bill of rights Q&A 2003.doc

7/25/2019 bill of rights Q&A 2003.doc

1/26

POLITICAL LAW REVIEWERSAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

BILL OF RIGHTS

Q. How is the Bill of Rights stregthee! i the "#$%Costit&tio' (B)r Q&estio*

A. There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights isstrengthened in the 198 !onstit"tion#1# $ew rights are given e%&licit recognition s"ch as' the&rohi(ition against detention (y reason of &olitical (eliefsand as&irations# The waiver of )iranda rights is nowre*"ired to (e +ade in writing with the assistance ofco"nsel# The "se of solitary' inco++"nicado and secretdetention &laces is &rohi(ited' while the e%istence ofs"(standard and inade*"ate &enal facilities is +ade theconcern of legislation#

There is also recognition of the right ofe%&ression' an e%&ress &rohi(ition against the "se of

tort"re' a +andate to the State to &rovide co+&ensationand reha(ilitation for victi+s of tort"re and their fa+ilies#,# So+e rights have (een e%&anded# For instance' freeaccess to co"rts now incl"des access to *"asi-."dicial(odies and to ade*"ate legal assistance#/# The re*"ire+ents for interfering with so+e rights have(een +ade +ore strict# For instance' only ."dges can nowiss"e search warrants or warrants of arrest# There +"st (ea law a"thori0ing the %ec"tive 2e&art+ent to interferewith the &rivacy of co++"nication' the li(erty of a(ode'and the right to travel (efore these rights +ay (e i+&airedor c"rtailed#3# The !onstit"tion now &rovides that the s"s&ension ofthe &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s does nots"s&end the right to (ail' th"s resolving a doctrinal dis&"te

of long standing#4# The s"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eascor&"s and the &rocla+ation of +artial law have (eenli+ited to 56 days and are now s"(.ect to the &ower of!ongress to revo7e# In addition' the S"&re+e !o"rt isgiven the ."risdiction' "&on the &etition of any citi0en todeter+ine the s"fficiency of the fact"al (asis of thes"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"sand the &rocla+ation of +artial law#5# The S"&re+e !o"rt is e+&owered to ado&t r"les for the&rotection and enforce+ent of constit"tional rights## rt# II' Sec# 11 co++its the State to a &olicy which&laces val"e on the dignity of every h"+an &erson andg"arantees f"ll res&ect for h"+an rights#8# !o++ission on H"+an Rights is created#

9# nder rt# :;I'Sec# 4s rights a+ong the+e+(ers of the +ilitary in the &erfor+ance of their d"ty#

+UE PROCESS

Q. The ,e,-ers of ) &io -)rri)!e! the g)tes of theo&rt i or!er to /ress the o&rt to re!er 0&!g,et itheir f)1or. I )se the o&rt re!ers ) 0&!g,et itheir f)1or2 !o 3o& thi4 there w)s !e/ri1)tio of theright to !&e /roess' Wh3'

A.?es' (eca"se the decision was the res"lt of a +o(where there was no inde&endent ."dg+ent#


2/26


to hold a hearing on the (asis of which his decision will (e+ade can (e delegated and is not offensive to d"e&rocess# The co"rt noted that CS long as a &arty is notde&rived of his right to &resent his own case and s"(+itevidence in s"&&ort thereof' and the decision is s"&&orted(y the evidence in record' there is no *"estion that the

re*"ire+ents of d"e &rocess and fair trial are f"lly +et# Inshort' there is no a(rogation of res&onsi(ility on the &art ofthe officer concerned as the act"al decision re+ains withand is +ade (y said officer# It is however' re*"ired that togive the s"(stance of a hearing' which is for the &"r&oseof +a7ing deter+inations "&on evidence the officer who+a7es the deter+inations +"st consider and a&&raise theevidence which ."stifies the+D#

,= $o' Stevie was not denied d"e &rocess si+&ly(eca"se the co+&lainants' the &rosec"tor' and the hearingofficers were all s"n(ordinates of the !o++issioner of theB"rea" of I++igration and 2e&ortation# In accordancewith the r"ling in +rlaner " -aliner, In# VS Court o(Industrial Relations, 11 )/il 47,the findings of thes"(ordinates are not concl"sive "&on the !o++issioners'

who have the discretion to acce&t or re.ect the+# @hat isi+&ortant is that Stevie was not de&rived of his right to&resent his own case and s"(+it evidence in s"&&ortthereof' the decision is s"&&orted (y s"(stantial evidence'and the !o++issioners acted on their own inde&endentconsideration of the law and facts of the case' and did notsi+&ly acce&t the views of their s"(ordinates in arriving ata decision#

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Q. Se. $#2 RA ;#%F re)tig the PNP /ro1i!es foro,/&lsor3 retire,et )t the )ge of F;. It /ro1i!eshowe1er2 th)t the ,e,-ers of the INP who were

)-sor-e! -3 the PNP sh)ll retire )t the )ge of ;D!&rig the G3e)r tr)sitor3 /erio!. So,e ,e,-ers ofthe PC who were )-sor-e! -3 the PNP )! whore)he! F; reei1e! oties of retire,et. The3h)llege! Se. $# )s 1iol)ti1e of the e7&)l /rotetiol)&se sie it )//lies ol3 to the PNP. +ei!e.

A.The contention is not correct (eca"se there is as"(stantial distinction (etween the+ and the +e+(ers ofthe I$A# nder the laws enforced (efore R 594'+e+(ers of the A! were already retira(le at the age of 56#The transitory &eriod of 3 years is intended to give the+


3/26


)/il 77, an article whose &ossession is &rohi(ited (y law+ay (e sei0ed witho"t the need of any search warrant if itwas discovered d"ring a lawf"l search# The additionalre*"ire+ent laid down in Roan VS -onales, 14$ SCRA*87that the discovery of the article +"st have (een +adeinadvertently was also satisfied in this case#

,= $o' : cannot s"ccessf"lly challenge the legality of thesearcvh si+&ly (eca"se the &eace officers did not infor+hi+ a(o"t his right to re+ain silent and his right toco"nsel# Sec# 1,


4/26


o,/)rt,et of the )r. The /rohi-ite! !r&g w)s/ro,/tl3 )! the -o3 w)s -ro&ght to the /oliest)tio for 7&estioig.

"* W)s the se)rh witho&t w)rr)t leg)l'@* Before iterrog)tio2 the /olie,) o

!&t3 ifor,e! the -o3 i Eglish th)t he

!oes >h)1e ) right to re,)i silet )!the right to o&sel. Howe1er2 there w)so o&sel )1)il)-le )s it w)s ,i!ight.He !el)re! or)ll3 th)t he !i! ot ee!)3 l)w3er )s he w)s ioet2 sie hew)s ol3 -rigig the ,)ri0&)) le)1es tohis e,/lo3er i Q&e9o Cit3 )! w)s ot) !r&g &ser. He w)s h)rge! with illeg)l/ossessio of /rohi-ite! !r&gs. Is hisw)i1er of the right to o&sel 1)li!' (B)rQ&estio*

A. 1= $o' the search was not valid' (eca"se there was no&ro(a(le ca"se for cond"cting the search# s held in

Al!eda San#/e VS S, 413 S 2*8, while a +oving

vehicle can (e searched witho"t a warrant' there +"st still(e &ro(a(le ca"se# In the case in *"estion' there wasnothing to indicate that +ari."ana leaves were hidden inthe tr"n7 of the car# The +ere fact that the (oy did noto(.ect to the ins&ection of the car does not constit"teconsent to the search# s r"led in )eole V Buros, 144SCRA 1, the fail"re to o(.ect to a warrantless search doesnot constit"te consent' es&ecially in the light of the fact#

Alter)ti1e Aswer=1= ?es# The re*"ire+ent of &ro(a(le ca"se differs

fro+ case to case# In this one' since the &oliceagents are confronted with large scale s+"gglingof &rohi(ited dr"gs' e%istence of which is of &"(lic7nowledge' they can set "& chec7&oints at

strategic &laces' in the sa+e way that of in aneigh(orhood a child is 7idna&&ed' it is lawf"l tosearch cars and vehicles leaving theneigh(orhood or village# This sit"ation is alsosi+ilar to warrantless searches of +ovingvehicles in c"sto+ area' which searches have(een "&held#


5/26


)tio)l se&rit3. W)s the or!er of the Chief of /olie1)li!' (B)r Q&estio*

S&ggeste! Aswer=$o' the order of the !hief of Aolice is not valid

(eca"se there is no law which a"thori0es hi+ to order the

Aost+aster to o&en the letters addressed to and co+ingfro+ "an Sa+son# n official in the %ec"tive2e&art+ent cannot interfere with the &rivacy ofcorres&ondence and co++"nication in the a(sence of alaw a"thori0ing hi+ to do so or a lawf"l order of the co"rt#

REE+O6 O EPRESSION

Q. The Iglesi) Ni Cristo (INC* w)s re7&ire! -3 the6TRCB to s&-,it to it for re1iew the 1i!eo t)/es forits /rogr),s. The 6TRCB !is)//ro1e! the t)/es othe gro&! th)t the3 )tt)4e! the C)tholi religio.The INC ote!e! th)t re7&irig it to s&-,it1i!eot)/es for re1iew -3 the Bo)r! 1iol)te! free!o,

of s/eeh )! free!o, of religio. Who, wo&l! 3o&s&st)i2 the 6TRCB or the INC.

A. The )TR!B# The video ta&es can (e s"(+itted forreview# The right to act on one>s (elief can (e s"(.ect toreg"lation# The &"(lic (roadcast involve the real+ ofaction# Television reaches even children# However' theshowing of the video ta&es cannot (e &rohi(ited# There isno clear and &resent danger of a s"(stantial evil which thestate has a right to &revent# (Ilesia 0i Cristo VS CA, 2$9SCRA $29

Q. +istig&ish >otet-)se! restritios? o frees/eeh fro, >otete&tr)l restritios?2 )! gi1ee:),/le of e)h.

A.Content-based restritionsare i+&osed (eca"se of thecontent of the s&eech and are' therefore' s"(.ect to theclear-and-&resent danger test# For e%a+&le' a r"le s"ch asthat involved in Sanidad VS Co!ele#Brien Test in the case ofS;S VS Co!ele#, a $, 21.

The test for this difference in the level of."stification for the restriction of s&eech is that content-

(ased restrictions distort &"(lic de(ate' have i+&ro&er+otivation' and are "s"ally i+&osed (eca"se of fear ofhow &eo&le will react to a &artic"lar s&eech# $o s"chreasons "nderlie content-ne"ral reg"lations li7e reg"lation

)re) of /&-li)tio 4ow )s >Co,ele S/)e? toe)-le the )!i!)tes to ,)4e their 7&)lifi)tios )!other ifor,)tio rel)ti1es to the )!i!)tes. Is s&h )resol&tio 1)li!' E:/l)i.

B. Wo&l! 3o&r )swer -e the s),e if theresol&tio re7&ire! -ro)!)st ,e!i) to gi1e

>free )irti,e? for the s),e /&r/ose' E:/l)i.

A.A. The resol"tion is invalid (eca"se the !O)L!

cannot &roc"re &rint s&ace witho"t &aying ."sco+&ensation therefore# ()/iliine )ress InstituteVS Co!ele#, 244 SCRA 272

". $o# The resol"tion this ti+e is constit"tional' even asit &rovides that airti+e +ay (e &roc"red (y the!O)L! free of charge' the sa+e (eing ane%ercise of the &lenary &olice &ower of the State to&ro+ote general welfare# In tr"th' radio and television(roadcasting co+&anies' which are given franchisesdo not own the airwaves and fre*"encies thro"ghwhich they trans+it their (roadcast signals and

i+ages# They are +erely given the te+&orary&rivilege of "sing the+# Since a franchise is a +ere&rivilege' the e%ercise of the &rivilege +ay reasona(ly(e ("rdened with the &erfor+ance (y the grantee oso+e for+ of &"(lic service# S"ch reg"lation of the"se and ownershi& of teleco++"nications syste+s isin the e%ercise of the &lenary &olice &ower of thestate for the general welfare#

It is a fallacy that (roadcast +edia are entitled tothe sa+e treat+ent "nder the free s&eech g"arantee othe !onstit"tion as the &rint +edia# There are i+&ortandifferences in the characteristics of the two +edia which

."stify their differential treat+ent for free s&eech &"r&osesBeca"se of the "ni*"e and &ervasive infl"ence of the(roadcast +edia' the freedo+ of television and radio

(roadcasting is so+ewhat lesser in sco&e than thefreedo+ accorded to news&a&er and &rint +edia(%+L+BA) VS Co!ele#, Aril 21, 1998

Q. The Co,ele iss&e! ) or!er /rohi-itig theo!&t of e:it /oll s&r1e3 -3 ,)ss ,e!i) -3ofi!eti)lit3 )s4igr)!o,l3 selete! 1oters who,the3 h)1e 1ote! for i,,e!i)tel3 )fter the3 h)1e )sttheir -)llot2 )s the s),e1iol)tes the /rii/le of -)llotsere3. ABSCBN Bro)!)stig Cor/.7&estioe! the1)li!it3 of the Co,ele Or!er o ostit&tio)gro&!s. +ei!e.

A. The reason (ehind the &rinci&le of (allot secrecy is toavoid vote ("ying thro"gh voter identification# This res"lcannot' however' (e achieved +erely thro"gh voter>sver(al and confidential disclos"re to a &ollsters of who+they have voted for# In e%it &olls' the contents of the officia(allot are not act"ally e%&osed# F"rther+ore' therevelation of who+ an elector has voted for is noco+&"lsory ("t vol"ntary# ;oters +ay choose not to reveatheir identities#

n a(sol"te &rohi(ition wo"ld (e "nreasona(lyrestrictive' (eca"se it effectively &revents the "se of e%i&oll data not only for election day &ro.ections' ("t also folong ter+ research# The !o+elec concern with the&ossi(le non-co++"nicative effect of e%it &olls-disordeand conf"sion in the voting centers does not ."stify a tota(an on the+# The holding of e%it &olls and the

disse+ination of their res"lts thro"gh +ass +ediaconstit"te an essential &art of freedo+ of s&eech and othe &ress# (ABS


6/26


This legisl)tio w)s /)sse! i res/ose tofi!igs -3 the +e/)rt,et of He)th )-o&t the)l)r,ig rise i l&g !ise)se i the o&tr3. The Worl!He)lth Org)i9)tio h)s )lso re/orte! th)t US to-)oo,/)ies h)1e shifte! ,)r4etig efforts to the Thir!Worl! !&e to !wi!lig s)les i the he)lthosio&s

A,eri) ,)r4et.Cow-o3 Le138s2 ) 0e)s o,/)32 reetl3rele)se! ) )!1ertise,ets fe)t&rig ,o!el Rih)r!B&rgos we)rig Le138s 0)4ets )! 0e)s )! hol!ig) /)4 of 6)rl-oro ig)rettes.

The Asi) Bro)!)stig Networ4 (ABN*2 )/ri1)tel3 owe! tele1isio st)tio2 ref&ses to )ir the)!1ertise,ets i o,/li)e with the l)w.

)* Ass&,e th)t s&h ref&s)l )-ri!ges thefree!o, of s/eeh. +oes the ostit&tio)l /rohi-itio)g)ist the )-ri!ge,et of free!o, of s/eeh )//l3to )t !oe -3 ABN2 ) /ri1)te or/or)tio' E:/l)i.

-* 6)3 Cow-o3 Le138s2 ) /ri1)te or/or)tioi1o4e the free!o, of s/eeh g&)r)tee i its f)1or'E:/l)i.

* Reg)r!less of 3o&r )swer )-o1e !ei!ethe ostit&tio)lit3 of the l)w i 7&estio. (B)rQ&estio*

A. a= The constit"tional &rohi(ition against the freedo+ ofs&eech does not a&&ly to B$' a &rivate cor&oration# sstated in =udens VS 0ational La&or Relations Board,424 S $7,the constit"tional g"arantee of freedo+ ofs&eech is a g"arantee only against a(ridg+ent (y thegovern+ent.It does not therefore a&&ly against &rivate&arties#

Alter)ti1e Aswer=Since B$ has a franchise' it +ay (e considered

an agent of the govern+ent (y co+&lying with the law and

ref"sing to air the advertise+ent' it alined itself with thegovern+ent# Th"s it rendered itself lia(le for a laws"itwhich is (ased on a(ridge+ent of the freedo+ of s&eech#nder rt# /, of the !ivil !ode' even &rivate &arties +ay(e lia(le for da+ages for i+&air+ent of the freedo+ ofs&eech#

(= !ow(oy Levy>s +ay invo7e the constit"tional g"aranteeof freedo+ of s&eech in its favor# In First 0ational Ban>o( Boston VS Bellotti, 43$ S 7*$' it was r"led that thisg"arantee e%tends to cor&orations# In Virinia StateBoard o( )/ar!a# VS Virinia Citiens Consu!erCoun#il, In#. 42$ S 748, it was held that this righte%tends to co++ercial advertise+ents. In Aer)rodu#tions )t. Ltd. VS Caulon, 1* SCRA 8*1' theS"&re+e !o"rt held that even if the &rod"ction of a fil+ isa co++ercial activity that is e%&ected to yield &rofits' it iscovered (y the g"arantee of freedo+ of s&eech#

c= The law is constit"tional# It is valid e%ercise of &olice&ower' (eca"se s+o7ing is har+f"l to health# In )osadasde )uerto Ri#o Asso#iates Vs %ouris! Co!an :()uerto Ri#o, 478 S 328, it was r"led that a law&rohi(iting certain ty&es of advertise+ents is valid if it wasado&ted in the interest of the health' safety' and welfare ofthe &eo&le# In Caital Broad#astin Co!an VSit#/ell, 333 F Su $82,a law +a7ing it "nlawf"l toadvertise cigarettes on any +edi"+ of electronicco++"nication was "&held# The nited States S"&re+e

!o"rt s"++arily s"stained this r"ling in CaitalBroad#astin Co!an VS A#tin Attorne -eneral,4$ S 1# The law in *"estion was enacted on the(asis of the legislative finding that there is a need to

;


7/26


Q. The L)-or Co!e /rohi-its ,))geri)l e,/lo3eesfro, 0oiig2 )ssistig or for,ig )3 l)-ororg)i9)tio. +oes this otr)1ee theostit&tio)l right to for, )ssoi)tios' J&stif33o&r )swer.

A.$o# The right g"aranteed in rt# III' Sec# 8 is s"(.ect tothe condition that its e%ercise sho"ld (e for &"r&osesCnot contrary to law#D There is a rational (asis for&rohi(iting +anagerial e+&loyees fro+ for+ing or

.oining la(or organi0ation# Beca"se if these +anageriale+&loyees wo"ld (elong to or (e affiliated with a nion'the latter +ight not (e ass"red of their loyalty to thenion in view of evident conflict of interest# The "nioncan also (eco+e co+&any-do+inated with the &resenceof +anagerial e+&loyee in the nion +e+(ershi()S VS Laues!a, ar#/ 2$, 1998

Q. U!er the B)r)g)3 Eletio At (BP@@@* /oliti)l/)rties were /rohi-ite! fro, /)rtii/)tig i the

-)r)g)3 eletios. It w)s h)llege! o the gro&!of 1iol)tio of the right to for, )ssoi)tios ototr)r3 to l)w. W)s the otetio /ro/er' Wh3'

A. $o' (eca"se the right to for+ associations is nota(sol"te or illi+ita(le' as it is s"(.ect to the +ost&ervasive and do+inant &olice &ower# It can (ereg"lated to serve a&&ro&riate and i+&ortant &"(licinterest# The law was designed to ins"late the (arangayfro+ the divisive effects of &artisan &olitical ca+&aignand the danger of disena(ling the (arangay officialsfro+ efficiently &erfor+ing their d"ties as agents of ane"tral co++"nity# :#eania VS Co!ele#, 127 SCRA44

Q. I their 1)i efforts to o-t)i -eefits the3 were!e,)!ig2 the te)hers st)ge! ) series of!e,ostr)tios -efore the +ECS )! Cogress.A!,iistr)ti1e h)rges were file!. Se1er)l of the,were !is,isse! !&e to their f)il&re to o-e3 theret&rtowor4 or!er fro, the +ECS. C) thete)hers st)ge ,)ss w)l4o&ts or stri4e' Wh3'

A. $o# In )S%A, et al. VS Lauio2 s &ost"late that itsreligio"s &rogra+ is &er se (eyond review (y theres&ondent (oard# Its &"(lic (roadcast on T; of itsreligio"s &rogra+ (rings it o"t of the (oso+ of interna(elief# Television is a +edi"+' that reaches even theeyes and ears of children# The co"rt reiterates the r"le

Are&ared (y the POLITICAL LAW SECTION !hief6ARILOU LIN+A ssistant !hiefCATHY AQUINO )e+(ers6AY AQUINO2 ERRIA

BUCU2 6ARICAR +ELA CRU2 ATHREEN


8/26


that the e%ercise of religio"s freedo+ can (e reg"lated(y the State when it will (ring a(o"t the clear and&resent danger of so+e s"(stantive evil which the Stateis d"ty (o"nd to &revent' i#e## serio"s detri+ent to the+ere overriding interest of &"(lic healyh' &"(lic +oralsor &"(lic welfare#D

However' the )TR!B cannot (an the ta&es onthe gro"nd that they attac7ed other religions# In Ilesiani Cristo VS C.A, the S! held

Cven a sideglance at Section / of A2 $o#1985 will reveal that it is not a+ong the gro"nds to

."stify an order &rohi(iting the (roadcast of &etitioner>stelevision &rogra+#D

)oreover' the (roadcast do not give rise to aclear and &resent danger of a s"(stantive evil# In thiscase' it held that C&rior restraint on s&eech' incl"ding thereligio"s s&eech' cannot (e ."stified (y hy&otheticalfears ("t only (y the showing of a s"(stantive andi++inent evil which has ta7en the reality already on thegro"nd#D

Q. >? is ser1ig his /riso setee i6&tigl&/). He -elogs to ) religio&s set th)t/rohi-its the e)tig of ,e)t. He )s4e! the +iretorof Prisos th)t he -e ser1e! with ,e)tless !iet. The+iretor ref&se! )! >? s&e! the !iretor for!),)ges for 1iol)tig his religio&s free!o,. +ei!e.(B)r Q&estio*

A. ?es' the 2irector of Arison is lia(le "nder rt# /, ofthe !ivil !ode for violating the religio"s freedo+ of :#according to the decision of the S S"&re+e !o"rt inthe case of :Lone V +state o( S/a&a, convicted&risoners retain their right to free e%ercise of religion# tthe sa+e ti+e' lawf"l incarceration (rings a(o"t

necessary li+itations of +any &rivileges and rights."stified (y the considerations "nderlying the &enalsyste+# In considering the a&&ro&riate (alance (etweenthese two factors' reasona(leness sho"ld (e the test#

cco++odation to religio"s freedo+ can (e +ade if itwill not involve sacrificing the interest of sec"rity and itwill have no i+&act on the allocation of the reso"rces ofthe &enitentiary# In this case' &roviding : with a+eatless diet will not create a sec"rity &ro(le+ or"nd"ly increase the cost of food (eing served to the&risoners# In fact' in the case of O>lone' it was noted thatthe )osle+ &risoners were (eing given a different +ealwhenever &or7 wo"ld (e served#

Alter)ti1e Aswer=The s"it sho"ld (e dis+issed# The free

e%ercise cla"se of the !onstit"tion is essentially arestraint on govern+ental interference with the right ofindivid"als to worshi& as they &lease# It is not a +andateto the state to ta7e &ositive' affir+ative action to ena(lethe individ"al to en.oy his freedo+# It wo"ld have (een

different had the 2irector of Arisons &rohi(ited +eatlessdiets in the &enal instit"tion#

LIBERTY O ABO+E

Q. PCs right to travel has (een i+&airedSince A!GG has already ta7en over the co+&aniestheir o&eration can no longer (e o(str"cted# I&etitioners were o(str"cting the o&erations of theco+&anies' it wo"ld (e (etter that they (e o"t of theco"ntry# The right to travel is g"aranteed to all residentsirres&ective of nationality# (ant ?on VS )C--

'e#. 7, 1987

Q. J&) C)s)o1) otr)te! H)se8s !ise)se(le/ros3* with o/e lesios. A l)w re7&ires th)le/ers -e isol)te! &/o /etitio of the Cit3 He)lthOffier. The wife of J&) C)s)o1) wrote ) letter tothe Cit3 He)lth Offier to h)1e her for,erl3/hil)!erig h&s-)! ofie! i so,e isol)te!le/ros)ri&,. J&) C)s)o1) h)llege! theostit&tio)lit3 of the l)w )s 1iol)tig his li-ert3 of)-o!e. Will the s&it /ros/er' (B)r Q&estio*

S&ggeste! Aswer=$o' the s"it will not &ros&er#Section 5' rticle III of the !onstit"tion

&rovidesCThe li(erty of a(ode and of changing the sa+e

within the li+its &rescri(ed (y law shall not (e i+&airede%ce&t "&on lawf"l order of the co"rt#D

The li(erty of a(ode is s"(.ect to the &olice&ower of the State# Re*"iring the segregation of le&ersis a valid e%ercise of &olice &ower# In Loreno V'ire#tor o( =ealt/ $ )/il $9$' the S! held

C"dicial notice will (e ta7en of the fact thale&rosy is co++only (elieved to (e an infectio"sdisease tending to ca"se one afflicted with it to (esh"nned and e%cl"ded fro+ society' and thaco+&"lsory segregation of le&ers as a +eans o&reventing the s&read of the disease is s"&&orted (yhigh scientific a"thority#D

Q. The ,ilit)r3 o,,)!er i h)rge of theo/er)tio )g)ist re-el gro&/s !irete! theih)-it)ts of the isl)! whih wo&l! -e the t)rgetof )tt)4 -3 go1er,et fores to e1)&)te the )re))! offere! the resi!ets te,/or)r3 ,ilit)r3 h),let.




9/26


C) the ,ilit)r3 o,,)!er fore theresi!ets to tr)sfer their /l)es of )-o!e witho&t )o&rt or!er' E:/l)i. (B)r Q&estio*

A. $o' the +ilitary co++ander cannot co+&el theresidents to transfer their &laces of a(ode witho"t a

co"rt order# nder Sec# 5' rt# III of the !onstit"tion' alawf"l order of the co"rt is re*"ired (efore the li(erty ofa(ode and of changing the sa+e can (e i+&aired#

S&ggeste! Aswer=?es' the +ilitary co++ander can co+&el the

residents to transfer their &laces of a(ode witho"t aco"rt order# If there is no reasona(le ti+e to get a co"rtorder and the change of a(ode is +erely te+&orary'(eca"se of the e%igency' this e%ercise of &olice &ower+ay (e ."stified#

Q. 6r. Este-) ro32 ) ili/io iti9e2 is )rreste!for the ri,e of s,&gglig. He /osts -)il for hisrele)se. S&-se7&etl32 he 0&,/s -)il )! is )-o&t to

le)1e the o&tr3 whe the +e/)rt,et of oreigAff)irs )els his /)ss/ort. He s&es the +A2l)i,ig 1iol)tio of his free!o, to tr)1el itig theew /ro1isio i the Bill of Rights of the "#$%Costit&tio2 to wit= >Neither sh)ll the right to tr)1el-e i,/)ire! e:e/t i the iterest of )tio)lse&rit32 /&-li s)fet3 or /&-li he)lth2 )s ,)3 -e/ro1i!e! -3 l)w.+ei!e the C)se. (B)r Q&estio*

A. The case sho"ld (e dis+issed# ny &erson "nder anorder of arrest is "nder restraint and therefore he cannot clai+ the right to travel# If he is ad+itted to (ail hisfreedo+ of +ove+ent is confined within the co"ntry#Therefore' if he s"(se*"ently ."+&s (ail' he cannot

de+and &ass&ort which in effect will facilitate his esca&efro+ the co"ntry' he is in fact lia(le to (e arrestedanyti+e# Indeed' the right to travel "nder the!onstit"tion &res"&&oses that the individ"al is "nder norestraint s"ch as that which wo"ld follow fro+ the factthat one has a &ending cri+inal case and has (een&laced "nder arrest#

HABEAS CORPUS

Q.A* Whe ,)3 the /ri1ilege of the writ of h)-e)sor/&s -e s&s/e!e!' B* If 1)li!l3 !el)re!2 wh)t wo&l! -e the f&llose7&ees of s&h s&s/esio' (B)r Q&estio* A.=nder Section 18' rt# ;II of the !onstit"tion' the&rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s +ay (e s"s&endedwhen there is an invasion of re(ellion and &"(lic safetyre*"ire it#

B=ccording to Sec# 18' rt# ;II of the!onstit"tion' the s"s&ension of the &rivilege of the writof ha(eas cor&"s shall a&&ly only to &ersons ."diciallycharged with re(ellion or offenses inherent in or directly

connected with invasion# ny &erson arrested odetained sho"ld (e ."dicially charged within three daysOtherwise' he sho"ld (e released# )oreover' "ndeSection 1/' rt# III of the !onstit"tion' the right to (aishall not (e i+&aired even when the &rivilege of the writof ha(eas cor&"s is s"s&ended#

Q. Is the s&s/esio of the /ri1ilege of the writ ofh)-e)s or/&s ) /oliti)l or 0&stii)-leotro1ers3' Wh3'

A. It is a ."sticia(le controversy# The !onstit"tiona"thori0es the co"rts to review on the (asis of ana&&ro&riate action' the fact"al (asis for the s"s&ensionof the &rivilege of the writ of ha(eas cor&"s#

Q. A while ser1ig i,/riso,et for est)f)2 &/oreo,,e!)tio of the Bo)r! of P)r!os )!P)role2 w)s gr)te! /)r!o -3 the Presi!et oo!itio th)t he sho&l! ot )g)ist 1iol)te )3

/e)l l)w of the l)!. L)ter2 the -o)r! of P)r!os)! P)role reo,,e!e! to the Presi!et the)ell)tio of the P)r!o gr)te! hi, -e)&se Ah)! -ee h)rge! with est)f) o @D o&ts )! w)so1ite! of the offese h)rge! )ltho&gh he too4) )//e)l therefro, whih w)s still /e!ig. Asreo,,e!e!2 the Presi!et )ele! the /)r!ohe h)! gr)te! to A. A w)s th&s )rreste! )!i,/risoe! to ser1e the -)l)e of his setee ithe first )se. A l)i,e! i his /etitio for h)-e)sor/&s file! i o&rt th)t his !etetio w)s illeg)-e)&se he h)! ot 3et -ee o1ite! -3 fi)

0&!g,et )! w)s ot gi1e ) h)e to -e he)r!-efore he w)s reo,,itte! to /riso.

Is A8s )rg&,et 1)li!' (B)r Q&estio*

A. The arg"+ent of is not valid# s held in %orres V-onales, 1$2 SCRA 272' a ."dicial &rono"nce+enthat a convict who was granted a &ardon s"(.ect to thecondition that he sho"ld not again violate any &enal lawis not necessary (efore he can (e declared to haveviolated the condition of his &ardon# )oreover' a hearingis not necessary (efore can (e reco++itted to &risonBy acce&ting the conditional &ardon' agreed that thedeter+ination (y the Aresident that he violated thecondition of his &ardon shall (e concl"sive "&on hi+and an order for his arrest sho"ld at once iss"e#

Q. Jo32 ) RTC steogr)/her2 retire! )t the )ge o;F. She left &fiishe! the tr)sri/tio of her otesi ) ri,i)l )se whih w)s o )//e)l. The Co&rtof A//e)ls or!ere! Jo3 to tr)sri-e her otes. Sheref&se! to o,/l3 with the or!er re)soig th)t shew)s o loger i the go1er,et ser1ie. The CA!el)re! Jo3 i ote,/t of o&rt )! she w)si)rer)te!. Jo3 file! ) /etitio for h)-e)s or/&s)rg&ig th)t her i)rer)tio is t)t),o&t to




10/26


illeg)l !etetio )! to re7&ire her to wor4 s)so,/es)tio wo&l! -e i1ol&t)r3 ser1it&!e.+ei!e. (B)r Q&estio*

A. oy can (e incarcerated for conte+&t of co"rt forref"sing to transcri(e her stenogra&hic notes# s held in

A#lara#ion Vs -at!aitan *4 SCRA 132' her incarceration does not constit"te illegal detention# It islawf"l' (eca"se it is the conse*"ence of herdiso(edience of the co"rt order# $either can she clai+that to re*"ire her to wor7 witho"t co+&ensation istanta+o"nt to invol"ntary servit"de# Since co"rts havethe inherent &ower to iss"e s"ch orders as arenecessary for the ad+inistration of ."stice' the !o"rt of

&&eals +ay order her to transcri(e her stenogra&hicnotes even if she is no longer in the govern+ent service#

RI


11/26


Q. Whe the )&se! w)s /i4e! &/ )s he w)so,ig o&t of the o,,&)l -)throo, )! we)rig) tshirt o1ere! with -loo!st)is whih he trie! too1er with his h)!s2 he s&!!el3 -ro4e !ow )!4elt -efore Sgt. 6)r)te )! ofesse! th)t he4ille! Jeie B)g&is. Is the testi,o3 of Sgt.

6)r)te th)t the )&se! ofesse! the 4illig2)!,issi-le i e1i!ee' Wh3'

A. ?es' it is a co+&etent evidence to lin7 hi+ to the7illing# The declaration of an acc"sed e%&resslyac7nowledging his g"ilt of the offense charged +ay (egiven in evidence against hi+# s right to (ail' (eca"se the a+o"nt ise%cessive#

Q. Wh3 )ot the RTC gr)t -)il while the )se is/e!ig /reli,i)r3 i1estig)tio -3 the 6TC'

A. The )T! is still cond"cting &reli+inary investigationhence' the RT! has not yet ac*"ired ."risdiction# Icannot therefore' entertain the &etition for (ail' as thereis no infor+ation filed in the RT! yet#

Q. /oste! -)il2 -&t he 0&,/e! -)il. Wh)t is its

effet' Wh3'

A. n acc"sed who ."+&ed (ail waived his right to (e&resent# He cannot offer a ."stifia(le reason for his non-a&&earance d"ring the trial# Hence' after trial ina(sentia' the co"rt can render ."dg+ent in the case and&ro+"lgation +ay (e +ade (y si+&ly recording the

."dg+ent in the cri+inal doc7et with a co&y served onthe co"nsel' &rovided that notice re*"iring hi+ to (e&resent at the &ro+"lgation is served on the (onds+anor warden and co"nsel#

RI


12/26


SCRA 379' he sho"ld have (een warned also that hehas the right to re+ain silent and that any state+ent he+a7es +ay (e "sed as evidence agaist hi+# Besides'"nder rt# III' Sec# 1,


13/26


confession# In )eole Vs Co!il, 244 SCRA 13$, theS"&re+e !o"rt held that the acc"sed +"st (e assisted(y co"nsel d"ring the act"al *"estioning and the (elatedassistance of co"nsel (efore he signed the confessiondoes not c"re the defect#

Alter)ti1e Aswer=?es' the state+ents of can (e &resented inco"rt as his confession# s held in )eole Vs Rous,242 SCRA 732, even if the acc"sed was not assisted (yco"nsel d"ring the *"estioning' his confession isad+issi(le if he was a(le to cons"lt a lawyer (efore hesigned#

,= a= ?es' the trial co"rt can order the dis&ersal of therally "nder &ain of (eing cited for conte+&t# The&"r&ose of the rally is to atte+&t to infl"ence thead+inistration of ."stice# s stated in )eole Vs Flores,239 SCRA 83' any cond"ct (y any &arty which tends todirectly or indirectly i+&ede' o(str"ct or degrade thead+inistration of ."stice is s"(.ect to the conte+&t

&owers of the co"rt# (= $o' the trial co"rt cannot &"nish for conte+&t thefans of the victi+ who wrote letters to the news&a&ereditors as7ing for the conviction of the acc"sed# Sincethe letters were not addressed to the ."dge and to the&"(lication of the letters occ"rred o"tside the co"rt' thefans cannot (e &"nished in the a(sence of a clear and&resent danger r"le to the ad+inistration of ."stice# InCa&ansa VS Fernande, 12 )/il 1$2' it was heldthat a &arty who wrote to the Aresidential co+&laintsand ction !o++ittee to co+&lain a(o"t the delay in thedis&osition of his case co"ld not (e &"nished forconte+&t in the a(sence of a clear and &resent dangerto the fair ad+inistration of ."stice#

SPEE+Y2 I6PARTIAL AN+ PUBLIC TRIAL

Q. A )! B were h)rge! with li-el. O Oto-er "$2"#$$2 the3 file! ) ,otio to 7&)sh. The /rose&tiow)s gi1e "F !)3s to file ) o//ositios2 -&t f)ile!to !o so !es/ite e:tesios. O A&g&st D2 "##"2the tri)l o&rt !is,isse! the )se o the gro&! of!el)3 i the /rose&tio of the )se whih 1iol)te!the right to s/ee!3 tri)l. Is the )tio of the o&rt/ro/er' Wh3'

A. ?es# The fail"re of the &rosec"tion to file itso&&osition for +ore than two years violated the right ofthe acc"sed to s&eedy trial# Banas VS R%C o( )asi,:#to&er 1, 1993

RI


14/26


Q. A w)s re/resete! -3 ) l)w3er who )-)!oe!hi, whe he wet to the U.S.A. witho&t ifor,ighi,. He f)ile! to /reset e1i!ee )s he w)s)-)!oe!. C) the )se -e reo/ee!' Wh3'

A. ?es' (eca"se he was de&rived of the right to co"nsel#The negligence of the lawyer de&rived hi+ of the right to&resent evidence#

Q. w)s h)rge! for h)1ig r)/e! ) wo,) oe.C) he -e o1ite! of two r)/es if the wo,)testifie! to th)t effet' Wh3'

A. $o' (eca"se that wo"ld (e a de&rivation of his rightto (e infor+ed of the nat"re of the acc"sation againsthi+#

Q. Is the /)r)!ig -3 the Presi!et of s&s/ets ithe o,,issio of ri,es )//rehe!e! -3 l)wefore,et )geies ostit&tio)l'

A. $o# &arading s"(.ects the s"s&ects to trial (y&"(licity which co"ld infl"ence the ad+inistration of

."stice to the &re."dice of the said s"s&ects' in violationof their rights to d"e &rocess and to an i+&artial trial"nder rt# III' Sec# 13


15/26


of the &rison in order to enforce sec"rity and order in&rison# It is a valid e%ercise of &olice &ower#

driver was ca"ght violating traffic reg"lations anda&&ears to (e dr"n7# !an he (e co+&elled (y the&olice to ta7e a (reathaly0er test

?es# The &rohi(ition against self-incri+ination is a&rohi(ition against &hysical or +oral co+&"lsion toe%tort co++"nications fro+ hi+' and not an e%cl"sionof (ody as evidence# The (reathaly0er test does notco+&el the driver to &rod"ce testi+onial evidence#

# !ongress is considering a law against dr"n7endriving# nder the legislation' &olice a"thorities +ayas7 any driver to ta7e a C(reathaly0er testD' whereinthe driver e%hales several ti+es into a device whichcan deter+ines whether he was driving "nder theinfl"ence of alcohol# The res"lt of the test can (e"sed in any legal &roceedings against hi+ #

F"rther+ore' declaring that the iss"ance of thedriver>s license gives rise only to a &rivilege to drivea +otor vehicles on &"(lic roads' the law &rovidesthat a driver who ref"ses to ta7e the test shall (ea"to+atically s"(.ected to a 96 days s"s&ension ofhis driver>s license#

Cite @ /ossi-le ostit&tio)l o-0etios tothis l)w. Resol1e the o-0etios )! e:/l)iwhether )3 s&h ifir,ities ) -e &re!. (B)rQ&estio*

A. Aossi(le o(.ections to the law are that re*"iring adriver to t)4e ) -re)th)l39er test will 1iol)te hisrights )g)ist selfiri,i)tio2 th)t /ro1i!ig for

the s&s/esio of his !ri1er8s liese witho&t )3he)rig 1iol)tes !&e /roess2 )! th)t the/ro/ose! l)w will 1iol)te the rights )g)ist&re)so)-le se)rhes )! sei9&res2 -e)&se it)llows /olie )&thorities to re7&ire ) !ri1er to t)4ethe -re)th)l39er test e1e if there is o /ro-)-le)&se.

Re7&irig ) !ri1er to t)4e ) -re)th)l39ertest !oes ot 1iol)te his right )g)ist selfiri,i)tio2 -e)&se he is ot -eig o,/elle!to gi1e testi,oi)l e1i!ee. He is ,erel3 -eig)s4e! to s&-,it to ) /h3si)l test. This is oto1ere! -3 the ostit&tio)l g&)r)t3 )g)istselfiri,i)tio. Th&s2 i Sout/ 'a>ota VS

0e6ille 4$9 S $$3, it was held for this reason thatre*"iring a driver to ta7e a (lood-alcohol test is valid#

As hel! i a#>e VS ontrn, 443 S 1,(eca"se of co+&elling govern+ent interest and safetyalong the street' the license of a driver who ref"ses tota7e the (reathaly0er +ay (e s"s&ended i++ediately

&ending a &ost- s"s&ension he)rig2 -&t there ,&s-e ) /ro1isio for ) /osts&s/esio he)rigTh&s2 to s)1e the /ro/ose! l)w fro,&ostit&tio)lit3 o the gro&! of !ei)l of !&e/roess it sho&l! /ro1i!e for ) i,,e!i)te he)rig&/o s&s/esio of the !ri1er8s liese.

The /ro/ose! l)w 1iol)tes the right )g)ist&re)so)-le se)rh )! sei9&res. It wil)&thori9e! /olie )&thorities to sto/ )3 !ri1er )!)s4 hi, to t)4e the -re)th)l39er test e1e i the)-set of the /ro-)-le )&se.

I66UNITY RO6 PROSECUTION

Q= +is&ss the t3/es of I,,&it3 St)t&tes.

I++"nity stat"tes +ay (e generally classified intotwo one' which grants !se o# #r!it i$$!nit%& and theother' which grants what is 7nown as transationai$$!nit%.The distinction (etween the two is as

followsse i++"nity &rohi(its "se of witnessco+&elled testi+ony and its fr"its in any +anner inconnection with the cri+inal &rosec"tion of thewitness# On the other hand' transactional i++"nitygrants i++"nity to the witness fro+ &rosec"tion for anoffense to which his co+&elled testi+ony relates-al!an 6. )a!aran, 138 SCRA 274 198$D ne%a+&le of transactional i++"nity is rt# :III' Section18


16/26


as it i+&oses a d"tyE while as a right it +ay (e waived'it +"st (e discharged as a d"ty even against thewor7er>s will# Ret"rning to wor7 is not a +atter ofo&tion or invol"ntariness ("t of o(ligation# The wor7er+"st ret"rn to his .o( together with his co-wor7ers sothe o&erations of the co+&any can (e res"+ed and it

can contin"e serving the &"(lic and &ro+oting itsinterests# That is the real reason s"ch ret"rn can (eco+&elled# It is not violative of the right againstinvol"ntary servit"de#


17/26


Q= Whe ) the Peo/le or the /rose&tio)//e)l'

1# @hen the acc"sed has waived or is esto&&ed fro+

invo7ing his right against do"(le .eo&ardy#,# @hen the &rosec"tion is denied d"e &rocess oflaw#/# @hen the dis+issal or ac*"ittal is +ade with gravea("se of discretion#

Q= Whe is the )&se! !ee,e! to h)1e w)i1e! oris esto//e! fro, i1o4ig !o&-le 0eo/)r!3'

1# The dis+issal is ind"ced (y the acc"sed or hisco"nselE and,# s"ch dis+issal +"st not (e on the +erits and +"stnot necessarily a+o"nt to an ac*"ittal# (Peo/le 1.S)lio*

Q. The S)gg&i)g P)l&gso! of 6)il))//ro1e! ) or!i)e (No. "DDD* /rohi-itig theo/er)tio i the streets within the city li+its ofta%ica( "nits over 8 years old fro+ year of+an"fact"re# The i+&osa(le &enalty for violationthereof is a fine of A3'666 or i+&rison+ent for oneyear "&on the erring o&erator# Thereafter and while thecity ordinance was already in effect' !ongress enacteda law

.eo&ardy and does not e%&ose the acc"sed to a

second .eo&ardy# @hen the co"rt &re-e+&tivelydis+issed the case' it violated the f"nda+ental right othe acc"sed to d"e &rocess# @ith s"ch violation' itsorders are therefore n"ll and void and cannoconstit"te a &ro&er (asis for a clai+ of do"(le

.eo&ardy#


18/26


vs# l(ano' s"&raE Saldana vs# !' 196 S!R /951996M=#

Q= A w)s h)rge! with ) offese. U/o his,otio2 the )se w)s !is,isse!. C) he i1o4e!o&-le 0eo/)r!3 i )se he is h)rge! with the

s),e )se'Wh3'

$o#s a r"le' he cannot invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy(eca"se when he +oved for the dis+issal' he waivedthe right to inter&ose it# He &revented the State fro+&resenting evidence and the co"rt fro+ &rono"ncinghis g"ilt or innocence# 9Aeo&le vs# Tagle' 164 Ahil#1,5E Aeo&le vs# Gines' et al#' G#R# $o# 8/35/' )ay ,'1991=#

Q= S&//ose i the 7&estio )-o1e2 the )&sei1o4e! the right to s/ee!3 tri)l2 ) he i1o4e!o&-le 0eo/)r!3 i )se he is h)rge! )g)i'Wh3'

?es' (y way of e%ce&tion to the r"le#


19/26


reinstated# cc"sed +oved to reconsider on thegro"nd of do"(le .eo&ardy# It was denied' hence' a&etition for ertiorari (efore the S! was filed# R"le onthe &etition#

A= The /etitio will /ros/er. There is !o&-le0eo/)r!3 e1e if the !is,iss)l w)s /ro1isio)l ih)r)ter )! e1e &/o ,otio of the )&se! ifhe i1o4es the right to s/ee!3 tri)l. +is,iss)l )fterele1e 3e)rs is e7&i1)let to )7&itt)l. There w)s&re)so)-le !el)3. (Peo/le 1s. B)l!0)32 "" SCRA@$G*.

!an the acc"sed invo7e do"(le .eo&ardy in casethe infor+ation is dis+issed on the gro"nd of lac7 of

."risdiction%&lain#

A= No2 the !is,iss)l o the gro&! of l)4 of0&ris!itio is ot e7&i)let to )7&itt)l. (Peo/le1s.


20/26


/roee!ig w)s sh), )! ) ,o4 tri)l. The St)tew)s !eie! !&e /roess )! !o&-le 0eo/)r!3)ot -e i1o4e! i ri,i)l )ses where therew)s !ei)l of !&e /roess. (


21/26


his defense' he inter&osed his constit"tional rightagainst do"(le .eo&ardy# Is the defense valid @hy

A= No2 -e)&se the 4illig of ) /erso with the &seof ) &liese! fire)r, ,)3 gi1e rise to se/)r)te

/rose&tio for ()* 1iol)tio of Setio " of P.+.No. "$;; )! (-* 1iol)tio of either Art. @G$ or Art@G# of the Re1ise! Pe)l Co!e. The )&se!)ot /le)! oe )s ) -)r to the other. The r&le)g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 )ot -e i1o4e!-e)&se the first is /&ishe! -3 ) s/ei)l l)w2while the seo!2 ho,ii!e or ,&r!er2 is /&ishe!-3 the Re1ise! Pe)l Co!e. It is ) )r!i)l r&le th)tthe /rotetio )g)ist !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 ,)3 -ei1o4e! ol3 if the seo! /rose&tio is for thes),e offese or i!eti)l offeses. (Peo/le 1s.Ti9o2 "#$ SCRA ;$ Peo/le 1s. +e&i!)2 G#SCA+ $F#2


22/26


Two infor+ations were filed against )r# G for of rt# ,61

A= Yes2 there is !o&-le 0eo/)r!3 -e)&se the!is,iss)l o the gro&! of /resri/tio ),o&te!to )7&itt)l. Oe w)s ) ,e)s of o,,ittig theother. ( Peo/le 1s. Relo1)*

BILL OF TTI$2R

state the constit"tional &rovision &rohi(iting the&assage of a (ill of attainder and e' (ost #ato law#

A= No e5 ost (a#to l)w or -ill of )tt)i!er sh)ll -ee)te!. (Art. III2 Se. @@2 "#$% Costit&tio*

The Ahili&&ines and "stralia entered into an%tradition Treaty &roviding that e%tradition +ay (egranted irres&ective of when the offense was




23/26


co++itted &rovided that s"ch offense is an offense&enali0ed "nder the laws of the re*"esting State#A"rs"ant to s"ch treaty' Aa"l ose&h @right wasso"ght to (e e%tradited for having co++itted certainoffenses in "stralia' ("t he contended that since heco++itted the offenses (efore the treaty (eca+e

effective' retroactivity wo"ld (e violative of theconstit"tional &rohi(ition against e' (ost #ato law# Ishis contention valid @hy

A= No2 -e)&se the /rohi-itio )g)ist the /)ss)geof e5 ost (a#to l)w )//lies ol3 to ri,i)llegisl)tio whih )ffets the s&-st)ti)l rights ofthe )&se!. The tre)t3 is either ) /iee ofri,i)l legisl)tio or ) ri,i)l /roe!&r)lst)t&te. It ,erel3 /ro1i!es for the e:tr)!itio of/ersos w)te! for /rose&tio of ) offese or )ri,e whih offese or ri,e w)s )lre)!3o,,itte! or os&,,)te! )t the ti,e the tre)t3w)s r)tifie!. (Wright 1s. CA2 et )l .2 FG SCA+ GD;2

Ch)rge )! W)rr)t of ArrestSheets? )ttest to the f)t th)t he is ot ol3 w)te!for /rose&tio2 -&t h)s i f)t2 )-so!e! toe1)!e )rrest )! ri,i)l /rose&tio. To li,it theiter/ret)tio to /ersos h)rge! with )ifor,)tio or o,/l)it re!ers the Tre)t3ieffeti1e o1er i!i1i!&)ls who )-so!e! for the/&r/ose of e1)!ig )rrest )! /rose&tio.

: was charged with illegal recr"it+ent (efore theeffectivity of A#2# ,618 &enali0ing illegal recr"it+ent ona large scale# !an this 2ecree (e "sed to &enali0e :@hy

A= No2 -e)&se it wo&l! -eo,e retro)ti1e whihwo&l! 1iol)te the ostit&tio)l /rohi-itio )g)istthe e)t,et of e5 ost (a#to l)w. (Peo/le 1s.T)g&-)2 G% SCA+ "%@2


24/26


f)thers o&tr3 s&h hil!re )re iti9es of th)to&tr3.

(* Those who ,)rr3 )lies if -3 the l)ws of thel)tter8s o&tr3 the for,er )re osi!ere! iti9es2&less -3 their )t or o,issio the3 )re !ee,e! toh)1e reo&e! Phili//ie Citi9eshi/# MeradoVs Man*ano, 30/ SCRA 630

# B' an Indian national' was nat"rali0ed as a Fili&inociti0en in accordance with ! 3/' as a+ended# s aneffect of B>s nat"rali0ation' his wife and +inor childrenwere derivatively nat"rali0ed# Three years after hisnat"rali0ation' B ret"rned to his native India andesta(lished residence there# B>s wife and children wereleft in the Ahili&&ines# nder the law' B>s esta(lishinga residence in any foreign co"ntry within 4 years is agro"nd for denat"rali0ation# @o"ld B>s wife and +inorchildren also lose their Fili&ino !iti0enshi&

# No. it is ol3 whe the gro&! for !e)t&r)li9)tio )ffets the itrisi 1)li!it3 of the/roee!igs !oes it !i1est the wife )! hil!re oftheir !eri1)ti1e )t&r)li9)tio. U!er the l)w2 these)re whe ("* the )t&r)li9)tio ertifi)te w)so-t)ie! fr)&!&letl3 or illeg)ll32 )! (@*)t&r)li9)tio w)s o-t)ie! thro&gh i1)li!!el)r)tio of itetio.

If the gro"nd is &ersonal to the &ersonnat"rali0ed' s"ch as in this case' the wife and childrenshall retain their Fili&ino citi0enshi

# ? was elected Senator in the )ay 198 nationalelection# He was (orn o"t of wedloc7 in 1939 of an

+erican father and a nat"rali0ed Fili&ina +other# ?never elected Ahili&&ine citi0enshi& "&on reaching theage of +a.ority#

The Se)te )! theHo&se of Re/reset)ti1es sh)ll e)h h)1e )Eletor)l Tri-&)l whih sh)ll -e the sole 0&!ge of

)ll otests rel)tig to the eletio ret&rs )!7&)lifi)tios of their res/eti1e ,e,-ers.?


25/26


the 7&)lifi)tios /resri-e! i Se. @ of theRe1ise! N)t&r)li9)tio L)w /ro1i!e! she/ossesses oe of the !is7&)lifi)tios set forthi Se. G of the s),e l)w. All of the gro&!si1o4e! -3 the for,er girlfrie! of Peter


26/26


ili/io Citi9e -eo,es ) ili/io Citi9e/ro1i!e! she /ossesses oe of the!is7&)lifi)tio for )t&r)li9)tio. A foreig ,)who ,)rries ) ili/io Citi9es !oes ot )7&irePhili//ie Citi9eshi/. Howe1er2 &!er Se. ofthe Re1ise! N)t&r)li9)tio At2 i s&h ) )se the

resi!ets re7&ire,et for )t&r)li9)tio sh)ll -ere!&e! fro, te to fi1e 3e)rs. U!er Se. "(@*2 Art.IV of the Costit&tio2 the hil!re of ) )lie )!) ili/io iti9es )re iti9es of the Phili//ies.


@;

Documents

bill of rights Q&A 2003.doc