Amendment 17 – Manner of Election and Appointment of U. S.

Amendment 17 – Manner of Election and Appointment of U. S. Senators. Ratified 4/8/1913. History The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CHAPTER I - INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY SUBCHAPTER A - INCOME TAX PART 1 - INCOME TAXES 1.1071 - 4 - Manner of election. (a) An election under the provisions of section 1071 shall be in the form of a written statement and shall be executed and filed in duplicate. Such statement shall be signed by the taxpayer or his authorized representative. In the case of a corporation, the statement shall be signed with the corporate name, followed by the signature and title of an officer of the corporation empowered to sign for the corporation, and the corporate seal must be affixed. An election under section 1071 to reduce the basis of property and an election under such section to treat the sale or exchange as an involuntary conversion under section 1033 may be exercised independently of each other. An election under section 1071 must be filed with the return for the taxable year in which the sale or exchange occurs. Where practicable, the certificate of the Federal Communications Commission required by 1.10711 should be filed with the election. (b) If, in pursuance of an election to have the basis of its property adjusted under section 1071, the taxpayer desires to have such basis adjusted in any manner different from the general rule set forth in paragraph (a) of 1.1071 3, the precise method (including allocation of amounts) should be set forth in detail on separate sheets accompanying the election. Consent by the Commissioner to any departure from such

March 10. 453 Phil. The issue of what standard of evidence will be used in determining the fate of Chief Justice Renato Corona has cropped up in the impeachment trial at the Senate. citing United States v. 3 Phil. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Castillo. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. 6 (1903). the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is not sufficient for the proof to establish a probability. The prosecution is of the opinion that the standard should be “substantial evidence”. It is now worth examining the different standards of evidence under the Rules of Court and related jurisprudence. even though strong. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.] . 166.] In administrative proceedings. 167 (2003). while the defense claims that it should be “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. the administrative complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit. and fails to substantiate his allegations. i. when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions. PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Proof beyond reasonable doubt means proof to the satisfaction of the court and keeping in mind the presumption of innocence that precludes every reasonable hypothesis except that for which it is given. G.e. 2004.general rule shall be effected only by a closing agreement entered into under the provisions of section 7121. that the fact charged is more likely true than the contrary.R. [Montemayor v. 132895.. that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further. Hence. Bundalian. Reyes. [People v. the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. 158. 425 SCRA 136. even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. No. It must establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable certainty and moral certainty – a certainty that convinces and satisfies the reason and conscience of those who are to act upon it.

the nature of the facts to which they testify. Court of Appeals. PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE Preponderance of evidence” is the weight. with unlimited means of command. so that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. 890-891 (2001). the witnesses’ manner of testifying. It is the primordial duty of the prosecution to present its side with clarity and persuasion. [Perfecta Cavile.” “Preponderance of evidence” is a phrase that.] Rule 133. However. 423 (1997)]: [Proof beyond reasonable doubt] lies in the fact that in a criminal prosecution. In civil cases. thus: SECTION I. their intelligence. with counsel usually of authority and capacity. 179540. the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. 410. 883. as therefore as speaking semi-judicially. Inc. These inequalities of position. how determined. Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides the guidelines in determining preponderance of evidence. citing Go v. 2009. Jose de la Cruz and Rural Bank of Bayawan. G. credit. No. and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered synonymous with the term “greater weight of the evidence” or “greater weight of the credible evidence. accompanied and joined by her husband. The necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt was discussed in People v. and also their personal credibility so far as the same may legitimately appear . Justina Litania-Hong. their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying. the party having burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. 403 Phil. An accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Preponderance of evidence. v.R. in the last analysis. proof beyond reasonable doubt requires only moral certainty or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. with moral certainty. their interest or want of interest. Leopoldo Hong and Genoveva Litania. the law strives to meet by the rule that there is to be no conviction where there is reasonable doubt of guilt. the probability or improbability of their testimony. it enters the contest with a prior inculpatory finding in its hands. the State is arrayed against the subject. Berroya [347 Phil. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies. and with an attitude of tranquil majesty often in striking contrast to that of defendant engaged in a perturbed and distracting struggle for liberty if not for life.The Constitution itself provides that in all criminal prosecutions. who are regarded as public officers. means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto. March 13. the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case.

which guarantees that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. 1961.] because unquestionably. legatee. Rules on Criminal Procedure by abogadomo. inhibition of judges. Remedial Law. guardian. 2012 Tags: Chief Justice Corona. though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. administrator. or in which he has been executor. Chief Justice on Trial. ostensibly for showing bias and partiality towards the prosecution and acting as prosecutors themselves. for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. senate impeachment court. without the written consent of all parties in interest. A judge may. signed by them and entered upon the record.upon the trial. or to counsel within the fourth degree.motion to inhibit. G.R. 2 Filed Constitutional Law. the Bill of Rights. . corona impeachment. news report came out that the defense panel in the Corona Impeachment Trial is planning to ask for the inhibition of certain senator-judges. specifically Article III. senator judges. disqualify himself from sitting in a case. This rule enumerates the specific grounds upon which a judge may be disqualified from participating in a trial. voluntary inhibition of judges Over the weekend. creditor or otherwise. We now tackle the rules and jurisprudence regarding the inhibition and disqualification of judges to see if there is legal basis for the defense panel’s plan. Section 1. to wit: SECTION 1. 2 SCRA 249. or his wife or child. Rule 137 of the Rules of Court sets forth the rule on inhibition and disqualification of judges. in the exercise of his sound discretion. corona trial. It must be borne in mind that the inhibition of judges is rooted in the Constitution. No. – No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he. inhibition. Impeachment. The court may also consider the number of witnesses. L-15824. trustee or counsel. computed according to the rules of civil law. All the other elements of due process. or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. May under: The Corona Impeachment Trial: Inhibition of Senator Judges January 24. Due process necessarily requires that a hearing is conducted before an impartial and disinterested tribunal [Gutierrez v. every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review. Disqualification of judges. Impeachment. is pecuniarily interested as heir. Santos.

127262. This discretion granted to trial judges takes cognizance of the fact that these judges are in a better position to determine the issue of voluntary inhibition as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties-litigants in their courtrooms. Ansaldo. 2001. 328 SCRA 324. CA. Called .M. [Latorre v. July 24.] The second paragraph of the rule addresses voluntary inhibition.] Nevertheless. Impeachment. judges have been given the exclusive prerogative to recuse themselves from hearing cases for reasons other than those pertaining to their pecuniary interest. Nos. No. it must be emphasized that the authority for voluntary inhibition does not give judges unlimited discretion to decide whether or not they will desist from hearing a case.] It is a subjective test the result of which the reviewing tribunal will generally not disturb in the absence of any manifest finding of arbitrariness and whimsicality. 354 Phil. [People v. A. or previous rulings or under: Day 3 of Corona Impeachment Trial – SALN Drama January 19. [Rallos v. corona impeachment. 1997. 2012 Tags: Chief trial. A. the right of a party to seek the inhibition or disqualification of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free. [Webb v. May 31. Impeachment by abogadomo. No. RTJ-99-1484 and RTJ-99-1484 (A). Kho.] The movant must therefore prove the ground of bias and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a particular trial. would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge. corona on trial. 77 (1998). Gako. 2001. 2000. G. Pamintuan. Based on this provision. 139381. Corona SALN. 1999. impeachment The legal fireworks in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona reached a crescendo yesterday with the testimony of Supreme Court Clerk of Court. disinterested. 358 SCRA notice and hearing. [Gutang v. RTJ00-1563. March 17. April 20. People. CJTrial. 314 SCRA 682. CJonTrial. The issue of voluntary inhibition in this instance becomes primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the judge. A.R. Enriqueta Esguerra-Vidal. 276 SCRA 243. G.M. September 17. 357 SCRA 290. relation. previous connection. RTJ99-1483. impartial and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter’s sacred duty to decide cases without fear of repression.] Similarly. 0 Filed Constitutional Law.R.] The decision on whether or not judges should inhibit themselves must be based on their rational and logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the cases brought before them.SALN Justice Corona. No. No.M. [Gacayan v.

At the end. A sheepish Atty. Cuevas to a question propounded by senator-juror Franklin Drilon to Ms. Lawyer vs. or for the taking of his deposition. she had no choice but to comply since the said documents were requested through a validly issued subpoena. Ms. documents. even if Ms.yesterday to the witness stand by virtue of a subpoena requested by the prosecution. It would be interesting to see if the Supreme Court can review the decision of the impeachment court later on. she could have been cited for contempt. led by Atty. Supreme Court As the impeachment trial progresses. Ms. As defined under the Section 1. Cuevas had to backtrack when reminded by Senate President Enrile that this was not allowed under the Rules on Impeachment promulgated by the Senate. At no time has this been more evident than in yesterday’s hearing when the senators-jurors asserted its independence from the Supreme Court on the issue of Corona’s SALN. Vidal eluded questions concerning the Statement of Assets. It may also require him to bring with him any books. So what were the important legal lessons in day 3 of the trial? First. a subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action. Vidal. Impeachment Court vs. Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) of Chief Justice Renato Corona and hid behind the 2 May 1989 En Banc Resolution of the Supreme Court that required authorization before the Clerk of Court can release the SALN of any justice. in which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum. Senator-Juror Another interesting highlight of the impeachment trial yesterday was the objection posed by Atty. Vidal was at first a very hesitant witness. it seems that the impeachment court and the Supreme Court are on a collision course due to the complex and conflicting issues being tackled. Rule 21 of the Rules of Court. Vidal to turn over the SALN of Chief Justice Renato Corona to the impeachment court. Questions propounded by Atty. or other things under his control. Vidal tried to convince the senators-jurors that she needed the authorization of the Supreme Court before submitting the SALN to the impeachment court. . It seems that the impeachment court is of the opinion that they are a constitutionally created body and that the Supreme Court is co-equal to the Senate only when it is performing its legislative duties. or at any investigation conducted by competent authority. is the importance of obeying a subpoena. Had she continued to be non-cooperative. As seen yesterday. Serafin Cuevas. Mario Bautista elicited very few information and were expectedly confronted by objections from the defense. it took the queries of Senator Franklin Drilon andseveral senators-jurors and a firm order from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile to convince Ms.

Ancheta. 97 [1975]). which state to wit: “Sec.Even during proceedings in regular courts.” . Aquilizan. Mario Bautista had to be reminded that he had to state the purpose of his witness’ testimony…Atty. Impeachment by abogadomo. 153 [1984]). Renato Corona The second day of the Corona impeachment trial at the Senate proved to be interesting and delved into several basic legal principles and procedures. looks like its time to stop delegating litigation work on the law firm associates and hit the trenches once again. Cuevas was very active in his objections and crossexaminations and came off as a better litigator…Senate President Enrile continues to be an effective and patient Presiding Officer. the judge is the arbiter and he ought to satisfy himself as to the respective merits of the claims of both parties in accord with the stringent demands of due process. which is always weathering legal storms…From their performance yesterday. (Valdez v. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. except in a civil case by one against the other.Disqualification by reason of marriage. NOTED…Private Prosecutor Atty. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. its a good thing that a lawyer. 22. 64 SCRA 90. corona impeachment. a judge is called upon to ascertain the truth of the controversy before him. 2012 Tags: Chief Justice on Trial. 1 Filed Constitutional Law. As held by the Supreme Court in several cases. a very wise and experienced one at that. impeachment trial. 122 SCRA 218. — During their marriage. is the captain of a ship. 225 [1983]) and clarify obscure and incomplete details after the witness had given direct testimony. (People v. a judge is allowed to question witnesses and any lawyer worth his salt would not object to this. He may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time (Domanico v. it seems that the private prosecutors are also experiencing “birthing pains” in the impeachment trial. Court of appeals. 133 SCRA 150. The first involves marital and filial privilege as brought about by the denial by the impeachment court of the prosecution’s request to subpoena the wife and children of the impeached Chief under: Day 2 of Corona Impeachment Trial January 18. neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse. After all. Marital and filial privilege is found under Sections 22 and 24 (a).

This issue cropped up when the impeachment court denied the prosecution’s motion to subpoena several documents related to the purchase of properties allegedly acquired by Corona and his family through ill-gotten means.” Trial Notes….”Sec. It is worth mentioning that an ordinary witness may invoke the right but he may only do so as each incriminating question is asked. during or after the marriage. he may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all questions. Edgardo Angara. Joker Arroyo. A lengthy debate ensued during the trial but it was unclear on whether this was indeed the right of the prosecution or merely discretionary upon the court. Elpidio Barzaga. it was agreed that the prosecution should just rearrange the sequence of the presentation of their evidence. cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage except in a civil case by one against the other. the Senate President was upheld through a 14-6 vote. admitted before the impeachment court that they did not have witnesses to authenticate “computer-generated” documents from the Land Registration Authority (LRA) on Corona’s alleged properties. Eventually. The right to self-incrimination is enshrined in the Bill of Rights and found under Section 17 Article III of the 1987 Constitution which provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”.” The second legal principle tackled is the right to self incrimination. Gregorio Honasan. . but unlike the ordinary witness. Francis Escudero. 24. Is this a portent of things to come?…. Franklin Drilon. or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct descendants or ascendants. an accused in a criminal case (who is akin to an impeached official) may invoke the right. The prosecution also seemed to have forgotten the best evidence rule and the manner in presenting documentary evidence in court when Cavite Rep. Eventually. which states: “When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document. On the other hand. Another legal principle that was discussed is the right of the prosecution to alter the sequence of the presentation of evidence. Vicente Sotto III. Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.Those voting to uphold were Senators Jinggoy Estrada. one of the prosecutors. The “computer-generated documents” may not pass the best evidence rule found under Section 3.The first issue was put to vote by the senators-jurors when Senator Alan Cayetano disagreed with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s ruling to deny the issuance of the subpoena to Corona’s family members. no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself.The lack of trial technique and practice of the prosecution was very evident in today’s trial…. — The following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: (a)The husband or the wife.

. Francis Pangilinan.The Supreme Court averted what could have been a constitutional crisis when it did not issue a TRO on the impeachment trial. Contents [hide] • • • 1 Fa cts 2 Iss ue 3 Ru ling • 4 Cit atio n [edit] Facts Mallare’s father Esteban was the illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. Panfilo Lacson.. Ralph Recto. Those opposed were Senators Alan Cayetano. No. the acts of registering to vote and exercising the right of suffrage were enough to show that he elected Filipino citizenship. but his admission to the bar was revoked because his citizenship was questionable. 1974. In Re Mallare. and believed himself to be Chinese. Lito Lapid.M.M. A. Sergio Osmena III. A. 533 September 12. Antonio Trillanes IV. 1974 This 1974 case.Ferdinand Marcos Jr. No. said that in cases where a person needed to elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. and Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. In Re Mallare In the case of In Re Mallare. Pia Cayetano. the Supreme Court said that election of Filipino citizenship need not be expressly made. 533 September 12. without need for any formal declaration. Teofisto Guingona III. still cited today. Aquilino Pimentel III. and Manuel Villar…. Mallare became a lawyer.

) to a beneficiary in the Philippines. medicine. (312) 332-6458 ext. (312) 332-3657 or e-mail at to secure an appointment for interview and administration of the oath of allegiance. 30 N. who was a natural-born Filipino citizen but lost his/her Philippine citizenship due to naturalization as a citizen of a foreign country. Michigan Ave. Chicago IL 60602. also known as theCitizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003. Kansas. Philippine Consulate General. Chicago. Consulate General of the Philippines – Chicago http://www. computers. 23 or fax no. Illinois. In the case of married couples.chicagopcg. Indiana.000) square meters in the case of urban land or three (3) hectares in the case of rural land to be used by him/her for business or other purposes. Michigan. without needing any formal declaration on his part. an individual.igcom. • • • Republic Act No. Minnesota. etc. The Court considered these acts to be enough to show that Mallare had elected Filipino citizenship. may now apply for the Administration of Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. when Mallare came of age. 9225 Petition for Dual Citizenship form (Download form) Frequently Asked Questions Relating to the Reacquisition of the Philippine Citizenship under Republic Act 9225 Please print the form in a legal size bond paper (8 1/2" X 14"). Missouri. Nebraska. Louisiana.[edit] Issue Ruling Is Mallare a Filipino citizen? [edit] The Supreme Court reversed the revocation after finding that Esteban was a Filipino because his mother was not married to his Chinese father. All interested individuals residing within the jurisdiction of this Consulate General may contact the Consular Section. South Dakota. North Dakota. at tel. no. (click here for more information >>) I would like to donate certain items (books. 9225. Oklahoma. Suite 2100. Furthermore. Sec 10). he registered as a voter and exercised his right of suffrage. Can said items be extended duty-free entry status and be brought into the Philippines without paying customs duties and taxes? . Applications of individuals residing within the jurisdiction of the Philippine Consulate General in Chicago (Arkansas. The Philippine Consulate in Chicago wishes to inform the public that pursuant to Republic Act No. Iowa. one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted (please see Republic. Act 8179. Mississippi.html Can I acquire real property in the Philippines even if I am already a naturalized American citizen? Any natural-born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship may acquire a private land up to a maximum area of five thousand (5. Ohio and Wisconsin) should be personally submitted to the Consulate

Quirino Avenue cor. Fernandez. Manila Tel # (632) 562. books and educational materials. . According to Mr. medicine and other relief goods. exit permit or proof of payment of immigration fees. essential machineries/equipment. Airport immigration head of supervisors Ferdinand Sampol said dual citizens who entered the country using foreign passports will be cleared for departure provided they present a valid Philippine passport and bureau of immigration certificate. Immigration executive director Roy Almoro said the new rules were issued in the wake of reports of misunderstanding between immigration officers and passengers with dual citizenship. consumer goods and other articles may be granted duty-free entry by the Department of Finance and the Bureau of Customs.561. South Superhighway.Food. The immigration officer then makes the appropriate stamp on both the foreign and Philippine passports of the passenger. according to immigrations Commissioner Alipio Fernandez Jr. upon the recommendation of the Department of Social Work and Development or other concerned Fax # 011. Filipinos who became. Under the law. Prospective donors can seek assistance from the Commission on Filipinos Overseas 1345 Citigold Center. a Filipino who presents a foreign passport shall only be given an indefinite stay in the country if he or she can show a valid Philippine passport or a certificate from the BI as proof of dual citizenship.8332 E-mail cfodfa@info. as long as they present both their Philippine and foreign passports to immigration officers at the time of arrival or departure. have not lost their Philippine citizenship. or are intending to become naturalized citizens of other countries. trouble (click here for guidelines and procedure >>) New Rules on Dual Citizenship PHILIPPINE IMMIGRATIONS: New rules on dual citizenship: Filipinos with dual citizenships can now enter end leave the country. The passenger is no longer required to present a certificate. This developed after bureau of immigration came out with new rules for arriving and departing passengers who availed themselves of the dual citizenship law passed by Congress last year.

and to manage the mass media. 10 Justice . to administer educational institutions. it imposes the duty of allegiance to the political community. 7 In the same way. is a member of the political community. Black defines it as the status of one who. 5 This status confers upon the individual certain prerogatives which may be denied the alien. 6 Reciprocally. to exploit natural resources.WHAT IS CITIZENSHIP? Citizenship is personal and more or less permanent membership in a political community. or of a particular state. 8 Philippine citizenship has always been valued and treasured by our Supreme Court that it once described it as "not a cheap commodity. the citizen enjoys certain exclusive rights. under the Constitution and laws of the United States. owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. It denotes possession within that particular political community of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications such as minority. to operate public utilities. such as the rights to vote." 9 "Philippine citizenship is not a commodity or ware to be displayed when required and suppressed when convenient." says another case. Thus. to run for public office.

1948. remains bitter and high. and in the duly constituted authorities. No. The mayor’s reason: "that there is a reasonable ground to believe." 11 while Justice Cruz brands it as "a gift that must be deserved to be retained. a public meeting or assembly. the Supreme Court said that fear that trouble may arise during the rally was not enough reason to suppress the fundamental right of the people to free speech and peaceful assembly to petition the government for redress of grievances. Primicias filed a case to compel the mayor to grant the permit. by analogy." 12 Primicias vs. or.R. Fugoso. which might threaten breaches of the peace and a disruption of public order. the mayor of Manila refused to grant a permit to hold a public meeting at Plaza Miranda for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Fugoso In the case of Primicias vs." A Manila ordinance at that time required a mayor’s permit to hold a parade or procession. that similar speeches will be delivered tending to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government. specially on the part of the losing groups. . G. L-1800 January 27. Contents [hide] • • • 1 Fa cts 2 Iss ue 3 Ru ling • 4 Cit atio n [edit] Facts In November 1947. basing upon previous utterances and upon the fact that passions.Melencio-Herrera dubs it as "a priceless heritage.

No. 1919. The Court said that the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly was a fundamental right of the people and may not be suppressed unless there was the probability of serious injury to the state. wanting to exterminate vice.R. He then had 170 prostitutes forcibly rounded up. interpreting the ordinance to mean that the Mayor did not have the power to grant or refuse the permit. put on a ship. L-14639 March 25. Contents [hide] • • • 1 Fa cts 2 Iss ue 3 Ru ling • 4 Cit atio n [edit] Facts In 1918. had "houses of ill repute" closed. A writ of habeas . California: "Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. The Supreme Court ordered the mayor to grant the permit. and sent to Davao as laborers.[edit] Issue Ruling May the mayor be compelled to grant the permit? [edit] Yes. and quoted US Supreme Court Justice Brandeis in Whitney vs.” Villavicencio vs. the mayor of Manila. only the discretion to specify where the parade may pass or where the meeting may be held. G. Lukban. Lukban In the classic case of Villavicencio vs. the Supreme Court of the Philippines upheld the right of Filipino citizens to freedom of domicile .

although in a sense "lepers of society" were still Filipino citizens and as such they were entitled to the constitutional guarantees enjoyed by all other Filipino citizens.corpus was filed against the mayor on behalf of those women. [edit] Issue Ruling Were the mayor's acts legal? [edit] The Supreme Court said that the mayor's acts were not legal. The right to freedom of domicile was such a fundamental right that its suppression could be considered tantamount to slavery. His intent of "exterminating vice" was commendable. The women. but the mayor was not able to bring any of the women before the court on the stipulated date.] . said the Court. but there was no law saying that he could force Filipino citizens to change their domicile from Manila to another place. The court granted the writ.