal of Quezon City. publication and distribution of thesaid newspapers. Quezon City. books and other written literature allegedto be in thepossession and control of Jose Burgos. laws governing family and property relations.
but the injunction was maintained as regards those found & seized in the residences of petitioners. ISSUE: W/N an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Sec. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations. (3) If the answer in no. TCC. warehouses. Petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and the seizure made in pursuance thereof bec. Pintor and Montebon offered to withdraw the complaint for direct assault they filed against Laconico after demanding P8. Pintor was subsequently arrested in an entrapment operation upon receipt of the money. . NIRC and the RPC. 2 is no. None of these requirements has been complied w/. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without complainant''s consent. or committed specific omissions. The writ was partially lifted or dissolved. w/n said documents. separate and distinct from the personality of petitioners. It was stated that the natural and juridical persons has committed a violation of CB laws. said corporations have their respective personalities. General search warrants are outlawed bec. IAC. w/n the search warrants in question and the searches and seizures made under the authority thereof are valid. they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims. Since Atty. mandamus & injunction. 145 SCRA 112 (1986) F: Complainant Atty. and things seized from the officers of the corporations.shvoong. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be avalied of by 3rd parties. caprice or passion of peace officers. III. Gaanan through a telephone extension as requested by Laconico so as to personally hear the proposed conditions for the settlement. thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights-.perons named and/ or the premises of their offices.com/law-and-politics/1767291-case-digest-stonehill-diokno20/#ixzz1SqnG57JS Gaanan v.that the things to be se Source: http://www. stolen or embezelled or the fruits of the offense. papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners. NIRC & RPC. and to seize several personal prop. Atty. insofar as the papers. whatever their nature. The averments thereof w/ respect to the offense committed were abstract. and/ or residences. HELD: (1) No." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense" as violation of CB Laws. action for certiorari. & (b) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. Sec. This demand was heard by Atty. documents. as the "subject of the offense. (2) No. (2) In connection w/ those found & seized in the residences of petitioners. Tariff and Customs Laws (TCC)." Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null & void. prohibition. 1 of RA 4200 such that iuts use to overhear a private conversation would constitute an unlawful interception of communication between 2 parties using a telephone line. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of a probable cause.Wiretapping Act (RA 4200). w/n petitioners have cause of action to assail the validity of the contested warrants. As a consequence. Two points must be stressed in connection w/ Art. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. ISSUES: (1) With respect to those found & seized in the offices of the corporations. 2 of the Consti: (a) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth therein.000 from him. No specific offense had been alleged in said applications. complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti. said petitioners filed w/ the SC this orig. violating a given provision of our criminal laws.
they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping. The remedy of the losing litigant is to appeal to the proper court. in order to be punishable must stricly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA 4200 or others of similar nature. Thus in the case of doubt as in this case. COURT OF APPEALS and LEONILA VDA. through punishment. users. No. J. 1999 DOMINGO CELENDRO. The tel. This section refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because. conversation. situated in Barrio Kapinisan. . intercepting. 725 PLS. an awardee of Lot No. Furthermore. or other devices enumerated in Sec. vs. is included in the phrase "device or arrangement" the penal statute must be construed as not including an extension tel. dictagraph. extension in this case was not installed for that purpose.HELD: NO An extension tel. petitioner. PANGANIBAN.com/law-and-politics/1767289-case-digest-gaanan-iac-145/#ixzz1SqnVmo79 G. 131099 July 20. on WON an extension tel. the mere act of listening . cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. On the basis of a Homestead Patent No. by their very nature. let alone final decisions. respondents. A perusal of the Senate Congressional Record shows that our lawmakers intended to discourage. Source: http://www.7594 hectares. Consequently. 1 of the law as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. DE GUEVARRA.: An administrative agency has no authority to review the decisions. blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the tel. the undisputed facts of the case are as follows: [Private respondent] is the surviving spouse of the late Florencio Guevarra. not to file a petition before a quasi-judicial body. it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused.R.shvoong. Lanao del Sur. which contains an area of 7. or recording a tel. of courts. persons suchj as government authorities or representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate. The Facts As summarized by the Court of Appeals. Municipality of Wao.
Until finally. 11 WHEREFORE.1âwphi1.1âwp . who had been paying taxes due thereon until he died and was succeeded by herein [private respondents].nêt In 1963. 1992 [private respondent] wrote a formal demand to vacate the property and restore possession to the [private respondent]. but due to the latter's request for extension. a case for unlawful detainer was commenced by petitioner before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Wao. [private respondent] started to demand [petitioner's] eviction. After the death of [private respondent's] husband in 1975. who occupied and tilled two (2) hectares of [private respondent's] property through the latter's tolerance. with the express condition that if and when that portion of the land should be needed by [private respondent]. for the consideration of this Court. the latter needed only to demand . rollo) on the ground that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and that the subject lot [was] no longer part of the resettlement area in view of the issuance by the government of title. its return. Issues Petitioner submits. this lone assignment of error: The sole legal issue is whether or not the civil courts (Municipal Court and Regional Trial Court) or the Court of Agrarian Relations or the DAR Adjudication Board ha[ve] jurisdiction over the subject matter. [petitioner] was allowed to stay in said property and till the same. PAF-136 was issued to [private respondent's] late husband. 50. 13-18. Original Certificate of Title No. Costs against petitioner. 50. Lanao del Sur against [petitioner] docketed therein as Civil Case No. During the pendency of said Civil Case No. [private respondent] filed [in the] MCTC a "Motion for Referral" of subject dispute to the DAR agency. which motion was denied (Annex "A". . pp. petition. [petitioner] arrived in Wao. the petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. When said demand remained unheeded. . on March 15.01418. Lanao del Sur coming from Bukidnon Settlement Project.
It appreciates the nobility its cause. 32007. deficiency expanded withholding taxes on rentals and professional fees and deficiency withholding tax on wages. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 16.01 including surcharge and interest. 1995 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In deliberating on this petition. 1985. 1995 and February 29. and P44. It needs laws that can facilitate. non-profit institution. cannot bestow upon the Court the power to change or amend the law. 1984.The Case This is the main question raised before us in this petition for review on certiorari challenging two    Resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals on September 28. the petition is GRANTED. private respondent earned. it would be overspilling its role and invading the realm of legislation.259. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals dated September 28. Private Respondent YMCA is a non-stock. . 1995 is REINSTATED. which conducts various programs and activities that are beneficial to the public. it cannot rule on the wisdom or propriety of legislation. filed a letter dated October 8. 1996 are hereby dated February 16. The Facts The Facts are undisputed.829. in the total amount of P415. Indeed.615. the Court expresses its sympathy with private respondent. some of the member of the Court may even believe in the wisdom and prudence of granting more tax exemptions to private respondent. Both Resolutions affirmed the Decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) allowing the YMCA to claim tax exemption on the latter¶s income from the lease of its real property. In reply. That prerogative belongs to the political departments of government. On July 2. But the Court regrets that. Otherwise. the Court¶s power and function are limited merely to applying the law fairly and objectively. given its limited constitutional authority. and not frustrate. the CIR denied the claims of YMCA. No pronouncement as to costs. WHEREFORE. In 1980. It cannot change the law or bend it to suit its sympathies and appreciations. for deficiency income tax. insofar as it ruled that the income tax. 1995 and February 29. Private respondent formally protested the assessment and. We concede that private respondent deserves the help and the encouragement of the government. 1996 in CAGR SP No.00 from parking fees collected from non-members. however well-meaning and sincere. pursuant to its religious. like restaurants and canteen operators. educational and charitable objectives. among others. especially the young people. SO ORDERED. However.80 from leasing out a portion of its premises to small shop owners. an income of P676. But such belief. the commissioner of internal revenue (CIR) issued an assessment to private respondent. its humanitarian tasks. as a supplement to its basic protest.
the trial court declared the documents and papers to be properties of private respondent. The writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued was made final and petitioner Cecilia Zulueta and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined from ³using or submitting/admitting as evidence´ the documents and papers in question. diaries. For this reason it is contended that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the trial court instead of dismissing private respondent¶s complaint. Alfredo Martin. Dr. The case against Atty.000. the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. P5. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against petitioner. There is no question that the documents and papers in question belong to private respondent.00. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband.. Branch X. Dr. Hence this petition. Martin and to pay him P5. On March 26. Jr. ordered petitioner to return them to private respondent and enjoined her from using them in evidence. Martin¶s passport. did not constitute malpractice or gross misconduct. without his knowledge and consent. Alfonso Felix. Petitioner¶s contention has no merit. DECISION MENDOZA. Felix. as nominal damages. private respondent.CECILIA ZULUETA. For that reason. Jr. therefore. Jr. Dr.000. the herein petitioner. Among other things. Alfonso Felix. 1 petitioner¶s only ground is that in Alfredo Martin v.: This is a petition to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. Martin and his alleged paramours. Jr.. this Court took note of the following defense of Atty. Felix. cancelled checks. The facts are as follows: Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. charged that in using the documents in evidence. this Court ruled that the documents and papers (marked as Annexes A-i to J-7 of respondent¶s comment in that case) were admissible in evidence and.00. affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila (Branch X) which ordered petitioner to return documents and papers taken by her from private respondent¶s clinic without the latter¶s knowledge and consent. forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband¶s clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. a driver and private respondent¶s secretary. which. Dr. Felix. petitioner. Jr. and in the presence of her mother. committed malpractice or gross misconduct because of the injunctive order of the trial court. In appealing from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the trial court¶s decision. J. Atty. vs. declaring him ³the capital/exclusive owner of the properties described in paragraph 3 of plaintiff¶s Complaint or those further described in the Motion to Return and Suppress´ and ordering Cecilia Zulueta and any person acting in her behalf to immediately return the properties to Dr. rendered judgment for private respondent. Jr. as complainant in that case. a doctor of medicine. COURT OF APPEALS and ALFREDO MARTIN. Dr. was for disbarment. and to pay the costs of the suit. which it found to be ³impressed with merit: . as moral damages and attorney¶s fees. The case was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. 1982. after trial. Felix.. respondents. On appeal. and photographs. their use by petitioner¶s attorney. petitioner entered the clinic of her husband. Alfredo Martin. and that they were taken by his wife. In dismissing the complaint against Atty. greetings cards. Alfredo Martin.
ISSUE: W/N Tape recordings are admissible as evidence. save for specified exceptions. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire Tapping andOther Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication. . They and any other v ariantt h e r e o f c a n b e a d m i t t e d i n e v i d e n c e f o r c e r t a i n p u r p o s e s . And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other. the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.HELD: No. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. d e p e n d i n g o n h o w t h e y a r e presented and off ered and on how the trial judge utilizes them in the interest of truth andfairness and the even handed administration of justice. respondent s trial court and Court of Appeals f ailed to consider the af ore-quoted provisions of the law in admitting in evidence the cassette tapes in question. Absenta clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of thesame. Act No. on grounds of lack of marriagelicense and/or psychological incapacity of the petitioner. the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Ortanez f iled City a complaint f or annulment of marriagewith damages against petitioner Teresita Salcedo-Ortanez. WHEREFORE. SALCEDO-ORTANEZ V CAGR NO 110662 FACTS: Respondent Raf ael S.Among the exhibits off ered by priv ate respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of alleged telephone conversations between petitioner and unidentified persons. Act No. quite another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. Rep.Clearly. and for other purposes" expresslymakes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. CA dismissedthe petition stating tape recordings are not inadmissible per se. 4200.The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged.6 Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage.7 But one thing is freedom of communication.
viz: (1)it is a usurpation of the power of Congress to legislate. 308 Ruling:YE S Rationale: As is usual in constitutional litigation. On April 8. CESAR SARINO. No.O.O. CIELITO HABITO. TOMAS P. 1997. AFRICA. 1997. OPLEv. 308 is a usurpation of legislative power. No.4 As taxpayer and member of the Government Service . petitioner is possessed of the requisite standing to bring suit raising the issue that the issuance of A. then Executive Secretary Ruben Torres and the heads of the government agencies. TORRES. No.O. Ople to prevent the shrinking of the rightto privacy. 1997. are charged with the implementation of A. RENATO VALENCIA. A. respondents raise the threshold issues relating to the standing to sue of thepetitioner and the justiciability of the case at bar. petitioner filed the instant petition against respondents. CARMENCITA REODICA.O. Justice Brandeis considered as "the most comprehensive of rights and the rightmost valued by civilized men. These submissions do not deserve our sympathetic ear. HECTOR VILLANUEVA. More specifically. ALEXANDER AGUIRRE. ROBERT BARBERS. As a Senator. respondents aver that petitioner has no legalinterest to uphold and that the implementing rules of A. and (2)it impermissibly intrudes on our citizenry's protected zone of privacy.BLAS F. 308 entitled"Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System" on two important constitutional grounds. No. 1997 and January 23.O. we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining its implementation. Issue: WON the petitioner has the stand to assail the validity of A. 308 have yet to be promulgated. 308 was published in four newspapers of general circulation on January 22. 308. which the revered Mr. We grant the petition for the rights sought to be vindicated by the petitioner need stronger barriers against further erosion. who as members of the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee. On January 24. HEAD OF THE NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER and CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT Facts: The petition at bar is a commendable effort on the part of Senator Blas F. No." Petitioner Ople prays that we invalidate Administrative Order No. Petitioner Ople is a distinguished member of our Senate. RUBEN D.
et al. DESIERTO. the respondents themselves have started the implementation of A. petitioner can also impugn the legality of the misalignment of public funds and the misuse of GSIS funds to implement A. 308 without waiting for the rules. 1998. As early as January 19. No. 308.Insurance System (GSIS). the following powers. 308 and we need not wait for the formality of the rules to pass judgment on its constitutionality.O.O. The ripeness for adjudication of the Petition at bar is not affected by the fact that the implementing rules of A. Desierto dated April 29. 308 have yet to be promulgated. Petitioner Ople assails A. among others.O. The accounts to be inspected were involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled. HON. 135882 June 27. al. ANIANO A. G. et. LOURDES T. functions and duties of the Ombudsman . The Order was grounded on Section 15 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) which provides. the dissenters insistence that we tighten the rule on standing is not a commendable stance as its result would be to throttle an important constitutional principle and a fundamental right. No. 2001 En banc FACTS: In May 1998. to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines (UBP) Julia Vargas Branch where petitioner was the branch manager. for violation of RA 3019 Sec. 1997. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI. Amado Lagdameo. petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Aniano A. All signals from the respondents show their unswerving will to implement A. Moreover. No. Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) v. In this light. No. Respondent Executive Secretary Torres has publicly announced that representatives from the GSIS and the SSS have completed the guidelines for the national identification system. 308 as invalid per se and as infirmed on its face.O. No.O. respondent Social Security System (SSS) caused the publication of a notice to bid for the manufacture of the National Identification (ID) card. No. MARQUEZ vs. His action is not premature for the rules yet to be promulgated cannot cure its fatal defects.R.
purposely engaged in . she wanted to be clarified as to how she would comply with the orders without her breaking any law. Gancayco Ombudsman is ordered to cease and desist from requiring Union Bank Manager Lourdes T. HELD: An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (RA 1405) would reveal the following exceptions: 1. 1998. BAYAN V. Whether or not the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (RA 1405). Petitioner likewise reiterated that she had no intention to disobey the orders of the Ombudsman. and similar orders. No. R. ISSUES: 1. Their right ascitiz ens to engage in peaceful assembly and exercise the right of petition. petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for contempt. 2005 Held: Petitioners¶ standing cannot be seriously challenged. in cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case of PNB vs. in fact. petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an opposition to the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground that the filing thereof was premature due to the petition pending in the lower court. 1998. particularly RA 1405. 4. 880 which requires a permit for all who would publicly assemble in the nation¶s streets and parks. 2.On August 21. They have. 1998. or anyone in her place to comply with the order dated October 14. Sec. No. 880 volated their rights as organizations and individuals when the rally they participated in on October 6. On August 31. Where the depositor consents in writing. 2. is directly affected by B. ERMITA (DONE) Issue: Whether or not the implementation of B. 3. A. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials. Marquez.P. as guaranteed by the Constitution. No. Impeachment case. 5.P. Deposit is subject of litigation. However. Whether or not Marquez may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure to produce the documents requested by the Ombudsman. 3019. 8.
place and manner of the assemblies. Neither are the words "opinion. without which all the other rights would be meaningless and unprotected Rights to peaceful assembly to petition the government for a redress of grievances and. no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law. The words "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" come from the wording of the Constitution. 4. The reference to "lawful cause" does not make it content-based because assemblies really have to be for lawful causes. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional. The only requirement will be written . public convenience. the permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to public order. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time. to organize or form associations for purposes not contrary to law. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. otherwise they would not be "peaceable" and entitled to protection. III Section 4 of Article III of the Constitution Sec. therefore.all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks. it as a "content-neutral" regulation of the time. since they can refer to any subject. "maximum tolerance" is for the benefit of rallyists. not the government. 880.P. it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government forredress of grievances The first point to mark is that the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances is." "protesting" and "influencing" in the definition of public assembly content based. For these rights constitute the very basis of a functional democratic polity.P. or of thepress. for that matter. public safety. it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time. of expression. place. public morals or public health the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.P. Finally. Furthermore. No. No. and Section 3 of Article XIII. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally "permits" is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound "clear and present danger" standard. and of the press. 880 thus readily shows that it refers toall kinds of public assemblies22 that would use public places. place and manner of assemblies. no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. These rights are guaranteed by no less than the Constitution. of expression. On the other hand. together with freedom of speech. particularly Sections 4 and 8 of the Bill of Rights. Respondents. so its use cannot be avoided. onthe other hand. after that period. 4 Art.P. as well as to engage in peaceful concerted activities. that B. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. No. Far from being insidious.public assemblies without the required permits to press their claim that no such permitcan be validly required without violating the Constitutional guarantee. No. maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit of all rallyists and is independent of the content of the expressions in the rally. B. have challenged such action as contrary to law and dispersed the publicassemblies held without the permit. and manner of holding public assemblies A fair and impartial reading of B. In this Decision. If. Sec. a right that enjoys primacy in the realm of constitutional protection. the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B. Section 2(5) of Article IX. Jurisprudence abounds with hallowed pronouncements defending and promoting the people¶s exercise of these rights It is very clear.
1998. Direct resort to this Court through a special civil action for certiorari is therefore justified. its implications on the people's fundamental freedom of expression transcend the past election. we have resolved to settle. GR 133486. 98-1419 . 1998 elections. The holding of periodic elections is a basic feature of our democratic government. The instant Petition assails a Resolution issued by the Comelec en banc on April 21. or rules. because the May 11. not only is time of the essence.notices to the police and the mayor¶s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities. To set aside the resolution of the issue now will only postpone a task that could well crop up again in future elections. By its very nature.9 when the decision or resolution sought to be set aside is a nullity. Cruz Paño. whether they likewise protect the holding of exit polls and the dissemination of data derived therefrom. This Court. While the assailed Resolution referred specifically to the May 11. Petitioner asserts that respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction when it approved the issuance of a restraining order enjoining the petitioner or any other group from conducting exit polls during the May 11 elections. has ruled in the past that this procedural requirement may be glossed over to prevent a miscarriage of justice. It has the symbolic function of educating bench and bar on the extent of protection given by constitutional guarantees.10 or when the need for relief is extremely urgent and certiorari is the only adequate and speedy remedy available. however. The solicitor general contends that the petition is moot and academic. Besides. there was hardly enough opportunity to move for a reconsideration and to obtain a swift resolution in time or the May 11. 1998. ISSUE: Is the ³moot and academic´ principle a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case? RULING: The issue is not totally moot. . Jan 28. exit polling is tied up with elections. 1998 election has already been held and done with. ABS. doctrines. only twenty (20) days before the election itself. In any event. 1998 election.CBN vs. the Court had occasion to reiterate that it "also has the duty to formulate guiding and controlling constitutional principles. COMELEC. Under the circumstances. Moreover. the petitioner got hold of a copy thereof only on May 4."7 Since the fundamental freedoms of speech and of the press are being invoked here.8 when the issue involves the principle of social justice or the protection of labor. 2000¼ This is a petition for certiorari assailing COMELEC Resolution No. precepts. for the guidance of posterity. the Petition involves transcendental constitutional issues. in Salonga v.
oppositors. valid and constitutional? Ruling: No. sent a letter requesting this Court to allow live media coverage of the anticipated trial of the .M. The Sandiganbayan reels to start hearing the criminal charges against Mr. On 13 March 2001. ESTRADA. CESAR SARINO. ESTRADA. (2) it is a direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such suppression is only for a limited period. but be insufficient to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance of democratic institutions. 7 A. It has been held that "[mere] legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience may well support regulation directed at other personal activities.C. JOSEPH E. Petitioners argue that the restriction on the publication of election survey results constitutes a prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech without any clear and present danger to justify such restraint. petitioners. The Court held that Section (5)4 is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression.´ RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL OF IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. June 29. CASE NO.SWS vs Comelec Facts: Petitioner SWS and KPC states that it wishes to conduct an election survey throughout the period of the elections and release to the media the results of such survey as well as publish them directly. RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL OF IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF THE PLUNDER CASES AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT JOSEPH E. and (3) the governmental interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other than suppression of freedom of expression. Media seeks to cover the event via live television and live radio broadcast and endeavors this Court to allow it that kind of access to the proceedings. Joseph E. RICARDO ROMULO. ESTRADA and INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES. PONENTE: JUSTICE VITUG FACTS: The travails of a deposed President continue. Issue: Are the Comelec Resolutions prohibiting the holding of pre-polls and exit polls and the dissemination of their results through mass media. 01-4-03-S. vs. the Kapisanan ng mga BroadKaster ng Pilipinas (KBP). Estrada. KAPISANAN NG MGA BRODKASTER NG PILIPINAS. 2001 SECRETARY OF JUSTICE HERNANDO PEREZ. RENATO CAYETANO and ATTY. an association representing duly franchised and authorized television and radio networks throughout the country. No.
can best be recognized.shvoong. In the constitutional sense. · Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure forbids the taking of photographs during the progress of judicial proceedings or radio broadcasting of such proceedings from the courtroom. by Senator Renato Cayetano and Attorney Ricardo Romulo. in proceedings that are devoid of histrionics that might detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable facts free from improper influence. a courtroom should have enough facilities for a reasonable number of the public to observe the proceedings. still later. unbridled by running emotions or passions.8 and decreed by a judge with an unprejudiced mind. conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process. Cesar N. ISSUE: (1) Whether or not to grant the request for Radio-TV coverage of the trial of in the Sandiganbayan of the plunder cases against the former president Joseph E. it behooves all to make absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a just and dispassionate judgment." Public interest. HELD: The Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public information outweigh the fundamental rights of the accused along with the constitutional power of a court to control its proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. served and satisfied by allowing the live radio and television coverage of the concomitant court proceedings. sit in the available seats. or illperceived attempts on the part of the present dispensation. the Honorable Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez formally filed the instant petition. members of his family. should be evident bearing in mind the right of the public to vital information affecting the nation.3 submitting the following exegesis: "The foregoing criminal cases involve the previous acts of the former highest official of the land. it cannot be over emphasized that the prosecution thereof. Sarino in his letter of 05 April 2001 to the Chief Justice and. to railroad the instant criminal cases against the Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. be informed and made aware of. · With the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also the very life of an accused. RULING:DENIED. A public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly condemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of long ago. his cohorts and. the petition further averred. Source: http://www. more than anyone else. or a matter over which the entire citizenry has the right to know.plunder and other criminal cases filed against former President Joseph E. "There is no gainsaying that the constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern. A trial of any kind or in any court is a matter of serious importance to all concerned and should not be treated as a means of entertainment. To so treat it DEPRIVES THE COURT OF THE DIGNITY which pertains to it and departs from the orderly and serious quest for truth for which our judicial proceedings are formulated. Estrada before the Sandiganbayan in order "to assure the public of full transparency in the proceedings of an unprecedented case in our history. the live radio and television coverage of the proceedings will also serve the dual purpose of ensuring the desired transparency in the administration of justice in order to disabuse the minds of the supporters of the past regime of any and all unfounded notions. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial. Estrada. not too small as to render the openness negligible and not too large as to distract the trial participants from their proper functions. therefore. who shall then be totally free to report what they have observed during the proceedings. · An accused has a RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL BUT IT IS A RIGHT THAT BELONGS TO HIM. definitely involves a matter of public concern and interest. it only implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to come. a verdict that would come only after the presentation of credible evidence testified to by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure. where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. whether open or subtle.com/law-and-politics/1752847-case-digest-secretary-justicevs/#ixzz1SqxuceBv . On 17 April 2001. as in the instant cases. "Moreover." The request was seconded by Mr.
Contempt of ocurt is defiance of the authority. where he called the Supreme Court stupid and "sangkatutak na mga bobo justices of the Philippine Supreme Court".In Re: Column of Ramon Tulfo Column of Ramon Tulfo Facts:In Oct. because at the end of his article. Being emotional is no excuse for being insulting. there was not contempts. then it is clearly an obstruction of justice. . and "bobo" was just quoted from other attorneys. Tulfo said. the article does not pose any clear and present danger to the Supreme court. At the time Tulfo wrote the article. Issue:Wheter or not Tulfo is in contempt Held:Yes. and again on Oct. 1989. he said he was not sorry for having written the articles. those whose object is to bring courts to discredit. b. Tulfo's article constituted both. Tulfo was required to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. justice and dignity of the courts. Power to punish is inherent as it is essential for self-preservation. those whose object is to affect the decision in a pending case. watch out!" Also. 16. 3. Lastly. It brings disrepute to the court. "So you bobo justices. There are two kinds of publications which can be punished for contempt: a. Tulfo wrote an article in his column in PDI 'On Target' stating that the Supreme Court rendered an idiotic decision in legalizing checkpoints. and the Supreme Court was still acting on an MR filed from the CA. Quoting is not an excuse also. Nothing constructive can be gained from them. but if its object is only to degrade and ridicule. 13. and since the case had been decided and terminated. 1. Tulfo said that he was just reacting emotionally because he had been a victim of harassmen in the checkpoints. 2. and "idiotic" meant illogical and unwise. It should have been okay to criticize if respectful language was used. 1989. Tulfo is found in contempt of court and is gravely censured. the checkpoints case had not yet been decided upon.
contends that the denial of the permit is a violation of the constitutional right of the freedom of speech and expression. SANIDAD . newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER. permit may be issued.L. the Philippines has to comply with such generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. sought for a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally on October 26. Sanidad vs Comelec . The objective of the rally was to peacefully protest the removal of all foreign military bases and to present a petition containing such to a representative of the Embassy so it may be delivered to the United States Ambassador. This petition was to initially compel the Mayor of the City of Manila to make a decision on the application for a permit but it was discovered that a denial has already been sent through mail. a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras COMELEC respondent. 65366 October 25.petitioner. Reyes. Between the two generally accepted principles of diplomatic relations and human rights. The right of the freedom of expression and peaceful assembly is highly ranked in the scheme of constitutional values. 1983 Facts Retired Justice Jose B.B. in behalf of the Anti-Bases Coalition. Issue Whether or not the Anti-Bases Coalition should be allowed to hold a peaceful protest rally in front of the US Embassy Ruling The Supreme Court ruled to allow the rally in front of the US Embassy to protect the exercise of the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly and on the ground that there was no showing of the existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that could justify the denial of the permit. on the other hand. Reyes vs Bagatsing GR No. In the doctrine of incorporation.J. It also included a provision that if it be held somewhere else.L. the former takes higher ground.A case Digest PABLITO V. 1983 starting from Luneta to the gates of the United States embassy. These rights are not only assured by our constitution but also provided for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The respondent mayor alleges that holding the rally in front of the US Embassy is a violation of the resolutions during the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations adopted in 1961 and of which the Philippines is a signatory. through its SolicitorGeneral . The petitioner.
Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason 3. 1989. FACTS: COMELEC Resolution No. Section 4 of the 1987 constitutionand Section 11 of RA 6646 -Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the Organic Act. which paved for a call of a plebescite fo its ratification (original schedule was reset from December 27. 1990. Allegations of Sanidad: 1. 6766 (An Act Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last October 23. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. 2167 is constitutionalor not. TRO made permanent due to the follwing reasons: 1. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the province) HELD: Petiton is GRANTED.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press 2. It has no statutory basis 2.Type ISSUE: Whether of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional . 2167 was promulgated due to the enacted RA No.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal provsions in case of violation Responses of COMELEC -Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press but only a valid implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C.Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. . 1989 to January 30.
rejecting the government's argument that it could be viewed as more akin to a broadcast medium.. the justices declared that "in order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech. Ginsburg.S. the Court explained that "the many ambiguities concerning the scope of [the CDA's] coverage render it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment. joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist. When opened the manager and his mother complained to the police. seven justices found the disputed provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Examining the issue of whether the rights of adults should be compromised in order to protect children.Reno v. Kennedy.S. 15 (1973) Author: Sam Biers Facts: Mr.. 115 (1989). "users seldom encounter such content accidentally. California. 1997.S.S." The Court determined that the World Wide Web is analogous to a library or a shopping mall. Supreme Court Finds Disputed Provisions of Communications Decency Act Unconstitutional On June 26. Scalia. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court. in the first Internet-related U. ACLU: U. Decision Highlights: y y y y The opinion was a ringing endorsement of the Internet as a "dramatic" and "unique" "marketplace of ideas. and was joined by Justices Breyer. The justices found that although sexually explicit material was "widely available" online.." In its First Amendment analysis.. Supreme Court case ever to be decided.that interest does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. 413 U." y y Miller v... 492 U.Sable Communications of Cal. the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. Miller sent five unsolicited advertising brochures through the mail addressed to a restaurant. concurring in the decision but dissenting in part. The brochures advertised four adult .[w]hile we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest in protecting children from harmful materials. Justice O'Connor filed a separate opinion." The Court found that the lower court in this case "was correct to conclude that the CDA effectively resembles the ban on 'dial-a-porn'" invalidated in an earlier decision -. Souter. Inc." and declared that the Act "unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages would be entitled to constitutional protection. v. and Thomas. FCC.
Then in Memoirs a new three part test for obscenity was created.S. etc. Const 1st Amend limitations on state powers do not vary from community to community. appeals to the prurient interest in sex. and then only after if a party continues to publish. . the prosecution had to prove a negative as an impossible BoP in criminal case. but limited to where the work. Appellate Dept Superior Ct Affirmed b/c statute was based on and reflected Memoir test. and taken as a whole. This standard is no longer the Const¶l standard. the material will be adjudged by its impact on an average person and not a sensitive person. DISSENT: J. Rule(s): 1st and 14th Amend Rationale: States have an legit interest in prohibiting the dissemination or exhibition of obscene material when the mode used has a significant danger of offending unwilling recipients or there¶s a risk of exposure to juveniles.book titles and an adult movie. taken as a whole. and a criminal prosecution at that point would not violate void for vagueness test. Problem with Memoir test: Required proof obscenity was utterly w/o social value. show. 2) material is patently offensive to current community standards. 1st must Define the standard used to i/d obscene material that a state may regulate w/o infringing on the 1st Amend through the 14th. Issue(s): Whether material. pictures and drawings of men and women engaged sexually were displayed. uniform national standard of what precisely appeals to the prurient interest or what is ³patently offensive. USSCt Vacated and Remanded. soliciting the sale of adult books and movies can be subjected to state regulation as a criminal offense? Holding: Yes. Under U. No state since Roth has been able to agree on a standard to determine what constitutes obscenity subject to state regulation. artistic. 1) dominant theme of prurient interest in sex. included in a mass-mailing program. Procedure: Jury convicted Miller of a misdemeanor distribution of obscenity charge. Some descriptive language. suspect material must first be condemned as obscene in a civil proceeding. political or scientific value. Roth . but this does not mean a fixed. does not have serious literary.Douglas. and 3) material is utterly without a redeeming social value. then a vague law has been made specific.´ If a jury applies the standard of an average person under the current community standards.the mailing obscene materials does not rec¶v 1st Amend protection. portrays sexual conduct specifically defined by state law in a patently offensive way.
Alberts ran a mail order business in Los Angeles. The U. Supreme Court decided to review both cases to determine whether the First Amendment protects obscenity. which is governed by the First Amendment. In a separate case.S. Although the First Amendment only mentions the federal government. Tom C. Harold Burton. Charles Evans Whittaker Justices Dissenting: Hugo Lafayette Black. Chief Lawyers for Petitioner: David von G. John Rogge Chief Lawyer for Respondent: Roger D. (writing for the Court). Fisher Justices for the Court: William J. 1957 Decision: Federal and state laws that prohibit the publication and sale of obscene material are constitutional. abridging [limiting] the freedom of speech. David S.Roth v. Alberts also sold material that dealt with the subject of sex. William O. He was convicted in federal court for violating a federal law that made it a crime to mail obscene material. This allowed Alberts to argue that his conviction under California's obscenity law violated the freedom of speech. Roth advertised his goods by mailing descriptive material to potential customers. Earl Warren. Samuel Roth ran a business in New York City. He published and sold books. state and local governments must obey it under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . Clark. John Marshall Harlan II Date of Decision: June 24. United States y y y y Print PDF Cite Share Petitioner: Samuel Roth Respondent: United States of America Petitioner's Claim: That publishing and selling obscene material is protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment says. Brennan. and photographs that dealt with the subject of 0sex. Roth and Alberts both took their cases to the U. Felix Frankfurter. Albrecht and O. Supreme Court.S. . Jr. Douglas." Roth was convicted under federal law. Alberts was convicted in a California state court of violating a state law that made it a crime to sell obscene material. . They said their convictions violated the freedom of speech. California. magazines. "Congress shall make no law . Significance: The Supreme Court officially declared that obscenity is not protected by the freedom of speech. It also defined obscenity for future trials.
If the belief clashes with law then theformer must yield. or that is in earthbeneath or that is in the water under the earth. It is not a religious symbol. Court said that they were notbeing drafted to attend university. Masbate refused to salutethe flag. Becauseof this they were expelled from the school in Sep 1955. They followed Exodus 20:4-5 'thou shalt notmake unto thee a graven image. If they chose not to obey thesalute regulation they merely lost the benefits of publiceducation. Thedetermination whether a ceremony is religious or not isleft to the courts not to any religious group. SecEd deniedpetition. They are Jehovah'sWitnesses. Hamilton vs Univ of California: Apellants were membersof Methodist Episcopal Church who believed that warand preparations for war are gainst God's wishes. It is the symbol ofRepublic of the Philippines. After the flag everyone is torecite the patriotic pledge (panatang makabayan). The anthem isalso secular. Requirement of participation of all pupilsin flag ceremony did not infringe due . University did notviolate due process when it required the mil service. Writ of preliminary injunction was petitionedand issued. They were not criminally prosecutedunder a penal sanction. Petitioners are willing to remain silent and stand duringflag ceremony. sing the anthem and recite the pledge. or duty to defendthe country. Petitioners thru counsel petitione SecEd that theirchildren be exempt from the law and just be allowed toremain silent and stand at attention. The pledge is judgedto be completely secular. or any likeness ofanything that is in heaven above. ISSUE: WON Dep Order 8 is unconstitutional HELD: Flag salute ceremony is secular and the dep order nondiscriminatory Therefore it is constitutional RATIONALE: The freedom of belief is limitless and boundless but it'sexercise is not. It does not even pledgeallegiance to the flag or to the Republic. What is the nature of the flag? Petitioners maintain thatit is an image but that is not so. It talks about patriotism. Petiotners salute the flag during boyscout activities. There was no compulsion involved in the enforcement ofthe flag salute. They didnot do so out of religious belief. SEC OF EDUC FACTS: RA 1265 is a law that makes a flag ceremonycompulsory for schools. The implementing rules(Department Order 8)says that the anthem must beplayed while the flag is raised.Saluting it is not therefore a religious ceremony. Petitioners children attending the BuenavistaCommunity School in Uson. military service. It also says that everyonemust salute the flag and no one is to do anything whilethe ceremony is being held. Theyconsider the flag to be an image in this context. Minersville School District vs Gobitis: two JehovahsWitness children were expelled from school for refusingto salute flag. Theydid not take required military service training which wasrequirement to graduate. Their objection then rests on the singingof anthem and recitation of pledge.GERONA V. Take it or leave it. It does not speakof resorting to force.
There are exemptions for cases of religiious belief like anunderstanding that anti-war religious believers will notbe made to fight but help war effort in other non-combatways. SecEd was not imposing a religious belief with the flagsalute. No costs \ . writ of preliminary injunction dissolved. This casewas decided after Barnette. Specialcircumstance of Barnette case was that it expelled thestudents although attendance in schools is mandatoryturnimg them all into truants headed for reformatories. Whenever a man enjoys the benefits of society andcommunity life he becomes a member and must give upsome of his rights for the general welfare just likeeverybody else. The practice of religion is subject toreasonable and non-discrimantory regulation by the state. supra. The right of practice religion freelydoesnot include liberty to expose child to ill health. the law requiring compulsory enrollmenthere in the Philippines is so riddled with exceptions andexemptions that there is no crisis if the children didn'tattend school. DISPOSITION: decision affirmed. Court said that state can limit control ofparent/guardian. SECRETARY of EDUCATION consti part 10: free exercise clause pamphlets. Statecarried out duty to supervise educational institutionsand teach civic duty. not thecourts. WestVirginia State Board of Education. constitutional.process. The trouble ofexempting thepetioners is that it would disrupt school discipline anddemoralize the greater student population. This court leans towards Gobitis decision.Fortunately. Petitioners do not question the right of the school toconduct the flag Salute ceremony but question theattempt to compel them. It was Merely enforcing a nondiscriminatoryregulation applicable to members of all religions. But that is for the legislature to decide. There is no penal sanction for failing toattend school. vs. Prince vs. Barnette:reversed the former decision at a divided court. Commonwealth of Massachusets: SarahPrince (Jehovahs Witness again)was convicted under theChild Labor law because her hiece distributed religious consti 2 all stars 2 GERONA vs.
Ruiz Case Digest Aglipay GR Facts: In May 1936. Gregorio Aglipay. requested Vicente Sotto. The court resolved that petition for a writ of prohibition is hereby denied. the case of the petitioner would fail to take in weight. in the fulfillment of what he considers to be a civic duty. Even if we were to assume that these officials made use of a poor judgment in issuing and selling the postage stamps in question still. organized by the Roman Catholic Church. Ruling: v. The petitioner. Mons. Issue: Whether Held the issuance of the postage stamps / was in violation of the Constitution.. the Director of Posts publicly announced having sent to the United States the designs of the postage for printing. In spite of the protest of the petitioner¶s attorney. Act No. Supreme Head of the Philippine Independent Church. The said stamps were actually issued and sold though thegreater part thereof remained unsold. Between the exercise of a poor judgment and the unconstitutionality of the step taken. Trial court rendered judgment ordering the Board to give petitioner the permit for their TV . Respondent contends the Board acted without jurisdiction and in grave abuse of discretion by requiring them to submit VTR tapes and x-rating them and suppression of freedom of expression. to denounce the matter to the President of the Philippines. with the approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications. a gap exists which is yet to be filled to justify the court insetting aside the official act assailed as coming within a constitutional inhibition. 45459. The further sale of the stamps was sought to be prevented by the petitioner. member of the Philippine Bar. 4052 grants the Director of Posts. Iglesia ni Cristo v CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996) F: This is a petition for review on the decision of the CA affirming action of respondent Board of Review For Moving Pictures and Television that x-rated the TV Program "Ang Iglesia ni Cristo" classifying it not for public viewing on grounds that they offend and constitute an attack against other religions which is expressly prohibited by law. Esq. without pronouncement as to costs.Aglipay v. discretion to misuse postage stamps with new designs. the Director of Posts announced in the dailies of Manila that he would order the issuance of postage stamps commemorating the celebration in the City of Manila of the 33rd International Eucharistic Congress. 13 Ruiz March 1937 A (64 case Phil digest 201) There has been no constitutional infraction in the case at bar.
It is only where it is unavoidably necessary to prevent an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the community that infringement of religious freedom may be justified. petitioner assails the jurisdiction of the Board over reviewing of their TV program and its grave abuse of discretion of its power to review if they are indeed vested with such. Such motion was granted. Bohol. A petition was filed against him on the basis of section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code providing that "in nocase shall there be elected or appointed to a municipal office ecclesiastics. or contractors for public works." The CFI dismissed the petition on the ground that the ineligibility has been impliedly repealed by section 23 of the 1971 Election Code. persons receiving salaries from provincial funds. . Issue: whether or not the Board has jurisdiction over the case at bar and whether or not it has acted with grave abuse of discretion. Pamil v Teleron 86 SCRA 413 (1978)02/14/2011 0 Comments F: In 1971. soldiers in active service. cannot be justified by hypothetical fears but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent evil. Margarito Gonzaga was elected mayor of Albuquerque. Respondent board cannot censor the speech of petitioner Iglesia ni Cristo simply because it attacks other religions. including religious speech. On the account of suppression of religious freedom. Prior restraint on speech. Thus the court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Board to review the petitioner¶s TV program while it reversed and set aside the decision of the lower court that sustained the act of respondent in x-rating the TV program of the petitioner. The decision of the lower court is a suppression of the petitioner¶s freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. the court ruled that any act that restrains speech is accompanied with presumption of invalidity. There is no showing whatsoever of the type of harm the tapes will bring about especially the gravity and imminence of the threatened harm.program while ordering petitioners to refrain from attacking and offending other religious sectors from their program. Held: The court affirmed the jurisdiction of the Board to review TV programs by virtue of the powers vested upon it by PD 1986. Fr. In their petition for review on certiorari. In their motion for reconsideration the petitioner prays for the deletion of the order of the court to make them subject to the requirement of submitting the VTR tapes of their programs for review prior to showing on television. The burden lies upon the Board to overthrow this presumption. Respondent board appealed before the CA which reversed the decision of the lower court affirming the jurisdiction and power of the board to review the TV program.
But the RA recognizes as well the primacy of a constitutional right over a contractual right. a close shop agreement is being enforced which means that employment in the factory relies on the membership in the EPWU. the right to join a union includes the right not to join a union. ERF then moved to terminate Victoriano due to his non-membership from the EPWU. an Iglesia ni Cristo member. Seven justices held that section 2175 is no longer operative. In 1962. has been an employee of the Elizalde Rope Factory since 1958. HELD: The right to religion prevails over contractual or legal rights.The 1987 Constitution of the PhilippinesPhilippine government in action and the Philippine constitution HELD: The voting of the SC was inconclusive. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 3350 is unconstitutional. Justice Teehankee held that section 2175 had been repealed by the Election Code. It was only in 1974 that his resignation from the Union was acted upon by EPWU which notified ERF about it. G.R. He was also a member of the EPWU. that in order to retain employment in the said factory one must be a member of the said Union. Mark Jorel O. No. Justice Fernando held that section 2175 imposed a religious test on the exercise of the right to run for public office contrary to Art. Calida | 1C 2007 | Introduction to Law . It recognizes both the rights of unions and employers to enforce terms of contracts and at the same time it recognizes the workers¶ right to join or not to join union. EPWU and ERF reiterated that he is not exempt from the close shop agreement because RA 3350 is unconstitutional and that said law violates the EPWU¶s and ERF¶s legal/contractual rights. Under the CBA between ERF and EPWU. Further. The law is not unconstitutional. Victoriano tendered his resignation from EPWU claiming that as per RA 3350 he is an exemption to the close shop agreement by virtue of his being a member of the INC because apparently in the INC. L-25246: Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union Victoriano. one is forbidden from being a member of any labor union. his employment could not be validly terminated for his non-membership in the majority therein. an INC member may refuse to join a labor union and despite the fact that there is a close shop agreement in the factory where he was employed. As such. Five justices held that section 2175 is constitutional. III of the 1935 Constitution.
3) The state used the least intrusive means possible. 2) The state has to establish that its purposes are legitimate and compelling. Worse. August 4. The case was remanded to the Office of the Court Administrator so that the governmen t would have the opportunity to demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing Escritor¶s position that her conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it comes within the scope of free exercise protection. June 20. the 2003 decision has attained finality and constitutes the law of the case. P 02 1651. the Supreme Court held that. RULING: No. Escritor nor the government has filed a motion for reconsiderati on assailing the August 4. She procured the certificate 10 years after their union began and not merely after being implicated.´ indicating their church¶s approval of their union in accordance with the beliefs of the Jehovah¶s Witness. 2006 ruling. ESCRITOR AM No. was charged for immoral conduct for co habiting with a man without the benefit of a marriage.The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach thatgivesroom for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. . The state¶s broad interest in protecting the institutions of marriage and the family is not a compelling interest enforcing the concubinage charges against Escritor. ISSUES: Whether or not Escritor may be sanctioned in light of the Free Exercise claus e. a member of the Jehovah¶s Witness.ESTRADA v. Hence. Escritor¶s sincerity is beyon d serious doubt. Any attempt to reopen this ruling constitutes a contravention of elementary rules of procedure. insofar as it would overturn the parties¶ right to rely upon the Supreme Court¶s interpretation which has long attained finality. 2003 ruling. it also runs counter to substantive dueprocess. Since neither Estrada. In its June 20. Escritor¶s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her right to freedom of religion.Shesecured a ³Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. 2006 FACTS: Escritor. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental right that enjoys a preferred po sition in the hierarchy of rights. the state failed to show evidence that the means the stat e adopted in pursuing this compelling interest is the least restrictive to Escritor¶s religious freedom. The state has the burden of satisfying the ³compelling state interest´ test to justify any possible sanction to be imposed upon Escritor. their relationship bearing a child. 2003. Even assuming that there w as a compelling state interest. This test involves three steps: 1) The courts should look into the sincerity of the religious belief without inquiring into the t ruth of the belief.
Sec. particularly RA. al. Further.A. 2001 FACTS: Respondent Ombudsman Desierto ordered petitioner Marquez to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI. 1405. the account must be clearly identified.TUESDAY. Julia Vargas Branch. No. No. The order is based on a pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo. Petitioner wanted to be clarified first as to how she would comply with the orders without her breaking any law. and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case The 1987 Philippine BILL OF RIGHTS THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES . HELD: No. Disierto G. 135882 June 27.A. No. there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. We rule that before an in camera inspection may be allowed. MAY 18. where petitioner is the branch manager. No. the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection. for violation of R. 3019. ISSUE: Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (R. 2010 CASE DIGEST (Commercial Law): Marquez vs. et.1405).R.
or decisions. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances. The right of the people. or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. public safety. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. and 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. 4. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. liberty. 3. associations. No person shall be deprived of life. 5. as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development. without discrimination or preference. 9.ARTICLE III Bill of Rights SEC. SEC. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. to form unions. houses. 1. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolableexcept upon lawful order of the court. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. SEC. subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. . and to documents. 7. or property without due process of law. papers. or public health. SEC. or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable. or of the press. 8. SEC. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. SEC. shall forever be allowed. 2 The right of the peole to be secure in their persons. 6. SEC. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. including those employed in the public and private sectors. SEC. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. transactions. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech. of expression. shall be afforded the citizen. and papers pertaining to official acts. SEC. as may be provided by law.
. incommunicado. SEC. 13. intimidation. to meet the witnesses face to face. Excessive bail shall not be required. SEC. (2) No torture. and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. 14. or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. violence. quasi-judicial. solitary. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. SEC. to have a speedy. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. 17. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. before conviction. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. threat. and their families. 18. However. All persons. or administrative bodies. 11. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. be bailable by sufficient sureties. he must be provided with one. and public trial. 15. trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. SEC. (1) NO PERSON SHALL BE DETAINED SOLELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS. SEC. after arraignment. except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong. and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel. shall. (2) In all criminal prosecutions. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. Secret detention places. 10. impartial. SEC. force. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. 16. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. 12. SEC. SEC. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.SEC.
psychological. for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.(2) No involuntary servitude in any from shall exist except as punishment for a crime whereof the party shall be duly convicted. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Neither shall death penalty be imposed. SEC. 21. . 20. the Congress hereafter provides for it.If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance. unless. 19. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax. (2) The employment of physical. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. 22 No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. SEC. SEC. nor cruel. SEC. degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act. or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.