You are on page 1of 5

Pretty v. United Kingdom , (2346/02) [2002] ECHR 423 (29 April degree of civilization and culture.

ulture. “The term ‘non-Christian 4. Honasan’s failed coup (Art. II, Sec. 4-5 of the Constitution). Residual powers,
2002) tribes’ refers, not to religious belief but in a way, to the 5. Communist insurgency movements according to Theodore Roosevelt, dictate that the President
geographical area and more directly, to natives of the 6. secessionist movements in Mindanao can do anything which is not forbidden in the Constitution
Philippine Islands of a low grade of civilization, usually living in 7. devastated economy because of (Corwin, supra at 153), inevitable to vest discretionary powers
Facts: the applicant was dying of a neuron disease. She was tribal relationship apart from settled communities.” (Rubi vs. on the President (Hyman, American President) and that the
paralyzed but could make decisions. She wanted to die to be Provincial Board of Mindora, supra.) This distinction is president has to maintain peace during times of emergency
spared of suffering and indignity but could not do it by herself. unquestionably reasonable, for the Act was intended to meet 1. accumulated foreign debt but also on the day-to-day operation of the State.
She thus wanted her husband to help her commit suicide. the peculiar conditions existing in the non-Christian tribes. 2. plunder of nation by Marcos & cronies
However, it was a crime to assist another to commit suicide The rights Marcoses are invoking are not absolute. They’re
under the British laws and her request to guarantee her The prohibition enshrined in Act 1397 is designed to insure flexible depending on the circumstances. The request of the
husband freedom from prosecution if he helped her was Marcos filed for a petition of mandamus and prohibition to
peace and order in and among non-Christian tribes. It applies Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines cannot be
refused. order the respondents to issue them their travel documents
equally to all members of the class evident from perusal and prevent the implementation of President Aquino’s considered in the light solely of the constitutional provisions
thereof. That it may be unfair in its operation against a certain decision to bar Marcos from returning in the Philippines. guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject
Complaint: The applicant claimed that the U.K. violated Article number of non-Christians by reason of their degree of culture, Petitioner questions Aquino’s power to bar his return in the to certain exceptions, or of case law which clearly never
is not an argument against the equality of its application. contemplated situations even remotely similar to the present
3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or country. He also questioned the claim of the President that the
punishment), Article 2 (right to life), Article 8 (right to respect decision was made in the interest of national security, public one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately
for private life), Article 9 (freedom of conscience) and Article Beltran V sec of Health safety and health. Petitioner also claimed that the President addressed to those residual unstated powers of the President
14 (prohibition of discrimination) acted outside her jurisdiction. which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
FACTS: This case involves a law seeking to promote voluntary residing in that office to safeguard and protect general
donation of blood and to phase out commercial blood banks According to the Marcoses, such act deprives them of their welfare. In that context, such request or demand should
Holding: the ECHR found no violation of article 2, 3, 8, 9 and 14 within 2 years from its effectivity. The purpose of the law is to right to life, liberty, property without due process and equal submit to the exercise of a broader discretion on the part of
prevent blood transfusion transmissible diseases which were protection of the laws. They also said that it deprives them of the President to determine whether it must be granted or
proven in studies to be more prone in blood transfusions w/c their right to travel which according to Section 6, Article 3 of denied.
Reasoning: Article 2 � 1 enjoined States to refrain from the
come from the commercial blood banks as compared to those the constitution, may only be impaired by a court order.
unlawful taking of life and to take appropriate steps to coming from the Phil. National Red Cross. Petitioners assailed For issue number 2, the question for the court to determine is
safeguard lives. Article 2 could not be interpreted as conferring whether or not there exist factual basis for the President to
the latter’s constitutionality on the ground of deprivation of Issue:
a right to die so there was no violation of article 2. Moreover, property and liberty. conclude that it was in the national interest to bar the return
as article 3 was construed in conjunction with Article 2 there of the Marcoses in the Philippines. It is proven that there are
was no violation of article 3 either. 1. Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers factual bases in her decision. The supervening events that
ISSUE: WON RA 7719 (National Blood Services Act) constitutes
as unlawful deprivation of personal liberty and property. granted by the Constitution, the President may happened before her decision are factual. The President must
prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the take preemptive measures for the self-preservation of the
People V Cayat
HELD: No. It was a VALID legislation. The interest of Philippines. country & protection of the people. She has to uphold the
commercial blood banks must yield to a greater interest of the 2. Whether or not the President acted arbitrarily or Constitution.
Facts/Issue: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio, Benguet, public. with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
Mountain Province, and a member of the non-Christian tribes, or excess of jurisdiction when she determined G.R. No. 88211, October 27, 1989
was found guilty of violating sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 1639 that the return of the Marcoses to the Philippines
for having acquired and possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an poses a serious threat to national interest and Marcos VS Manglapus, respondent (Part 2)
Marcos VS.Manglapus (Part 1)
intoxicating liquor, which is not a native wine. The law made it welfare and decided to bar their return.
Facts:
unlawful for any native of the Philippines who is a member of Facts:
a non-Christian tribe within the meaning of Act 1397 to buy, In its decision dated September 15, 1989, the Court by a vote
Decision:
receive, have in his possession, or drink any ardent spirits, ale, Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos was deposed from the
of eight to seven, dismissed the petition, after finding that the
beer, wine or intoxicating liquors of any kind, other than the presidency via the non-violent “people power” revolution and
President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
so-called native wines and liquors which the members of such was forced into exile. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his No to both issues. Petition dismissed. discretion in determining that the return of former President
tribes have been accustomed to prior to the passage of the wish to return to the Philippines to die. But President Corazon
Marcos and his family pose a threat to national interest and
law. Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his Ratio:
welfare and in prohibiting their return to the Philippines. On
grounds that it is discriminatory and denies the equal return at a time when the stability of government is
September 28, 1989, Marcos died in Honolulu, Hawaii.
protection of the laws, violates due process clause, and is an threatened from various directions and the economy is just Separation of power dictates that each department has
improper exercise of police power. beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the exclusive powers. According to Section 1, Article VII of the
President Corazon Aquino issued a statement saying that in the
decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. 1987 Philippine Constitution, “the executive power shall be
interest of the safety of those who will take the death of
Held: It is an established principle of constitutional law that the vested in the President of the Philippines.” However, it does
Marcos in widely and passionately conflicting ways, and for the
guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by Aquino barred Marcos from returning due to possible threats not define what is meant by “executive power” although in the
tranquility and order of the state and society, she did not allow
a legislation based on reasonable classification. (1) must rest & following supervening events: same article it touches on exercise of certain powers by the
the remains of Marcos to be brought back in the Philippines.
on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the President, i.e., the power of control over all executive
purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing departments, bureaus and offices, the power to execute the A motion for Reconsideration was filed by the petitioners
1. failed Manila Hotel coup in 1986 led by Marcos
conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to all members of laws, the appointing power to grant reprieves, commutations raising the following arguments:
leaders
the same class. and pardons… (art VII secfs. 14-23). Although the constitution
2. channel 7 taken over by rebels & loyalists
outlines tasks of the president, this list is not defined &
3. plan of Marcoses to return w/ mercenaries 1. Barring their return would deny them their inherent right as
Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. The classification exclusive. She has residual & discretionary powers not stated
aboard a chartered plane of a Lebanese arms citizens to return to their country of birth and all other rights
rests on real or substantial, not merely imaginary or whimsical in the Constitution which include the power to protect the
dealer. This is to prove that they can stir trouble guaranteed by the Constitution to all Filipinos.
distinctions. It is not based upon “accident of birth or general welfare of the people. She is obliged to protect the
from afar
parentage,” as counsel for the appellant asserts, but upon the people, promote their welfare & advance national interest.
2. The President has no power to bar a Filipino from his own American Bible Society has been distributing and selling bibles Issue. Are students’ rights and freedom under the Convention cursed him and told him to come along. Appellant admitted
country; if she has, she had exercised it arbitrarily. and translating the same into Philippine dialects. The Acting for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the
City Treasurer of Manila informed plaintiff that they were Freedoms violated when a secular country places a ban on the exception of the name of the Deity. Over appellant's objection,
conducting the business of general merchandise without the wearing of religious clothing in institutions of higher learning? the trial court excluded, as immaterial, testimony relating to
3. There is no basis for barring the return of the family of necessary Mayor’s permit and municipal license pursuant to appellant's mission "to preach the true facts of the Bible," his
former President Marcos. Ordinance No. 2529 and Ordinance No. 3000. Plaintiff paid treatment at the hands of the crowd, and the alleged neglect
under protest and filed a case questioning the legality of the Held. No. Student’s rights and freedom under the Convention of duty on the part of the police.
ordinances. for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Issue:
Freedoms are not violated when a secular country places a ban This action was approved by the court below, which held that
ISSUE: Whether or not the subject Ordinances are applicable on wearing religious clothing in institutions of higher neither provocation nor the truth of the utterance would
Whether or not the motion for reconsideration that the to American Bible Society? education. Constitutionally, Turkey (D) is a secular state constitute a defense to the charge.
Marcoses be allowed to return in the Philippines be granted. founded on the principles of equality without regard to
RULING: NO. Plaintiff cannot be said to be engaged in the distinctions based on sex, religion or denomination. In 1989, Issue:
Decision: business or occupation of selling said “merchandise” for profit. Turkey’s (D) Constitutional Court decided that granting legal
Ordinance No. 2529 cannot be applied to American Bible recognition to a religious symbol such as the Islamic headscarf Whether the statute was invalid under the Fourteenth
No. The Marcoses were not allowed to return. Motion for Society for in doing so it would impair its free exercise and was not compatible with the principle that the state education Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that it
Reconsideration denied because of lack of merit. enjoyment of its religious profession and worship as well as its must be neutral and might generate conflicts between placed an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech,
rights of dissemination of religious beliefs. On the other hand, students of different religions. The Vice Chancellor explained freedom of the press, and freedom of worship, and because it
Ratio: the banning of the headscarf at the University School of
pursuant to Ordinance No. 3000, to obtain a Mayor’s permit was vague and indefinite?
before any person can engage in any business does not impose Medicine in a memorandum which was circulated that the ban
any charge upon the enjoyment of a right granted by the was not intended to infringe on students freedom of Ruling:
Petitioners failed to show any compelling reason to warrant
Constitution, nor tax the exercise of religious practices. conscience or religion, but to comply with the laws and Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are
reconsideration.
Nevertheless, since Ordinance No. 2529 is not applicable to regulations in force and that such compliance would be protected by the First Amendment from infringement by
Plaintiff, the Court ruled that Ordinance No. 3000 is also sensitive to patients’ rights. Hence, the ban did not prohibit Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and
1 Factual scenario during the time Court rendered inapplicable to said business, trade or occupation of the Muslim students from manifesting their religion in accordance liberties, which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
its decision has not changed. The threats to the plaintiff. Thus, defendant was ordered to return the payment with habitual forms of Muslim observance and it was not from invasion by state action.
government, to which the return of the Marcoses under protest unduly collected from Plaintiff American Bible directed only at Muslim attire. So the view of the Court should Appellant assails the statute as a violation of all three
has been viewed to provide a catalytic effect, Society. not be interchanged for that of the University who are better freedoms, speech, press and worship, but only an attack on the
have not been shown to have ceased. Imelda placed to evaluate local needs. The right to behave in a manner basis of free speech is warranted. The spoken, not the written,
Marcos also called President Aquino “illegal” Sahin V Turkey governed by a religion belief is not guaranteed by Article 9 and word is involved. And we cannot conceive that cursing a public
claiming that it is Ferdinand Marcos who is the it also does not confer on people who do so the right to officer is the exercise of religion in any sense of the term. But
legal president. Brief Fact Summary. A Turkish Muslim by the name Sahin (P) disregard rules that have proved to be justified. By giving due even if the activities of the appellant which preceded the
2 President has unstated residual powers implied alleged that the Republic of Turkey (D) violated her rights and regard to Turkey’s (D) margin of appreciation, the interference incident could be viewed as religious in character, and
from grant of executive power. Enumerations are freedom under the Convention for the Protection of Human here was justified in principle and proportionate to aim therefore entitled to the protection of the Fourteenth
merely for specifying principal articles implied in Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by banning the wearing of pursued. Hence, Article 9 was not contravened. Amendment, they would not cloak him with immunity from
the definition; leaving the rest to flow from the Islamic headscarf in institutions of higher education. the legal consequences for concomitant acts committed in
general grant that power, interpreted in Synopsis of Rule of Law. Students rights and freedom under the violation of a valid criminal statute. We turn, therefore, to an
conformity with other parts of the Constitution Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and examination of the statute itself.
(Hamilton). Executive unlike Congress can Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Fundamental Freedoms are not violated when a secular
exercise power from sources not enumerates so country places a ban on wearing religious clothing in Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of
long as not forbidden by constitutional text Facts:
institutions of higher education. the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the
(Myers vs. US). This does not amount to right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all
dictatorship. Amendment No. 6 expressly granted Chaplinsky was distributing the literature of his sect on the
circumstances.
Marcos power of legislation whereas 1987 Facts. Sahin (P) had a traditional background of family streets of Rochester on a busy Saturday afternoon. Members
There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of
Constitution granted Aquino with implied powers. practicing Muslims and considered it her religious duty to wear of the local citizenry complained to the City Marshal, Bowering,
speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never
3 It is within Aquino’s power to protect & promote the Islamic headscarf. When she was in her 5th year at the that Chaplinsky was denouncing all religion as a "racket."
been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These
interest & welfare of the people. She bound to faculty of medicine of the University of Istanbul in 1998, the Bowering told them that Chaplinsky was lawfully engaged, and
include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and
comply w/ that duty and there is no proof that she Vice-Chancellor of the University issued a circular which then warned Chaplinsky that the crowd was getting restless.
the insulting or "fighting" words, those which, by their very
acted arbitrarily stipulated that students with beards and wearing the Islamic utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach
headscarf would be refused admission to lectures, courses and Sometime later, a disturbance occurred and the traffic officer
of the peace.
tutorials. Sahin (P) was denied access to a written exam and on duty at the busy intersection started with Chaplinsky for the
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY VS. CITY OF MANILA the University authorities refused to enroll her in a course and police station, but did not inform him that he was under arrest
It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential
G.R. No. L-9637 to admit her to various lectures and other written exams or that he was going to be arrested. On the way, they
part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social
April 30 1996 because of the Islamic headscarf she was putting on. She later encountered Marshal Bowering, who had been advised that a
value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived
left the University to further her studies in Vienna and had riot was under way and was therefore hurrying to the scene.
from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order
lived in Vienna since then. Before leaving Istanbul, Sahin (P) Bowering repeated his earlier warning to Chaplinsky, who then
and morality.
FACTS: Plaintiff, American Bible Society, is a foreign non-stock, filed an application against the Republic of Turkey (P) with the addressed to Bowering the words set forth in the complaint.
non-profit, religious, missionary corporation duly registered European Commission of Human Rights and Fundamental On the authority of its earlier decisions, the state court
and doing business in the Philippines. Defendant is a municipal Freedoms alleging that her rights and freedom under the Chaplinsky's version of the affair was slightly different. He
declared that the statute's purpose was to preserve the public
corporation with powers that are to be exercised in conformity Convention had been violated. A judgment was rendered by testified that, when he met Bowering, he asked him to arrest
peace, no words being "forbidden except such as have a direct
with the provisions of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila. the European Court after it heard the case. the ones responsible for the disturbance. In reply, Bowering
tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, to a contract cannot, through the exercise of prophetic in the constituency where he sought to be elected for one (l) 1. Obtaining the highest number of votes in an election does
individually, the remark is addressed." It was further said: discernment, fetter the exercise of the taxing power of the year and thirteen (13) days.On May 2, 1995, a hearing was not automatically vest the position in the winning
State. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order conducted by the COMELEC wherein petitioner testified and candidate. Section 17 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
We are unable to say that the limited scope of the statute as to fix obligations as between parties, but the reservation of presented in evidence. reads:
thus construed contravenes the Constitutional right of free essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into
expression. It is a statute narrowly drawn and limited to define contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order. The policy of Comelec dismiss the petition of disqualification against
and punish specific conduct lying within the domain of state protecting contracts against impairment presupposes the Agapito Aquino and declared him eligible to run for the Office The Senate and the House of Representatives shall have an
power, the use in a public place of words likely to cause a maintenance of a government which retains adequate of Representative in the Second Legislative District of Makati Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests
breach of the peace. This conclusion necessarily disposes of authority to secure the peace and good order of society. In City. relating to the election, returns and qualifications of their
appellant's contention that the statute is so vague and truth, the Contract Clause has never been thought as a respective Members.
indefinite as to render a conviction thereunder a violation of limitation on the exercise of the State's power of taxation save Move Makati and Mateo Bedon filed a Motion for
due process. A statute punishing verbal acts, carefully drawn only where a tax exemption has been granted for a valid Reconsideration of the May 6, 1995 resolution with the Under the above-stated provision, the electoral tribunal clearly
so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression, is not too consideration. Such is not the case of PAL in G.R. No. 115852, COMELEC. Meanwhile, on May 8, 1995, elections were held. In assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election,
vague for a criminal law. and the Court does not understand it to make this claim. Makati City where three (3) candidates vied for the returns and qualifications of candidates for either the Senate
Nor can we say that the application of the statute to the facts Rather, its position, as discussed above, is that the removal of congressional seat in the Second District, petitioner garnered or the House only when the latter become members of either
disclosed by the record substantially or unreasonably impinges its tax exemption cannot be made by a general, but only by a thirty eight thousand five hundred forty seven (38,547) votes the Senate or the House of Representatives. A candidate who
upon the privilege of free speech. Argument is unnecessary to specific, law. Further, the Supreme Court held the validity of as against another candidate, Agusto Syjuco, who obtained has not been proclaimed and who has not taken his oath of
demonstrate that the appellations "damned racketeer" and Republic Act No. 7716 in its formal and substantive aspects as thirty five thousand nine hundred ten (35,910) votes. office cannot be said to be a member of the House of
"damned Fascist" are epithets likely to provoke the average this has been raised in the various cases before it. To sum up, Representatives. Thus the contention of Aquino on jurisdiction
person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace. the Court holds: (1) That the procedural requirements of the has no basis.
On May 10, 1995, private respondents Move Makati and
Constitution have been complied with by Congress in the
Bedon filed an Urgent Motion Ad Cautelum to Suspend
The refusal of the state court to admit evidence of provocation enactment of the statute; (2) That judicial inquiry whether the
Proclamation of petitioner.
and evidence bearing on the truth or falsity of the utterances formal requirements for the enactment of statutes - beyond
2. In order that petitioner could qualify as a candidate for
is open to no Constitutional objection. Whether the facts those prescribed by the Constitution - have been observed is
On May 15, 1995, COMELEC issued an Order suspending Representative of the Second District of Makati City, he
sought to be proved by such evidence constitute a defense to precluded by the principle of separation of powers; (3) That
Aquino’s proclamation. must prove that he has established not just residence but
the charge, or may be shown in mitigation, are questions for the law does not abridge freedom of speech, expression or the
domicile of choice.
the state court to determine. Our function is fulfilled by a press, nor interfere with the free exercise of religion, nor deny
determination that the challenged statute, on its face and as to any of the parties the right to an education; and (4) That, in Aquino filed a Motion to lift suspension and questioned the
jurisdiction of the COMELEC because the issue of whether or Petitioner, in his certificate of candidacy for the 1992 elections,
applied, does not contravene the Fourteenth Amendment. view of the absence of a factual foundation of record, claims
indicated not only that he was a resident of San Jose,
that the law is regressive, oppressive and confiscatory and that not the determination of the qualifications of petitioner after
Concepcion, Tarlac in 1992 but that he was a resident of the
TOLENTINO VS. THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE it violates vested rights protected under the Contract Clause the elections is exclusively in the House of Representatives
same for 52 years immediately preceding that elections. At
are prematurely raised and do not justify the grant of Electoral Tribunal pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
Constitution. that time, his certificate indicated that he was also a registered
FACTS prospective relief by writ of prohibition.
voter of the same district. His birth certificate places
Concepcion, Tarlac as the birthplace of his parents. What
The valued-added tax (VAT) is levied on the sale, barter or WHEREFORE, the petitions are DISMISSED. Tolentino vs. The COMELEC, resolved to proceed with the promulgation to
stands consistently clear and unassailable is that his domicile
exchange of goods and properties as well as on the sale or Secretary of Finance, (235 SCRA 630, 249 SCRA 628) August 25, accept the filing of the aforesaid motion, and to allow the
of origin of record up to the time of filing of his most recent
exchange of services. It is equivalent to 10% of the gross selling 1994; October 30, 1995 Facts: There are various suits parties to be heard thereon because the issue of jurisdiction
certificate of candidacy for the 1995 elections was Concepcion,
price or gross value in money of goods or properties sold, challenging the constitutionality of now before the Commission has to be studied with more
Tarlac.
bartered or exchanged or of the gross receipts from the sale or reflection and judiciousness. On its resolution, the COMELEC
exchange of services. Republic Act No. 7716 seeks to widen the also declared Aquino ineligible and thus disqualified as a
candidate for the Office of Representative of the Second Petitioner’s assertion that he has transferred his domicile from
tax base of the existing VAT system and enhance its AQUINO vs. COMELEC Tarlac to Makati is a bare assertion which is hardly supported
administration by amending the National Internal Revenue Legislative District of Makati City in the May 8, 1995 elections,
for lack of the constitutional qualification of residence by the facts. To successfully effect a change of domicile,
Code. The Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Association GR No. 120265, Sept.18, 1995 petitioner must prove an actual removal or an actual change
(CREBA) contends that the imposition of VAT on sales and of domicile; a bona fide intention of abandoning the former
leases by virtue of contracts entered into prior to the ISSUES:
FACTS: place of residence and establishing a new one and definite acts
effectivity of the law would violate the constitutional provision which correspond with the purpose. In the absence of clear
of “non-impairment of contracts.” 1. Whether the COMELEC lost its jurisdiction over the and positive proof, the domicile of origin should be deemed to
Petitioner Agapito Aquino filed his certificate of candidacy for
question of petitioner's qualifications to run for member of continue.
the position of Representative for the Second District of Makati
ISSUE Whether R.A. No. 7716 is unconstitutional on ground the House of Representatives
City. Private respondents Move Makati, a duly registered
that it violates the contract clause under Art. III, sec 10 of the political party, and Mateo Bedon,Chairman of LAKAS-NUCD- The sanctity of the people's will must be observed at all times
Bill of Rights. (Since the jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification is
UMDP of Brgy.Cembo, Makati City, filed a petition to disqualify if our nascent democracy is to be preserved. In any challenge
exclusively lodged with the House of Representatives Electoral
petitioner on the ground that the latter lacked the residence having the effect of reversing a democratic choice, expressed
RULING Tribunal (HRET)
qualification as a candidate for congressman which, under Sec. through the ballot, this Court should be ever so vigilant in
6, Art. VI of the Constitution, should be for a period not less finding solutions which would give effect to the will of the
No. The Supreme Court the contention of CREBA, that the than 1 year immediately preceding the elections. majority, for sound public policy dictates that all elective
imposition of the VAT on the sales and leases of real estate by 2. Whether or not the petitioner lacked the residence offices are filled by those who have received the highest
virtue of contracts entered into prior to the effectivity of the qualification as a candidate for congressman as mandated number of votes cast in an election. When a challenge to a
On April 25, 1995, a day after said petition for disqualification
by Sec. 6, Art.VI of the Constitution. winning candidate's qualifications however becomes
law would violate the constitutional provision of non- was filed, petitioner filed another certificate of candidacy
impairment of contracts, is only slightly less abstract but amending the certificate dated March 20, 1995. This time, inevitable, the ineligibility ought to be so noxious to the
HELD: Constitution that giving effect to the apparent will of the
nonetheless hypothetical. It is enough to say that the parties petitioner stated in Item 8 of his certificate that he had resided
people would ultimately do harm to our democratic constitutional one-year residency requirement. Imelda thus b. Domicile of origin is not easily lost. To successfully effect a Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who
institutions. amended her COC, changing “seven” months to “since change of domicile, one must demonstrate: has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
childhood.” The provincial election supervisor refused to admit be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.
AGOTE v. LORENZO the amended COC for the reason that it was filed out of time. 1. An actual removal or an actual change of domicile; If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
Imelda, thus, filed her amended COC with Comelec's head before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
FACTS: The accused was found guilty of illegal possession of office in Manila. 2. A bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
firearm and in violation of the COMELEC Resolution on gun residence and establishing a new one; and Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing
ban. On April 24, 1995, the Comelec Second Division declared of the action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the
Imelda not qualified to run and struck off the amended as well 3. Acts which correspond with the purpose. complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency
as original COCs. The Comelec in division found that when thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such
Meanwhile, on June 6, 1997, Republic Act No. 8294 was
Imelda chose to stay in Ilocos and later on in Manila, coupled In the absence of clear and positive proof based on these candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
approved into law, reducing the penalty for illegal possession
with her intention to stay there by registering as a voter there criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to continue.
of firearms under P.D. No. 1866.
and expressly declaring that she is a resident of that place, she Only with evidence showing concurrence of all
is deemed to have abandoned Tacloban City, where she spent three requirements can the presumption of continuity or Moreover, it is a settled doctrine that a statute requiring
Petitioner move for reconsideration of the trial court's her childhood and school days, as her place of domicile. residence be rebutted, for a change of residence requires an rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally
decision, pointing out that that the penalty for illegal The Comelec en banc affirmed this ruling. actual and deliberate abandonment, and one cannot have two construed to be merely directory, "so that non-compliance
possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 has already been legal residences at the same time. Petitioner held various with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that
reduced by the subsequent enactment of Rep. Act No. 8294, During the pendency of the disqualification case, Imelda won residences for different purposes during the last four decades. if the statute had intended such result it would have clearly
hence, the latter law, being favorable to him, should be the in the election. But the Comelec suspended her proclamation. None of these purposes unequivocally point to an intention to indicated it.
one applied in determining his penalty for illegal possession of Imelda thus appealed to the Supreme Court. abandon her domicile of origin in Tacloban, Leyte.
firearms. the petition was denied.
Imelda invoked Section 78 of B.P. 881 which provides that a c. It cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her
Therefrom, petitioner went to the Court of Appeals on a 3. HRET's jurisdiction as the sole judge of all contests relating
petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her
petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining to the elections, returns and qualifications of members of
of candidacy must be decided, after due notice and hearing, marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952. A
order. Petition denied. Congress begins only after a candidate has become a
not later than 15 days before the election. Since the Comelec wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile. What
member of the House of Representatives. Imelda, not being a
rendered the resolution on on April 24, 1995, fourteen (14) petitioner gained upon marriage was actual residence. She did
member of the House of Representatives, it is obvious that the
ISSUE: WON the appellate court is correct in not giving Rep. Act days before the election, Comelec already lose jurisdiction not lose her domicile of origin. The term residence may mean
HRET at this point has no jurisdiction over the
No. 8294 a retroactive application. over her case. She contended that it is the House of one thing in civil law (or under the Civil Code) and quite
question.(Romualdez-Marcos vs Comelec, G.R. No. 119976,
Representatives Electoral Tribunal and not the Comelec which another thing in political law. What stands clear is that insofar
September 18, 1995)
HELD: No. The appellate court is not correct in not giving Rep. has jurisdiction over the election of members of the House of as the Civil Code is concerned-affecting the rights and
Act No. 8294 a retroactive application. Representatives. obligations of husband and wife — the term residence should
only be interpreted to mean "actual residence." The
Issues: inescapable conclusion derived from this unambiguous civil PEOPLE vs. WALPAN LADJAALAM y MIHAJIL alias “WARPAN,”
The Court feels that it must squarely address the issue raised appellant.
in this case regarding the retroactivity of Rep. Act No. 8294, law delineation therefore, is that when petitioner married the
what with the reality that the provisions thereof are former President in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and
merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium. FACTS:
undoubtedly favorable to petitioner. For this purpose, then, 1. Was Imelda a resident, for election purposes, of the First
we shall exercise our prerogative to set aside technicalities in District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of the
the Rules and "hold the bull by its horns", so to speak. After all, d. Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner The trial court found the appelant guilty of maintaining a drug
May 9, 1995 elections. gained a new "domicile" after her marriage and only acquired
the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the 2. den, an offense for which was sentenced to reclusion
Does the Comelec lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a a right to choose a new one after her husband died,
interest of justice requires is not without legal authority or perpetua. Appelant’s guilt was established by the testimony of
pending disqualification case after the elections? petitioner's acts following her return to the country clearly
precedent. In Solicitor General, et. al. vs. The Metropolitan 3. Prosecution Witness , who himself had used the extension
Does the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal indicate that she not only impliedly but expressly chose her
Manila Authority, we held: house of appellant as a drug den on several occasions,
assumed exclusive jurisdiction over the question of domicile of origin (assuming this was lost by operation of law) including the time of the raid. The former’s testimony was
Imelda's qualifications after the May 8, 1995 elections? as her domicile. This "choice" was unequivocally expressed in corroborated by all the raiding police officers who testified
Unquestionably, the Court has the power to suspend
her letters to the Chairman of the PCGG when petitioner before the court. That appelant did not deny ownership of the
procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as
Held: sought the PCGG's permission to "rehabilitate (our) ancestral house and its extension lent credence to the prosecution’s
expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules
house in Tacloban and Farm in Olot, Leyte ... to make them story.
concerning ‘pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.’ In
1. Imelda was a resident of the First District of Leyte for livable for the Marcos family to have a home in our homeland."
proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in
election purposes, and therefore possessed the necessary Furthermore, petitioner obtained her residence certificate in The trial court also convicted appellant of direct assault with
the interest of substantial justice, which otherwise may be
residence qualifications to run in Leyte as a candidate for a seat 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte, while living in her brother's house, an multiple counts of attempted homicide. It found that “[t]he act
miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such
in the House of Representatives for the following reasons: act which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested of the accused [of] firing an M14 rifle [at] the policemen[,] who
rules.
in her letters to the PCGG Chairman. were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant x x x”
a. Minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile, once constituted such complex crime. Aside from finding appellant
Facts:
acquired is retained until a new one is gained, it follows that in guilty of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide, the
spite of the fact of petitioner's being born in Manila, Tacloban, 2. With the enactment of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 6646 in trial court convicted him also of the separate offense of illegal
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy relation to Section 78 of B.P. 881, it is evident that the Comelec
Leyte was her domicile of origin by operation of law. This possession of firearms under PD 1866, as amended by RA
(COC) for the position of Representative of the First District of does not lose jurisdiction to hear and decide a pending
domicile was established when her father brought his family 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to
Leyte, stating that she is 7-months resident in the said district. disqualification case under Section 78 of B.P. 881 even after
back to Leyte. 8 years of prision mayor.
Montejo, incumbent Representative and a candidate for the the elections.
same position, filed a Petition for Cancellation and
Disqualification, alleging that Imelda did not meet the
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant can be convicted separately after their wedding. She gave birth to her eldest child while in the Emiliano Militar and his wife. Emiliano reported and registered Ø Recent legislation all expressly refer to “Filipino children”
of illegal possession of firearms after using said firearm in the U.S.; and her two daughters in the Philippines. She became a Grace Poe as a foundling with the Office of the Civil Registrar of and include foundlings as among Filipino children who may be
naturalized American citizen in 2001. She came back to the Iloilo City. Fenando Poe, Jr. and Susan Roces adopted Grace Poe. adopted.
commission of another crime.
Philippines to support her father’s candidacy for president in the · 1991 – Poe went to the US to be a permanent resident therein
May 2004 elections and gave birth to her youngest daughter. They · 2001 – She became a naturalized US citizen Generally accepted principles of international law
HELD: then returned to the U.S. in 2004 but after few months, she rushed · First quarter of 2005 – she came back to the Philippines to The common thread of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
back to the Philippines to attend to her ailing father. After her permanently reside herein the Convention on the Rights of the Child and
father’s death, the petitioner and her husband decided to move · February 14, 2006- she went back to the US to dispose family the International Convent on Civil and Political
NO. The appealed Decision was affirmed with modifications. and reside permanently in the Philippines in 2005 and immediately belongings Rights obligates the Philippines to grant nationality from birth and
Appellant is found guilty only of two offenses: (1) direct assault secured a TIN, then her children followed suit; acquired property · July 18, 2006 – she re-acquired Filipino citizenship to ensure that no child is stateless. The principles stated in the:
and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a weapon where she and her children resided. In 2006, She took her Oath · According to Poe in her 2013 COC for Senator, before the May 1. Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relation to the
and (2) maintaining a drug den. of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to RA No. 13, 2013 election, she has been a resident of the Philippines for Conflict of Nationality laws (that a foundling is presumed to have
9225 or the Citizenship retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003; 6 years and 6 months (reckoned from year 2006 when she re- the nationality of the country of birth)
she filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship acquired her Filipino citizenship under RA 9225). 2. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (foundling is
RATIO: together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her · Poe filed her COC for Presidency for the May 9, 2016 presumed born of citizens of the country where he is found)
three children which was granted. She registered as a voter; elections (hence, computing from May, 2013, she has been a bind the Philippines although we are not signatory to these
The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal secured Philippine passport; appointed and took her oath as resident in the Philippines for 9 years and 6 months only) conventions.
possession of firearms, provided that “no other crime was Chairperson of the MTRCB after executing an affidavit of · However, in her COC, Poe declared that she is a natural born and
Renunciation of American citizenship before the Vice Consul of the her residence in the Philippine up to the day before election would Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in Asia, North and
committed by the person arrested.” If the intention of the law USA and was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the USA be 10 years and 11 months counted from May 24, 2005(when South America and Europe have passed legislation recognizing
in the second paragraph were to refer only to homicide and in 2011. In 2012, she filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of she returned from the US to the Philippines for good). foundlings as its citizens. 166 out of 189 countries accept that
murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she foundlings are recognized as citizens. Hence, there is a generally
paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither answered “6 years and 6 months” to the question “Period of RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT accepted principle of international law to presume foundlings as
should [the courts]. residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013.” Petitioner Poe is qualified to be a candidate for President in the National and having been born and a national of the country in which it is found.
obtained the highest number of votes and was proclaimed Senator Local Election on May 9, 2016.
on 16 May 2013. On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC
The Court is aware that this ruling effectively exonerates for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her COC, the 1) Is Poe, a foundling, a natural-born citizen? Yes, based 2) After renouncing her American citizenship and after having
appellant of illegal possession of an M-14 rifle, an offense petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her on: taken her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, has
which normally carries a penalty heavier than that for direct residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would a) Circumstantial evidence Poe re-acquired her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen? Yes,
assault. While the penalty for the first is prision mayor, for the be ten (10) years and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May b) Legislation Poe’s repatriation resulted to reacquisition of natural born
2005. The petitioner attached to her COC an “Affidavit Affirming c) Generally accepted principles of international law citizenship.
second it is only prision correccional. Indeed, the accused may Renunciation of U.S.A. Citizenship” subscribed and sworn to before
evade conviction for illegal possession of firearms by using a notary public in Quezon City on 14 October 2015. Petitions A natural born citizen before he lost his Philippine nationality will
such weapons in committing an even lighter offense, like alarm were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on Circumstantial evidence be restored to his former status as natural born Filipino after
and scandal or slight physical injuries, both of which are the ground particularly, among others, that she cannot be There is more than sufficient evidence that Poe has Filipino parents repatriation (Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. Commission on Audit etc).
punishable by arresto menor. This consequence, however, considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since she cannot prove and is therefore a natural-born Filipino. xxx. [T]here is a high
that her biological parents or either of them were Filipinos. The probability that her parents are Filipinos. The Solicitor General
necessarily arises from the language of RA 8294, whose
COMELEC en banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she offered official Statistics from the Philippine Statistics office that 3) Has Poe satisfied the 10 year residency requirement? Yes,
wisdom is not subject to the Court’s review. Any perception was in want of citizenship and residence requirements, and that from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the she will have been a resident for 10 years and 11 months
that the result reached here appears unwise should be she committed material misrepresentations in her COC. On Philippines was 15,985. While the Filipinos born in the country on the day of the election.
addressed to Congress. Indeed, the Court has no discretion to certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and held (9-6 were more than 10 Million. On this basis, there is a 99% chance
give statutes a new meaning detached from the manifest votes) that Poe is qualified as a candidate for Presidency. Three that the child born in the Philippines would be a Filipino which in [T]here is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to other
intendment and language of the legislature. [The Court’s] task justices, however, abstained to vote on the natural- turn, would indicate more than ample probability that Poe’s conclusion that Poe decided to permanently abandon her US
born citizenship issue. parents are Filipinos. residence and reside in the Philippines as early as May 24, 2005.
is constitutionally confined only to applying the law and
jurisprudence to the proven facts, and [this Court] have done Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of Poe’s parents Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her
so in this case are the fact that: family abandoned their US domicile and relocated to the
Issue: Whether or not Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares 1. She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in Iloilo Philippines for good. These evidence include former US passport
is a natural-born Filipino citizen. 2. She has typical Filipino features. showing her arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return to the
Poe v Comelec
Facts: Philippines every time she travelled abroad, email
Petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares was found There are disputable presumptions that things have happened correspondences with freight company to arrange for the shipment
abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo according to the ordinary course of nature. On this basis, it is safer of household items as well as with the pet Bureau; school records
Held: Yes. Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares may be to assume that Poe’s parents are Filipinos. To assume otherwise is of her children showing enrolment in the Philippine to the
on Sept. 3, 1968. After passing the parental care and custody over considered a natural-born Filipino.
petitioner by Edgardo Militar to Emiliano Militar and his wife, she to accept the absurd. Philippine schools starting on June 2005 etc. xxx These evidence,
It ruled that a foundling is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines coupled with her eventual application to reacquire Philippine
has been reported and registered as a foundling and issued a as there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude citizenship is clear that when she returned in May 2005, it was for
Foundling Certificate and Certificate of Live Birth, thus was given foundlings as they are already impliedly so recognized. There
the name, Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar. When the Legislation good.
are also no provisions in the Constitution with intent or language Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens.
petitioner reached the age of five (5), celebrity spouses Ronal Allan permitting discrimination against foundlings as the three Ø The amendment to the Constitution proposed by constitutionalist Poe was able to prove that her statement in her 2013 COC was
Kelley (aka Fernando Poe, Jr) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (aka Susan Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the
Roces) filed a petition foe her adoption. The trial court granted Rafols to include foundlings as natural born citizens was not carried only a mistake in good faith. As explained by Grace Poe, she
laws. Foundlings are citizens under international law as this is out, not because there was any objection to the notion that misunderstood the date required in the 2013 COC as the period of
their petition and ordered that her name be changed to Mary Grace supported by some treaties, adhering to the customary rule to
Natividad Sonora Poe. Petitioner registered as a voter in San Juan persons of unknown parentage are not citizens, but only because residence as of the day she submitted that COC in 2012. She said
presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the their number was not enough to merit specific mention. There was that she reckoned residency from April-May 2006 which was the
City at the age of 18 in 1986; in 1988, she applied and was issued foundling is found.
Philippine Passport by the DFA; in 1993 and 1998, she renewed no intent or language that would permit discrimination against period when the U.S. house was sold and her husband returned to
her passport. She left for the United States (U.S.) in 1988 to foundlings. On the contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee the the Philippines. In that regard, she was advised by her lawyers in
continue her studies after enrolling and pursuing a degree in basic right to equal protection of the laws. 2015 that residence could be counted from 25 May 2005. Such a
Development Studies at the University of the Philippines. She Ø Likewise, domestic laws on adoption support the principle that mistake could be given in evidence against her but it was by no
GRACE POE vs. COMELEC
graduated in 1991 from Boston College where she earned her foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not provide that adoption means conclusive considering the overwhelming evidence
The Case
Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies. She married Teodoro · confers citizenship upon the adoptee, rather, the adoptee must be submitted by Poe.
Grace Poe was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the Parish
Filipino in the first place to be adopted.
Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a citizen of both the Philippines and Church of Jaro, Iloilo by Edgardo Militar in 1968. Parental care and
the U.S., in San Juan City and decided to flew back to the U.S. custody over her was passed on by Edgardo to his relatives,