AMELITO R. MUTUC vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (36 SCRA 228) Case Digest

Facts:

Petitioner Amelito Mutuc was a candidate for the position of delegate to the Constitutional Convention. He alleged that respondent Commission on Elections gave his certificate of candidacy due course but prohibited him from using jingles in his mobile units equipped with sound system and loud speakers. According to him, this violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Petitioner filed a case against Commission on elections seeking a writ of prohibition and at the same time praying for a preliminary injunction. The respondent argued that this authority was granted by the Constitutional Convention Act.

Issues: 

Was the prohibition imposed by respondent a violation of the right to freedom of speech of the petitioner?

Ruling: 

Supreme Court ruled that there was absence of statutory authority on the part of respondent to impose such ban in the light of the doctine of ejusdem generis. The respondent commission failed to manifest fealty to a cardinal principle of construction that a statute should be interpreted to assure its being consonance with, rather than repugnant to, any constitutional command or prescription. The Constitution prohibits abridgement of free speech or a free press. According to the Supreme Court, this preferred freedom calls all the more for the utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage. What the respondent Commission did was to impose censorship on petitioner, an evil against which this constitutional right is directed.

The respondent Commission is permanently restrained and prohibited from enforcing or implementing or demanding compliance with its aforesaid order banning the use of political taped jingles.

SHIGENORI KURODA vs. Major General RAFAEL JALANDONI (83 Phil 171) Case Digest

Facts:

Shigenori Kuroda, formerly a Lieutenant-General of the Japanese Army and Commanding General of the Japanese Imperial Forces in the Philippines is charged before the military commission with war crimes. The petitioner tenders that National War Crimes Office established by Executive Order 68 has no jurisdiction over his case since the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention. He also claimed that Melville Hussey and Robert Port are not attorneys authorized to practice law in the Philippines and that they do not have personality as prosecution since the United Stated is not a pary in interest in the case. 

Issue: 

Is Executive Order No. 68 illegal on the ground that the Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention? 

Ruling: 

The Supreme Court held that the order is valid and constitutional in pursuant to Section 3 Article 2 of the Constitution.

It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the Hague and Geneva conventions form part and are wholly based on generally accepted principles of international law. Such rules and procedures therefore form part of the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions.

Furthermore when the crimes charged against petitioner were allegedly committed in the Philippines was under the sovereignty of the United States and thus were equally bound together with the United States and with Japan to the right and obligation contained in the treaties between the belligerent countries. This rights and obligations were not erased by the assumption of full sovereignty.

Military Commission is a special military tribunal governed by special law and not by the rules of court. There is nothing in the said executive order which requires that counsel appearing before the said commission must be attorneys qualified to practice law in the Philippines.

Petition is DENIED.

RESTITUTO YNOT vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (148 SCRA 659) Case Digest

Facts:

On January 13, 1984, the petitioner transported six carabaos in a pump boat from Masbate to Iloilo when the same was confiscated by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo for the violation of E.O. 626-A. A case was filed by the petitioner questioning the constitutionality of executive order and the recovery of the carabaos. After considering the merits of the case, the confiscation was sustained and the court declined to rule on the constitutionality issue. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate Court but it also upheld the ruling of RTC. 

Issue: 

Is E.O. 626-A unconstitutional?  

Ruling: 

The Supreme Court found E.O. 626-A unconstitutional. The executive act defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment, which was carried out forthright. Due process was not properly observed.

FERDINAND E. MARCOS vs. HON. RAUL MANGLAPUS (177 SCRA 668) Case Digest

Facts:

After Ferdinand Marcos was deposed from the presidency, he and his family fled to Hawaii. Now in his deathbed, petitioners are asking the court to order the respondents to issue their travel documents and enjoin the implementation of the President’s decision to bar their return to the Philippines. Petitioners contend under the provision of the Bill of Rights that the President is without power to impair their liberty of abode because only a court may do so “within the limits prescribed by law.” Nor, according to the petitioners, may the President impair their right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.

Issue:

Does the president have the power to bar the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines? 

Ruling:

The President has the obligation, under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance national interest.

This case calls for the exercise of the President’s power as protector of the peace. The president is not only clothed with extraordinary powers in times of emergency, but is also tasked with day-to-day problems of maintaining peace and order and ensuring domestic tranquility in times when no foreign foe appears on the horizon.

The documented history of the efforts of the Marcoses and their followers to destabilize the country bolsters the conclusion that their return at this time would only exacerbate and intensify the violence directed against the state and instigate more chaos.

The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from taking preemptive actions against threats to its existence if, though still nascent they are perceived as apt to become serious and direct protection of the people is the essence of the duty of the government.

The Supreme Court held that the President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of discretion in determining the return of the petitioners at the present time and under present circumstances poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare prohibiting their return to the Philippines. The petition is DISMISSED.

ARTHUR D. LIM vs. HON. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (G.R. No. 151445) Case Digest

Facts:

 

Arthur D. Lim and Paulino P. Ersando filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition attacking the constitutionality of “Balikatan-02-1”. They were subsequently joined by SANLAKAS and PARTIDO NG MANGGAGAWA, both party-list organizations, who filed a petition-in-intervention. Lim and Ersando filed suits in their capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers. SANLAKAS and PARTIDO on the other hand, claimed that certain members of their organization are residents of Zamboanga and Sulu, and hence will be directly affected by the operations being conducted in Mindanao.

The petitioners alleged that “Balikatan-02-1” is not covered by the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States. Petitioners posited that the MDT only provides for mutual military assistance in case of armed attack by an external aggressor against the Philippines or the US. Petitioners also claim that the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers to engage in combat operations in Philippine Territory.

Issue:

Is the “Balikatan-02-1” inconsistent with the Philippine Constitution?

Ruling:

The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the Philippines and the US and it is the VFA which gives continued relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the current Balikatan exercise. 

The constitution leaves us no doubt that US Forces are prohibited from engaging war on Philippine territory. This limitation is explicitly provided for in the Terms of Reference of the Balikatan exercise. The issues that were raised by the petitioners was only based on fear of future violation of the Terms of Reference. 

Based on the facts obtaining, the Supreme court find that the holding of “Balikatan-02-1” joint military exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that would otherwise call for the correction on its part.

The petition and the petition-in-intervention is DISMISSED.

ALFREDO M. DE LEON vs. HON. BENHAMIN B. ESGUERRA (153 SCRA 602) Case Digest

Facts:

In 1982, Alfredo M. De Leon was elected as Baranggay Captain along with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Baranggay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal. On February 9, 1987, he received a Memorandum antedated December 1, 1986, signed on February 8, 1987 by OIC Gov. Benhamin B. Esguerra designating Florentino Magno as new Barangay Captain. A separate Memorandum with the same dates was also issued by Hon. Esguerra replacing the Barangay Councilmen. De Leon along with the other petitioners filed a petition to declare the subject Memorandum null and void and prevent the respondents from taking over their positions in the Barangay. The petitioners maintained that OIC Gov. Esguerra no longer have the authority to replace them under the 1987 Constitution and that they shall serve a term of six (6) years in pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of 1982.

Issue:

Was the designation of the new Barangay Officials valid?

Ruling:

The effectivity of the Memorandum should be based on the date when it was signed, February 8, 1987. By that time, the 1987 Constitution was already in effect, thus superseding all previous constitution as provided in Section 27 of its Transitory Provisions. Respondent OIC Governor could no longer rely on Section 2, Article III of the Provisional Constitution to designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.

Barangay Election Act of 1982 should still govern since it is not inconsistent with the 1987 Constitution.

Wherefore, the designation by the OIC Governor of new Barangay Officials was declared NO LEGAL FORCE AND EFFECT and the Writ for Prohibition is GRANTED enjoining respondents perpetually from ouster/take-over of petitioners’ position subject of this petition.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI (193 SCRA 57) Case Digest

Facts:

On August 14, 1987, the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes went to Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Zurich, Switzerland. It was received by Anita Reyes and ask if she could inspect the packages. Shirley refused and eventually convinced Anita to seal the package making it ready for shipment. Before being sent out for delivery, Job Reyes, husband of Anita and proprietor of the courier company, conducted an inspection of the package as part of standard operating procedures. Upon opening the package, he noticed a suspicious odor which made him took sample of the substance he found inside. He reported this to the NBI and invited agents to his office to inspect the package. In the presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the court a quo. Andre filed an appeal in the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of privacy was violated and that the evidence acquired from his package was inadmissible as evidence against him.

Issue:

Can the Constitutional Right of Privacy be enforced against private individuals?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state.

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. It will be recalled that Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of the NBI agents in his place of business. The mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into a warrantless search and siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.

The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.