Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) VILLAVICENCIO VS LUKBAN
Issue:
The writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by the petitioner, with the prayer that the
respondent produce around 170 women whom Justo Lukban et, al deported to
Davao. Liberty of abode was also raised versus the power of the executive of the
Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge in his capacity as
Mayor.
Facts:
Justo Lukban as Manila City's Mayor together with Anton Hohmann, the city's
Chief of Police, took custody of about 170 women at the night of October 25
beyond the latters consent and knowledge and thereafter were shipped to
Mindanao specifically in Davao where they were signed as laborers. Said women
are inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the
district of Sampaloc.
That when the petitioner filed for habeas corpus, the respondent moved to
dismiss the case saying that those women were already out of their jurisdiction
and that , it should be filed in the city of Davao instead.
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner with the instructions;
For the respondents to have fulfilled the court's order, three optional courses
were open: (1) They could have produced the bodies of the persons according to
the command of the writ; or (2) they could have shown by affidavit that on
account of sickness or infirmity those persons could not safely be brought before
the court; or (3) they could have presented affidavits to show that the parties in
question or their attorney waived the right to be present.
Held:
The court concluded the case by granting the parties aggrieved the sum of 400
pesos each, plus 100 pesos for nominal damage due to contempt of court.
Reasoning further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the
Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him
beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to
defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person
was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this
other municipality.
We believe the true principle should be that, if the respondent is within the
jurisdiction of the court and has it in his power to obey the order of the court
and thus to undo the wrong that he has inflicted, he should be compelled to do
so. Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the
custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ
should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority
of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same
officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to
Manila. The respondents, within the reach of process, may not be permitted to
restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty by forcing her to change her domicile and
to avow the act with impunity in the courts, while the person who has lost her
birthright of liberty has no effective recourse. The great writ of liberty may not
thus be easily evaded.
2) CAUNCA VS. SALAZAR
Facts: This is an action for habeas corpus brought by Bartolome Caunca in behalf
of his cousin Estelita Flores who was employed by the Far
Eastern Employment Bureau, owned by Julia Salazar, respondent herein. An
advanced payment has already been given to Estelita by the employment
agency, for her to work as a maid. However, Estelita wanted to transfer to
another residence, which was disallowed by the employment agency. Further
she was detained and her liberty was restrained. The employment
agency wanted that theadvance payment, which was applied to her
transportation expense from the province should be paid by Estelita before she
could be allowed to leave.
Issue: Whether or Not an employment agency has the right to restrain and
detain a maid without returning the advance payment it gave?
Held: An employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a
prospective employee or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of
movement. The fact that no physical force has been exerted to keep her in the
house of the respondent does not make less real the deprivation of her personal
freedom of movement, freedom to transfer from one place to another, freedom
to choose ones residence. Freedom may be lost due to external moral
compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to erroneous belief in the existence
of an imaginary power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly obeyed, to
any other psychological element that may curtail the mental faculty of choice or
the unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual effect of such psychological
spell is to place a person at the mercy of another, the victim is entitled to the
protection of courts of justice as much as the individual who is illegally deprived
of liberty by duress or physical coercion.
One cannot hold that the liberty of the citizen is unduly interfered without when
the degree of civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are restrained
for their own good and the general good of the Philippines.
Liberty regulated by law": Implied in the term is restraint by law for the good of
the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the
general well-being. No man can do exactly as he pleases.
None of the rights of the citizen can be taken away except by due process of
law.
Therefore, petitioners are not unlawfully imprisoned or restrained of their
liberty. Habeas corpus can, therefore, not issue.
The right to travel, along with the right to freedom of movement, are
constitutionallyguaranteed rights. The petitioners had been barred by the
government from leaving thecountry. This was done through a Hold-Order. The
petitioners argued that this was violative of their right to travel. The Court held
that the Hold-Orders impaired the petitioners'constitutional right to travel. The
Hold-Orders had already expired and the grounds for theirissuance had become
moot. The Court said, "The right to travel and to freedom of movement isa
fundamental right guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. That right
extends to all residentsregardless of nationality. And everyone has the right
to an effective remedy by the competentnational tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution orby law. While such right is
not absolute but must yield to the State's inherent police powerupon which the
Hold-Orders were premised, no 'good reasons' have been advanced whichcould
justify the continued enforcement of the Hold-Orders." Thus, the Court held that
thegovernment had abused its discretion in maintaining the Hold-Orders for an
indefinite length of time, as to do so arbitrarily violated the petitioners'
fundamental right to freedom of movement. It cited the UDHR in so doing
Facts: Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the presidency and was forced
into exile. Corazon Aquinos ascension into presidency was challenged by failed
coup attempts as well as by plots of Marcos loyalists and the Marcoses
themselves. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the
Philipppines to die. But President Aquino, considering the dire consequences
to the nation of his return has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of
Mr. Marcos and his family. Hence, this petition for mandamus and prohibition
asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr.
Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the
implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Issues: Whether or not the President has the power to bar the return of Marcos
to the Philippines. Assuming that she has the power to bar, was there a finding
made that there is a clear and present danger to the public due to the return?
And have the requirements ofdue process been complied with in the making of
the finding?
HELD: Petition Dismissed.
The request of the Marcoses must not be treated only in the light of
constitutional provisions, it must be treated as a matter that is appropriately
addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit
in to the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general
welfare. Such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader
discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted
or denied.
It is found by the Court that from the pleadings filed by the parties, from their
oral arguments, and the facts revealed during the briefing in chambers by the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the National Security
Adviser, wherein petitioners and respondents were represented, that there exist
factual bases for the President's decision. Hence, this act cannot be said to have
been done arbitrarily or capriciously. Further, the ponencia (the coups, the
communist threat, peace and order issues especially in Mindanao, Marcos
loyalists plotting) bolsters the conclusion that the return of Marcos will only
exacerbate the situation in the country.
Another reason of the Court...We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the
country is only now beginning to recover from the hardships brought about by
the plunder of the economy attributed to the Marcoses and their close
associates and relatives, many of whom are still here in the Philippines in a
position to destabilize the country, while the Government has barely scratched
the surface, so to speak, in its efforts to recover the enormous wealth stashed
away by the Marcoses in foreign jurisdictions.
course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding
himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes
8)
Salonga vs Hermoso