CHAPTER II CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO TOURISM ESTABLISHMENTS The discussion in this chapter will focus on some provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as applied in our field of study. Our Constitution contains eighteen articles but we will limit the discussions on two (2) Articles only, the Bill of Rights (Article I) and the National Economy and Patrimony (Article XII). The Constitution of the Philippines was approved by the people on February 2, 1987. Definition of the Constitution The Constitution is the basic and highest law of the land to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer or comply. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the constitution. The constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law.! The fundamental conception in other words is that it is the Supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.? Supremacy of the Constitution Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law (statute) or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law (statute) or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private Purposes, is null and void (not valid) and without any force and Cruz, Isagani, Philippine Political Law, 2002 Manila Prince Hotel versus GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997 7Constitution is the fundamental, paramoun; ct. Thus, since the De a oa jtis deemed written in every statutg and supreme law of the nation, and contract For example, Constitution provides, “No person may be elected President unless heisa natural-born Citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at Teast ‘fort years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines foy at least ten years immediately preceding such election. ue To qualify as President, a person must satisfy the above quoted provision clearly states the following requirements: He/She must be natural born citizen of the Philippines; A registered voter; Able to read and write; Atleast forty years of age on the day of the election; A resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election. Assuming that Congress passed a law, say RA 1234 which provides that, “No person shall become President unless he is a lawyer.” Is the law (RA 1234) constitutional? No. Clearly, being a lawyer is not one of the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution; therefore the law passed by the Congress is unconstitutional (meaning it is not in accordance with the Constitution.) Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Philipping ARTICLE III - BILL OF RIGHTS Application and Purpose of the Bill of Rights One of the provisions of the Constitution that finds applicable in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry is Article IIT, Bill of Rights. However, before going to different sections of the same, one must understand the basic principles of this article. aa he se of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation betwee? * Manila Prince Hotel versus GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997 8individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.‘ In its simplest term, the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the government. Hence, it cannot be invoked if one who violated the same is a private individual or entity. The provisions of the Bill of Rights can only be used or invoked if the one who violated it is the government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the people against arbitrary and discriminatory use of political power. This bundle of rights guarantees the preservation of our natural rights which include personal liberty and security against invasion by the government or any of its branches or instrumentalities.> Illustrative Case: Yrasuegi vs. Phil. Airlines, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008 Facts: Mr. X is an international flight steward of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). He stands five feet and eight inches (5’8”) with a large body frame. Under the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL, the weight to be maintained by all employees shall be 166 pounds. During the time he was hired, Mr. X met the weight requirement. However, after a couple of years, Mr. X weighed 205 pounds which is beyond the 166 pounds limit. Mr. X was given a chance to lose weight, but instead of losing his weight he gained more. Thereafter, Mr. X was terminated for violating the company rules. He filed an illegal dismissal case against PAL. One of the arguments of Mr. X is that the company rules are discriminatory, it is not fair. In other words, Mr. X is invoking section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Issue: Is Mr. X correct in invoking section 1 of the Bill of Rights against Philippine Airlines Inc. which is a private entity? Ruling: Mr. X is not correct in invoking the bill of rights. The Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals (like PAL, a private entity). The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or People versus Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991 5 Diosdado Jose Allado versus Hon. Roberto C. Diokno, G. R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994 oOim iol: wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, ee eae the equal protection guarantee.” __ Article 3, Section 1. No person shall be deprived of hie life, liberty, or property without due process of law, MOF, NA" any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. There are two rights that are guaranteed by the above provision, namely: 1. The Right to Due Process; and 2. The Right to Equal Protection of the Law. Two Kinds of Person in Law 1. Natural Person (Example: Human Being) 2. Juridical Person/Artificial being (Example: Corporation such as Lyceum of the Philippines Inc., San Miguel Corporation, etc.) Clearly, when section 1 of the Bill of Rights says “Person” it may refer either to natural person or juridical person. Thus, to rephrase the provision, “No natural person or juridical person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any natural or juridical person be denied the equal protection of the law.” Concept of Due Process of Law in its Procedural Aspect Due process of law means a law that hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. Due process of law contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, affecting one’s person or property.” Cleary, to say that due process is observed — 1. There must be notice; and 2. There must be hearing or the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. In the absence of any of the foregoing requirements there will be no due process. Therefore, if there is no due process, the government ee eee 7 : brea Albert versus University Publishing Co. Inc. G.R. No, L-19118 January 30, 7 Lopez vs, Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23, 32cannot take away the life, liberty, or property of any person. On the contrary, if there is due process, then the government may take away the life, liberty or property of a person. Example: Facts: Issue: Ruling: Mr. X is engaged in the business of Travel and Tour Services. In (the year) 2001, the Regional Director of Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) issued a letter of authority to the BIR District officer in order to assess, review, and to examine the books of accounts of Mr. X. Without any preliminary assessment notice or any final demand issued to Mr.X, the BIR immediately ordered the closure of the business of Mr. X. Is the BIR correct in immediately ordering the closure of the business of Mr. X? No, the BIR failed to observe the due process of law. The BIR must first give notice to Mr. X of his violation and give him the opportunity to be heard before imposing the order to close the business. Illustrative Case: City of Manila versus Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005 Facts: Issue: The City of Manila passed an ordinance prohibiting the establishment or operation of business which provides certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in Ermita-Malate area. Under the said ordinance, the owners and or operators of hotels and inns that were already established in Ermita- Malate area shall be closed down within 3 months from the approval of the said ordinance or transfer said hotels or inns to any place outside of the Ermita-Malate or convert said businesses to other kinds of business such as antique shop, coffee shop, restaurant, or flower shop. Malate Tourist Development Corporation questioned the said ordinance for being violative of the Due process requirement. Is there a violation of Due Process?Ruling: Yes. There is a violation of Due process. The order to close or cease the operation of the business or convert the hotels, inns, coffee shop etc. is a form of confiscation, taking, seizure, or destruction without any trial or hearing. Hence, in this case there is no due process. Three Areas Protected by Section 1 1. Life of human beings or natural persons as well as juridical persons is protected by the Bill of Rights. As a rule the government cannot take away the life of the person without due process. 2. Liberty does not mean to do everything that he/she wants to do, because no one can do exactly as he/she pleases. Otherwise, one may kill a person. “Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong; it is ever guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the individual.’” Liberty does not only refer to physical freedom, but it may also include rights of the citizens to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he wills; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any vocation.’ 3. Property may refer to personal or real, immovable or movable objects which can be taken or disposed of, like lands, buildings, cars, jewellery, and the like. Section 1 clearly protects these properties against any unlawful taking by the government. Thus, a parcel of land owned by Mr. X cannot be taken by the government without due process. Employment is considered as a property. In the case of Gonzales versus NLRC, G.R. No. 125735 on August 26, 1999, the Supreme Court enunciated that “Employment is not merely 4 contractual relationship; it has assumed the nature of property right.” One’s employment, profession, trade or calling is a property right within the protection of the Constitutional guaranty of due process of law” , eee eee a ® — Morfe versus Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, J G.R.No. January 31, 1968 *, Morfe versus Mutuc, G.R. No, L-20387, canary 31,1968 Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc,, G.R, No, 1-70615, October 28, 1986Equal Protection Clause The second sentence of Article 3 section 1 is called Equal Protection Clause. The equal protection clause simply means people of the same class shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and liabilities enforced." It does not mean absolute equality, for otherwise there would be injustice. Example: Petra is the owner of a restaurant and is earning 1 million pesos a year. Pedro on the other hand owns a restaurant and is earning also the same amount as that of Petra. Considering that both of them have the same income, the tax rate imposed on Petra for the 1 million pesos should be the same tax rate to be imposed on Pedro because both of them belong to the same class. Article 3, Section 3 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Essence of Right to Privacy The very essence of this right is simply the right to be let alone.” Because of this, the government or any of its agencies as a rule cannot intrude, interfere, or even pry with the private affairs of an individual. In fact there are many provisions in the constitution that protect this right such as, article 3 section 2 on the provision on warrant of arrest and search warrant. Article 3 section 6 on the tight to travel and article 3 section 8 on the right to form union or organization. " 2 Tiu versus CA, G.R. No. 127410 January 20, 1999 Ople versus Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998 13In the Civil Code of the Philippines, article 26, says “Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of ming of his neighbors and other person.” In the same section, anyone who is meddling and prying into the privacy of another may be held liable. In some special penal laws, we have RA 4200 or the Anti-Wiretapping Act and recently the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995). Expectation of Privacy It must be noted that an individual cannot simply invoke the right to privacy. A person must prove that he/she really has privacy in the first place. Thus, if one performs an act in public place, or it was made for the public, there is no privacy to speak of. The Privacy of Communication Article 3 Section 3 guarantees the right to privacy of communication. Any communication given in confidence or privately to the other cannot be intercepted or intruded by the government or any of its agencies. Speeches delivered in public places, mass media and the like are not covered by the privacy of communication simply because the same was made in the public. The Privacy of Letters Correspondence or communication made in writing is treated with confidentiality. As a general rule, letters cannot be taken by the government or any of its agents. In hotels, for example, all pieces of information that are written in the registration book may not be inquired into by police officer because they are strictly confidential. However, if there is a court order such as search warrant then it can be taken and inquired into by the police officer.Exceptions to the Right to Privacy The right to privacy is considered a fundamental right that must be protected from intrusion or constraint. However, right to privacy is not absolute. The right to privacy may nevertheless succumb (give way) to an opposing or overriding state interest deemed legitimate and compelling.’* Article 3 section 3 provides that “If there is lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, then, the right to privacy of communication and correspondence may be impaired or diminished.” Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree The second paragraph of Article 3, section 3 is the so-called “Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” This means, that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used as evidence therefore is considered to be inadmissible in any proceedings. RA 4200, Anti-Wiretapping Law In line with the right to privacy of communication, the congress passed Republic Act 4200 otherwise known as the Anti-Wiretapping Law. Under this law, it shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictograph or walkie- talkie or tape recorder. Under the Anti-wiretapping law, private citizens or government officials or employees may be sued for the violation of this law. Example: Facts: Mr. X is a staff member of the house-keeping department of Mabuhay Hotel. On the night of February 14, Henry, the guest of the hotel called Mr. X to clean his room which the latter did. Out of curiosity, and in order to acquire knowledge "Gamboa versus Chan, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012 15of the private communication between the Suest and his partner while inside the room, Mr. X installed a tape recordey beneath the table near the bed; then, he left the room. Issue: Is Mr. X liable of violating RA 4200 or the Anti-wiretapping law? Ruling: Yes. The law is clear, any person, not being authorized by | all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, who records such communication or spoken word by using a device like tape recorder violates the anti-wiretapping law, Since Mr. X installed a tape recorder without the consent of the guests, Mr. X is liable of violating the Anti-wiretapping law. Exceptions to the Anti-Wiretapping Law The government can wiretap a private conversation without violating the Constitution and RA 4200 provided that there must be a prior written order of the court and the felony or crimes are any of the following only; Treason Espionage Provoking war . Disloyalty in case of war Piracy, mutiny in the high seas Rebellion Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion Inciting to rebellion Sedition Conspiracy to commit sedition, Inciting to sedition, Kidnapping rere me Bo oD All other crimes or felony such as rape, murder, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, homicide and others cannot be wiretapped. RA 9995 Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 _ ee ies law, it shall be unlawful for any person to take photo se - rea Person or group of persons performing sexual act Y similar activity; or to capture an image of private area of 42a person such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person involved and under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, to copy or reproduce such photo or video or recording of sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration shall likewise be prohibited even if the person or persons involved in the photo or sex video consents to reproduce the same. Selling of the sex video or the photo is also not allowed. To publish or broadcast whether in print or broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device is also a prohibited act even if the person or persons involved in the photo or sex video consent(s) to the selling, publishing or broadcasting the same. Article 3, Section 6. 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. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. The said provision protects two rights, namely: 1. The Liberty of Abode (Home/residence); and 2. The Right to Travel Liberty of Abode The constitution guarantees the right of the person to establish his own residence or home. In the same manner, any person can also change his residence or dwelling from one place to another. Exception to the Liberty of Abode However, the Right to Abode must be within the limits prescribed by law, meaning, if there is a law that disallows any structure in a certain place because of good reason such as public safety then this right may be impaired.The Right to Travel ther is also a guaranteed right ing from one place to anotl er is z d eda are cases wherein this right can be impaired or Pees by the government. Under the Bill of Rights, the right eel eae impaired if any of the following circumstances are present: 1, Interest of National Security; 2. Public Safety; and 3. Public Health. Example 1: Facts: Mr. X has a scheduled business meeting in Isabela, Basilan on December 15, 2014. However, the Provincial Government issued an ordinance banning all citizens to go there because of the on-going armed conflict between the terrorist groups and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, effective December 13, 2014 until after the conflict ceases. Mr. X was very angry because he would lose millions of pesos if he would not appear in the meeting. He questioned the ordinance for the violation of his right to travel. Issue: Is the ordinance banning the citizens to go to Isabela, Basilan unconstitutional? Ruling: No, it is not unconstitutional. The Right to Travel is not an absolute right, If the safety of the public is at risk; then, it may be impaired. In the given case, since there is an on- going armed conflict, which may cause danger to Mr. X and other citizens. The ordinance is just but proper and it does not violate the Constitution. Example 2: Facts: XXX travel and tours was engaged by YYY University to tour their students in Ilocos Norte on December 15, 2014. However, the provincial government of the said province issued an ordinance banning all the citizens to go there effective December 15, 2014 because of Ebola Virus that already killed 20 persons. Thus, the tour was suspended. [he ban unconstitutional?Ruling: No, it is not unconstitutional. While the right to travel cannot be impaired, it admits an exception, one of which is when public health is at risk. Given the case that there is an existing public health issue that will affect the tourists and the citizens, the ban is proper and does not violate the Constitution. Article 3, Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. Whether an employee is working in the government service, or in the private entity, both has the right to form union, association, or society provided, the purpose or objective of the union, association, or society formed must not be contrary to law. Right to Form Union in the Private Sector The right to form union in the private sector is not only constitutional but also statutory. A company cannot prevent its employees to form a union nor shall terminate an employee simply because said employee formed a union. Employees in the Private Sector have the Right to Strike Aside from the right of the employees in the private sector to form union, the Constitution" and the Labor Code of the Philippines grant them the right to stage a strike (temporary stoppage of work through concerted action of employees as a result of a labor or industrial dispute) provided the strike must be in accordance with law. Employees in the Government Service do not Enjoy the Right to Strike * While employees in the government can form union, society or association, they do not have the right to strike. The reason is that once this right is granted to them it will greatly affect the interest “Article 13, Section 3 of the Constitution °5 Jacinto versus Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124540, November 14, 1997i it will paralyz of some people or member of the community as it will paralyze government services they need. the Department of Tourism cannot stage a Thus, a union in strike. ARTICLE XII NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY Section 10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities, National Patrimony In its plain and ordinary meaning, to heritage. When the Constitution sp it refers not only to the natural resour Constitution could have very well use but also to the cultural heritage of the the term patrimony pertains eaks of national patrimony, ces of the Philippines, as the d the term natural resources, Filipinos," Illustrative Case: Manila Prince Hotel versus GSIS, G.R. February 3, 1997 No. 122156. Facts: Pursuant to the privatization Government under Proclamatioi 1986, the Government Servic program of the Philippine nm No. 50 dated 8 December ____2986, the Government @ Insurance System (GSIS) '* Manila Prince Hotel versus GSIS, G.R. No, 122156, February 3, 1997Issue: Ruling: decided to sell through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC). In a close bidding held on 18 September 1995, only two (2) bidders participated; Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, and RenongBerhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel operator. Manila Prince Hotel Corporation offered to buy 51% of the MHC or 15,300,000 shares at P41.58 per share while RenongBerhad bids the same number of shares at P44.00 per share or P2.42 more than the bid of Manila Prince Hotel. Prior to the declaration of RenongBerhad as the winning bidder, Manila Prince Hotel filed a petition before the Supreme Court to prohibit the award of the 51% shares to RenongBerhad contending that Manila Hotel is a National Patrimony, and therefore preference should be given to qualified Filipinos such as the Manila Prince Hotel. Should the 51% shares of Manila Hotel be awarded to RenongBerhad, a Malaysian firm? The Supreme Court held that it should not be awarded to RenongBerhad. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, but it also includes Cultural Heritage such as the Manila Hotel. Under the Constitution, in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. Manila Hotel being part of national patrimony must therefore be controlled preferably by Filipinos or a corporation or association at least 60% of its capital must be owned by Filipino citizen. To award the 51% shares of Manila Hotel to Malaysian firm despite the existence of a qualified Filipino bidder will violate the Constitution. Reasons given why Manila Hotel is part of National Patrimony Manila Hotel has become a landmark - a living testimonial of Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to betruly Filipino. Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. It was called the Cultural Center of the 1930's, It was the site of the festivities during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth. Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government, it plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the traditional Philippine hospitality. The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book “The Manila Hotel: The Heart and Memory of a City.” During World War II the hotel was converted by the Japanese Military Administration into a military headquarters. When the American forces returned to recapture Manila, the hotel was selected by the Japanese together with Intramurosas the two (2) places for their final stand. Thereafter, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, the hotel became the center of political activities, playing host to almost every political convention. In 1970, the hotel reopened after a renovation and reaped numerous international recognitions, an acknowledgment of the Filipino talent and ingenuity. In 1986, the hotel was the site of a failed coup d’état where an aspirant for vice-president was “proclaimed” President of the Philippine Republic. For more than eight (8) decades, Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and nationhood. Foreign Investments in the Philippines see the Foreign Investment Act of 1991, foreign investment livelih . elias in enterprises that significantly expand ‘Cod and employment opportunities for the Filipino. However . oes bi there are investments in the Philippines which except recor ee allowed to engage or invest such as mass media manufacture Beate of profession, private security agencies, ire cri : . cooperatives amo ackers and other pyrotechnic devices, and In ng others, tourism establi lish Massage clinics and Se such as sauna and steam bathhouses, ri an r but only up to forty percent (ong oe foreign equity is allowed jaaNam Schedule: Instruction: ACTIVITY FOR CHAPTER II A. Write A if the first statement is absolutely correct and the second is not correct. B. Write B if the first statement is not correct and the second is absolutely correct. C. Write C if both statements (first and second) are absolutely correct. D. Write D if both statements (first and second) are incorrect. Deyel Equal Protection means absolute equality between Persons. The right to travel may be impaired only and for the sole reason that there is a threat to public health. The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Statutes are superior laws equal to the constitution. The government can wiretap a conversation in case of rape. If the case is treason, the government may wiretap a conversation even without court order. Mr. X wants to establish his restaurant business in Boracay beach. Mr. X has all the rights to build his restaurant in any place he wants in Boracay. Mayor X, owner and operator of a restaurant in Holiday Hotel, does not accept applicants weighing 175 pounds. This counts as a discriminatory act and a violation of article 3, Section 1 of the constitution. A hotel employee who was terminated by an employer without notice and hearing is violative of Due process under the Bill of Rights.10. 1. : nt desk officer of Baygo Hotel, filed a ce for 3 days because he would be going to Boracay for a break, but the manger denied the same. By denying the application for leave of absence, the manager violated the right to travel of Mariano enshrined in the bill of rights. Employees in the Department of Tourism cannot forma union but can be allowed to stage a strike. i Employees of Philippine Air Lines can form union and can stage a strike. Property under article 3 section 1 includes employment. The right to liberty under Article 3 Section 1 includes the right to exercise one's profession in lawful ways. The management of a company can terminate an employee simply because the latter formed a union. All evidence no matter how it was obtained by the police office is admissible in any proceedings. Sending a sex scandal video is a crime. While the security guard was roving around the walls of Intramuros at night, he saw two persons performing sexual acts; the guard got his cellular phone, and took video of the same. The guard violated the anti-photo and video voyeurism act. Private documents may be taken by the government if there is a search warrant. Manila Hotel is part of our National Patrimony.