consti 2: case digests inherent powers of the state

8/13/2019 Consti 2: Case Digests INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE

1/22

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts:Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the highest-rankingofficial to be prosecuted under RA 7080 (An Act efining andPenali!ing the "ri#e of Plunder$, % as a#ended b& RA 7'),

* +ishes to i#press upon us that the assailed la+ is sodefectiel& fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line+hich diides the alid fro# the constitutionall& infir# .etherefore #akes a stringent call for this "ourt to subject thePlunder /a+ to the crucible of constitutionalit& #ainl& because,according to hi#, (a$ it suffers fro# the ice of agueness (b$it dispenses +ith the 1reasonable doubt1 standard in cri#inalprosecutions and, (c$ it abolishes the ele#ent of #ens rea incri#es alread& punishable under 2he Reised Penal "ode, allof +hich are purportedl& clear iolations of the funda#entalrights of the accused to due process and to be infor#ed of the

nature and cause of the accusation against hi#

2hat during the period fro# June, %))8 to Januar& *00%, inthe Philippines, and +ithin the jurisdiction of this .onorable"ourt, accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, 2.E PRE34E52 62.E REP9/4" 6 2.E P.4/4PP45E3, b& hi#self A5:6Rin "6554;A5"E:"653P4RA"< +ith his co-accused, =.6ARE >E>9ER3 6 .43 A>4/3E/4RE"2/< 6R 454RE"2/4//465 E4?.2 .5RE 6R2.63A5 65E .5RE 3E;E52< 2.REE A53E;E52EE5 "E52A;63 (PB,0)7,80B,%7C%7$, #ore or less,2.ERE9< 5J32/< E5R4".45? .4>3E/ 6R2.E>3E/;E3 A2 2.E EDPE53E A5 26 2.E A>A?E

6 2.E 4/4P456 PE6P/E A5 2.E REP9/4" 6P.4/4PP45E3 through A5< 6R A co#bination 6R A series ofoert 6R cri#inal acts, 6R 34>4/AR 3".E>E3 6R >EA53

RE3PE"24;E/< 6R A 262A/ 6 >6RE 6R /E33 65E

94//465 E4?.2 .5RE 6R2< 3E;E5 >4//465 4;E.5RE 3E;E52< E4?.2 2.63A5 42< 3E;E5PE363 A5 42< "E52A;63 (P%,8B7,78,070$ A59< "6//E"245? 6R RE"E4;45?, 4RE"2/< 6R454RE"2/3E/ A5:6R 45 "6554;A5"E =42.J6.5 6E3 JA5E 6E3, "6>>4334653 6RPER"E52A?E3 9< REA365 6 3A4 PR".A3E3 63.ARE3 6 326"@ 45 2.E A>652 6 65E .5REE4?.2< 545E >4//465 3E;E5 .5RE 2.63A5PE363 (P%8),700,00000$ >6RE 6R /E33, R6> 2.E9E//E "6RP6RA2465 =.4". 9E"A>E PAR2 6 2.E

EP6342 45 2.E E42A9/E 9A5@ 5ER 2.EA""652 5A>E FJ63E ;E/AREF

Issue:RA 5o 7080 is unconstitutional on the follo+inggroundsG 4 42 ;46/A2E3 2.E E PR6"E33 "/A3E 6R 423;A?E5E33 44 42 ;46/A2E3 2.E "6532422465A/ R4?.2 62.E A""3E 26 @56= 2.E 5A2RE A5 "A3E 62.E A""3A2465 A?A4532 .4>

444 42 ;46/A2E3 2.E E PR6"E33 "/A3E A52.E "6532422465A/ PRE3>P2465 6 4556"E5"E9< /6=ER45? 2.E A52> 6 E;4E5"E5E"E33AR< 6R PR6;45? 2.E "6>P65E52E/E>E523 6 P/5ER 4; 42 43 9EE3 9< "65;ER245?


2/22

2.E3E 26 >A/A PR6.4942A, 45 ;46/A2465 6 2.E EPR6"E33 "65"EP2 6 "R4>45A/ RE3P653494/4243E3 "6534ERE, this "ourt holds that RA

7080 other+ise kno+n as the Plunder /a+, as a#ended b&RA 7'), is "6532422465A/ "onseuentl&, the petition todeclare the la+ unconstitutional is 43>433E for lack of#erit 36 6RERE

Ratio:

In view of vagueness and ambiguity "ongress is not restricted in the for# of eHpression of its+ill, and its inabilit& to so define the +ords e#plo&ed in a

statute +ill not necessaril& result in the agueness ora#biguit& of the la+ so long as the legislatie +ill is clear, or atleast, can be gathered fro# the +hole act, +hich is distinctl&eHpressed in the Plunder /a+ >oreoer, it is a +ell-settledprinciple of legal her#eneutics that +ords of a statute +ill beinterpreted in their natural, plain and ordinar& acceptation andsignification, 7 unless it is eident that the legislature intendeda technical or special legal #eaning to those +ords 8 2heintention of the la+#akers I +ho are, ordinaril&, untrainedphilologists and leHicographers I to use statutor& phraseolog&in such a #anner is al+a&s presu#ed 2hus, =ebsterFs 5e+

"ollegiate ictionar& contains the follo+ing co##onl&accepted definition of the +ords 1co#bination1 and 1seriesG1

"o#bination I the result or product of co#bining the actor process of co#bining 2o co#bine is to bring into suchclose relationship as to obscure indiidual characters 3eries I a nu#ber of things or eents of the sa#e classco#ing one after another in spatial and te#poral succession

;eril&, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctie#eaning for 1co#bination1 and 1series,1 it +ould hae takengreater pains in specificall& proiding for it in the la+ As for1pattern,1 +e agree +ith the obserations of the3andiganba&an ) that this ter# is sufficientl& defined in 3ec B,

in relation to 3ec %, par (d$, and 3ec * under 3ec % (d$ ofthe la+, a FpatternF consists of at least a co#bination or seriesof oert or cri#inal acts enu#erated in subsections (%$ to ('$ of3ec % (d$ 3econdl&, pursuant to 3ec * of the la+, the patternof oert or cri#inal acts is directed to+ards a co##on purposeor goal +hich is to enable the public officer to a#ass,accu#ulate or acuire ill-gotten +ealth And thirdl&, there #usteither be an Foerall unla+ful sche#eF or Fconspirac&F toachiee said co##on goal As co##onl& understood, theter# Foerall unla+ful sche#eF indicates a Fgeneral plan ofaction or #ethodF +hich the principal accused and public

officer and others conniing +ith hi#, follo+ to achiee theaforesaid co##on goal 4n the alternatie, if there is no suchoerall sche#e or +here the sche#es or #ethods used bultiple accused ar&, the oert or cri#inal acts #ust for# partof a conspirac& to attain a co##on goal

=ith #ore reason, the doctrine cannot be inoked +herethe assailed statute is clear and free fro# a#biguit&, as in thiscase 2he test in deter#ining +hether a cri#inal statute is oidfor uncertaint& is +hether the language cone&s a sufficientl&definite +arning as to the proscribed conduct +hen #easured

b& co##on understanding and practice 4t #ust be stressed,ho+eer, that the 1agueness1 doctrine #erel& reuires areasonable degree of certaint& for the statute to be upheld Inot absolute precision or #athe#atical eHactitude, aspetitioner see#s to suggest

.ence, it cannot plausibl& be contended that the la+ doesnot gie a fair +arning and sufficient notice of +hat it seeks topenali!e nder the circu#stances, petitionerFs reliance on the


3/22

1oid-for-agueness1 doctrine is #anifestl& #isplaced 2hedoctrine has been for#ulated in arious +a&s, but is #ostco##onl& stated to the effect that a statute establishing acri#inal offense #ust define the offense +ith sufficientdefiniteness that persons of ordinar& intelligence can

understand +hat conduct is prohibited b& the statute

In view of due process 6n the second issue, petitioner adances the highl&stretched theor& that 3ec B of the Plunder /a+ circu#entsthe i##utable obligation of the prosecution to proe be&ondreasonable doubt the predicate acts constituting the cri#e ofplunder +hen it reuires onl& proof of a pattern of oert orcri#inal acts sho+ing unla+ful sche#e or conspirac& 2herunning fault in this reasoning is obious een to the si#plistic

#ind 4n a cri#inal prosecution for plunder, as in all othercri#es, the accused al+a&s has in his faor the presu#ption ofinnocence +hich is guaranteed b& the 9ill of Rights, andunless the 3tate succeeds in de#onstrating b& proof be&ondreasonable doubt that culpabilit& lies, the accused is entitled toan acuittal

=hat the prosecution needs to proe be&ond reasonabledoubt is onl& a nu#ber of acts sufficient to for# a co#binationor series +hich +ould constitute a pattern and inoling ana#ount of at least P0,000,00000 2here is no need to proe

each and eer& other act alleged in the 4nfor#ation to haebeen co##itted b& the accused in furtherance of the oerallunla+ful sche#e or conspirac& to a#ass, accu#ulate oracuire ill- gotten +ealth

In view of mens rea As regards the third issue, again +e agree +ith Justice>endo!a that plunder is a #alu# in se +hich reuires proof of

cri#inal intent 2hus, he sa&s, in his "oncurring 6pinion I Precisel& because the constitutie cri#es are #ala in se theele#ent of #ens rea #ust be proen in a prosecution forplunder 4t is note+orth& that the a#ended infor#ation allegesthat the cri#e of plunder +as co##itted 1+illfull&, unla+full&

and cri#inall&1 4t thus alleges guilt& kno+ledge on the part ofpetitioner

=ith the goern#entK terribl& lacking the #one& to proideeen the #ost basic serices to its people, an& for# of#isappropriation or #isapplication of goern#ent fundstranslates to an actual threat to the er& eHistence ofgoern#ent, and in turn, the er& surial of the people itgoerns oer ;ie+ed in this conteHt, no less heinous are theeffect and repercussions of cri#es like ualified briber&,destructie arson resulting in death, and drug offenses

inoling goern#ent official, e#plo&ees or officers, that theirperpetrators #ust not be allo+ed to cause further destructionand da#age to societ& 4ndeed, it +ould be absurd to treatprosecutions for plunder as though the& are #ere prosecutionsfor iolations of the 9ouncing "heck /a+ (9P 9lg **$ or ofan ordinance against ja&+alking, +ithout regard to the inherent+rongness of the acts

2o clinch, petitioner like+ise assails the alidit& of RA 7'),the a#endator& la+ of RA 7080, on constitutional grounds

3uffice it to sa& ho+eer that it is no+ too late in the da& forhi# to resurrect this long dead issue, the sa#e haing beeneternall& consigned b& People Echegara& C8 to the archiesof jurisprudential histor& 2he declaration of this "ourt thereinthat RA 7') is constitutionall& alid stands as a declaration ofthe 3tate, and beco#es, b& necessar& effect, assi#ilated inthe "onstitution no+ as an integral part of it


4/22

In view of presumption of innocence At all eents, let #e stress that the po+er to construe la+ isessentiall& judicial 2o declare +hat the la+ shall be is alegislatie po+er, but to declare +hat the la+ is or has been isjudicial 3tatutes enacted b& "ongress cannot be eHpected to

spell out +ith #athe#atical precision ho+ the la+ should beinterpreted under an& and all gien situations 2he applicationof the la+ +ill depend on the facts and circu#stances asadduced b& eidence +hich +ill then be considered, +eighedand ealuated b& the courts 4ndeed, it is the constitutionallandated function of the courts to interpret, construe andappl& the la+ as +ould gie flesh and blood to the true#eaning of legislatie enact#ents

A construction should be rejected if it gies to the languageused in a statute a #eaning that does not acco#plish the

purpose for +hich the statute +as enacted and that tends todefeat the ends that are sought to be attained b& itsenact#ent ;ie+ed broadl&, 1plunder inoles not just plainthieer& but econo#ic depredation +hich affects not justpriate parties or personal interests but the nation as a +hole14nariabl&, plunder partakes of the nature of 1a cri#e againstnational interest +hich #ust be stopped, and if possible,stopped per#anentl&1

In view of vagueness according to SANDOA!"

#$%I&RR&'( )* As a basic pre#ise, +e hae to accept that een a personaccused of a cri#e possesses iniolable rights founded on the"onstitution +hich een the +elfare of the societ& as a +holecannot oerride 2he rights guaranteed to hi# b& the"onstitution are not subject to political bargaining or to thecalculus of social interest 2hus, no #atter ho+ sociall&-releant the purpose of a la+ is, it #ust be nullified if ittra#ples upon the basic rights of the accused

=hen 3ection B of RA 5o 7080 #andates that it shall notbe necessar& for the prosecution to proe each and eer&cri#inal act done b& the accused, the legislature, in effect,rendered the enu#erated 1cri#inal acts1 under 3ection % (d$

#erel& as #eans and not as essential ele#ents of plunder2his is constitutionall& infir#ed and repugnant to the basicidea of justice and fair pla& As a #atter of due process, theprosecution is reuired to proe be&ond reasonable doubteer& fact necessar& to constitute the cri#e +ith +hich thedefendant is charged 2he 3tate #a& not specif& a lesserburden of proof for an ele#ent of a cri#e 8 =ith #ore reason,it should not be allo+ed to go around the principle b&characteri!ing an essential ele#ent of plunder #erel& as a1#eans1 of co##itting the cri#e or the result is thereduction of the burden of the prosecution to proe the guilt of

the accused be&ond reasonable doubt

4n short, all that RA 5o 7080 reuires is that each Justice#ust be coninced of the eHistence of a 1co#bination orseries1 As to +hich cri#inal acts constitute a co#bination orseries, the Justices need not be in full agree#ent 3urel&, this+ould coer-up a +ide disagree#ent a#ong the# about just+hat the accused actuall& did or did not do 3tated differentl&,een if the Justices are not unified in their deter#ination on+hat cri#inal acts +ere actuall& co##itted b& the accused,+hich need not be proed under the la+, still, the& could

conict hi# of plunder

2he 3pecial Prosecution iision Panel defines it as 1atleast three of the acts enu#erated under 3ection %(d$ thereof1CC 9ut it can er& +ell be interpreted as onl& one act repeatedat least three ti#es And the 6ffice of the 3olicitor ?eneral,inoking the deliberations of the .ouse of Representaties,contends differentl& 4t defines the ter# series as a 1repetition1or pertaining to 1t+o or #ore1


5/22

A statute +hich is so ague as to per#it the infliction ofcapital punish#ent on acts alread& punished +ith lesserpenalties b& clearl& for#ulated la+ is unconstitutional 2heagueness cannot be cured b& judicial construction

4n fine, 4 can onl& stress that the one on trial here is not >rEstrada, but RA 5o 7080 2he issue before this "ourt is notthe guilt or innocence of the accused, but the constitutionalit&of the la+ 4 ote to grant the petition, not because 4 faor >rEstrada, but because 4 look be&ond toda& and 4 see that thisla+ can pose a serious threat to the life, libert& and propert& ofan&one +ho #a& co#e under its unconstitutional proisionsAs a #e#ber of this "ourt, #& dut& is to see to it that the la+confor#s to the "onstitution and no other 4 si#pl& cannot, ingood conscience, fortif& a la+ that is patentl& unconstitutional

ADIONG v. COMELEC

#*R* No* +,-./01arc2 -+( +..3

FA4%S:6n Januar& %C, %))*, the "6>E/E" pro#ulgatedResolution 5o *CB7 pursuant to its po+ers granted b& the"onstitution, the 6#nibus Election "ode, Republic Acts 5os''B' and 7%'' and other election la+s 3ection %(a$ of the

resolution proidesG3ec % Lawful Election Propaganda.LMN 2he follo+ing arela+ful election propagandaG

(a$ Pa#phlets, leaflets, cards, decalsLMO Proided, 2hat decalsand stickers #a& be posted onl& in an& of the authori!edposting areas proided in paragraph (f$ of 3ection *% hereof

3ection *% (f$ of the sa#e resolution proidesG

3ec *%(f$ Prohibited for#s of election propaganda

4t is unla+fulGLMO

(f$ 2o dra+, paint, inscribe, post, displa& or publicl& eHhibit an&

election propaganda in an& place, +hether public or priate,#obile or stationar&, eHcept in the "6>E/E" co##on postedareas and:or billboardsLMO

Petitioner 9lo #par Adiong, a senatorial candidate in the>a& %%, %))* elections assails the "6>E/E"s Resolutioninsofar as it prohibits the posting of decals and stickers inQ#obileN places like cars and other #oing ehicles Accordingto hi# such prohibition is iolatie of 3ection 8* of the6#nibus Election "ode and 3ection %%(a$ of Republic Act 5o''B'

ISS$&:=hether or not the "6>E/E" #a& prohibit theposting of decals and stickers on Q#obileN places, public orpriate, and li#it their location or publication to the authori!edposting areas that it fiHes

H&!D:2he petition is hereb& ?RA52E 2he portion of3ection % (a$ of Resolution 5o *CB7 of the "6>E/E"proiding that Qdecals and stickers #a& be posted onl& in an&of the authori!ed posting areas proided in paragraph (f$ of3ection *% hereofN is E"/ARE 5// and ;64 2he"6>E/E"s prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on

Q#obileN places +hether public or priate eHcept in designatedareas proided for b& the "6>E/E" itself is null and oid onconstitutional grounds 2he prohibition undul& infringes on theciti!ens funda#ental right of free speech enshrined in the"onstitution (3ec B, Article 444$ 3ignificantl&, the freedo# ofeHpression curtailed b& the uestioned prohibition is not so#uch that of the candidate or the political part& 2he regulationstrikes at the freedo# of an indiidual to eHpress hispreference and, b& displa&ing it on his car, to conince othersto agree +ith hi#


6/22

Also, the uestioned prohibition pre#ised on the statute (RA''B'$ and as couched in the resolution is oid for oerbreadth2he restriction as to +here the decals and stickers should beposted is so broad that it enco#passes een the citi!enspriate propert&, +hich in this case is a priatel&-o+ned

ehicle (2he proisions allo+ing regulation are so loosel&+orded that the& include the posting of decals or stickers inthe priac& of ones liing roo# or bedroo#$ 4n conseuenceof this prohibition, another cardinal rule prescribed b& the"onstitution +ould be iolated 3ection %, Article 444 of the 9illof Rights proides that no person shall be depried of hispropert& +ithout due process of la+ (2he right to propert& #a&be subject to a greater degree of regulation but +hen this rightis joined b& a Qlibert&N interest, the burden of justification on thepart of the ?oern#ent #ust be eHceptionall& conincing andirrefutable 2he burden is not #et in this case$

Additionall&, the constitutional objectie to gie a richcandidate and a poor candidate eual opportunit& to infor# theelectorate as regards their candidacies, #andated b& Article 44,3ection *' and Article D444, section % in relation to Article 4D (c$3ection B of the "onstitution, is not i#paired b& posting decalsand stickers on cars and other priate ehicles 4t is to bereiterated that the posting of decals and stickers oncars, calesas, tric&cles, pedicabs and other #oing ehiclesneeds the consent of the o+ner of the ehicle .ence, thepreference of the citi!en beco#es crucial in this kind of

election propaganda not the financial resources of thecandidate

4n su#, the prohibition on posting of decals and stickers onQ#obileN places +hether public or priate eHcept in theauthori!ed areas designated b& the "6>E/E" beco#escensorship +hich cannot be justified b& the "onstitution

%H& 5&O5!& OF %H& 5HI!I55IN&S(

vs* 4ARO! 1* D&!A 5I&DRA(

#*R* No* +3+666 (C0 3"RA %'C$ )anuary 37( 3,,+

8A5$NAN( )*

FA4%S: 6n the afternoon of Januar& C0, %))B, >aria /ourdes>odesto and 5anc& Araneta together +ith her friendsJennel&n 9ae!, and 3andra Auino

+ent to the house of Jas#ine Alejandro, after haing learnedthat a +o#an is there to recruit job applicants for 3ingapore"arol dela Piedra +as alread& briefing so#e people +hen the&arried Jas#ine, on the other hand, +elco#ed and askedthe# to sit do+n2he& listened to the QrecruiterN +ho +as thentalking about thebreakdo+n of the fees inoledG PC0,000 forthe isa and the round trip ticket, and P,000 as place#ent feeand for the processing of the papers 2he initial paent +asP*,000, +hile PC0,000 +ill be b& salar& deduction 2herecruiter said that she +as QrecruitingN nurses for 3ingaporeAraneta, her friends and /ourdes then filled up bio-data for#sand +ere reuired to sub#it pictures and a transcript ofrecords After the interie+, /ourdes gae the initial paentof P*,000 to Jas#ine, +ho assured her that she +asauthori!ed to receie the #one&

>ean+hile, in the #orning of the said date, Erlie Ra#os,Attorne& 44 of the Philippine 6erseas E#ploent Agenc&

(P6EA$, receied a telephone call fro# an unidentified +o#aninuiring about the legiti#ac& of the recruit#ent conducted b&a certain >rs "arol igueroa Ra#os, +hose duties includethe sureillance of suspected illegal recruiters, i##ediatel&contacted a friend, a certain >a&eth 9ellotindos, so the& couldboth go the place +here the recruit#ent +as reportedl& beingundertaken. pon arriing at the reported area at around BG00p#, 9ellotindos entered the house and pretended to be anapplicant Ra#os re#ained outside and stood on thepae#ent, fro# +here he +as able to see around siH ('$


7/22

persons in the sala Ra#os een heard a +o#an, identified as"arol igueroa, talk about the possible e#ploent she has toproide in 3ingapore and the docu#ents that the applicantshae toco#pl& +ith ifteen (%$ #inutes later, 9ellotindosca#e out +ith a bio-data for# in hand

2hereafter, Ra#os conferred +ith a certain "apt >endo!a ofthe "ri#inal 4nestigation 3erice ("43$ to organi!e the arrestof the alleged illegal recruiter

Raid +as eHecuted

"onseuentl&, "arol +as charged and conicted b& the trialcourt ofillegal recruit#ent

pon appeal, accused uestions her coniction for illegalrecruit#ent inlarge scale and assails, as +ell, theconstitutionalit& of the la+ defining andpenali!ing said cri#e

First, accused sub#its that Article %C (b$ of the /abor "odedefining Qrecruit#ent and place#entN is oid for aguenessand, thus, iolates the due process clause

2he proision in uestion readsG

AR%* +-* Definitions*I(a$ H H H

(b$ QRecruit#ent and place#entN refers to an& act ofcanassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utili!ing, hiringor procuring +orkers, and includes referrals, contract serices,pro#ising or adertising for e#ploent, locall& or abroad,+hether for profit or notG

5rovided( %2at any person or entity w2ic2( in any manner(offers or promises for a fee employment to two or morepersons s2allbe deemed engaged in recruitment andplacement*

ISS$&S: 9+ =hether or not sec %C (b$ of P BB*, asa#ended, other+ise kno+n as the illegal recruit#ent la+ isunconstitutional as it iolates the due process clause

93 =hether or not accused +as denied eual protection and

therefore should be eHculpated

H&!D:

9+ For t2e First issue( dela 5iedra submits t2at Article +-9b of t2e

!abor 4ode defining ;recruitment and placement< is voidfor

vagueness and( t2us( violates t2e due process clause*

ue process reuires that the ter#s of a penal statute #ust be

sufficientl& eHplicit to infor# those +ho are subject to it +hatconduct on

their part +ill render the# liable to its penalties

4n support of her sub#ission, dela Piedra inokes People sPanis,

+here the 3upre#e "ourt Qcritici!edN the definition ofQrecruit#ent and

place#entN

2he "ourt ruled, ho+eer, that her reliance on the said case+as

#isplaced

2he issue in Panis +as +hether, under the proiso of Article%C (b$, the


8/22

cri#e of illegal recruit#ent could be co##itted onl& Q+heneert+o or

#ore persons are in an& #anner pro#ised or offered an&e#ploent for

a feeN 4n this case, the "ourt #erel& be#oaned the lack ofrecords that

+ould help shed light on the #eaning of the proiso 2heabsence of

such records not+ithstanding, the "ourt +as able to arrie at a

reasonable interpretation of the proiso b& appl&ing principlesin cri#inal la+ and dra+ing fro# the language and intent of thela+ itself 3ection %C

(b$, therefore, is not a Qperfectl& ague actN +hose obscurit& iseident on its face 4f at all, the proiso therein is #erel&couched in i#precise language that +as salaged b& properconstruction 4t is not oid for agueness

Dela 5iedra furt2er argues t2at t2e acts t2at constitute;recruitment and placement< suffer from overbreadt2since by merely ;referring< a person for employment( aperson may be convicted of illegal recruitment*

2hat 3ection %C (b$ enco#passes +hat appellant apparentl&considers as custo#ar& and har#less acts such as Qlabor ore#ploent referralN (QreferringN an applicant, according toappellant, for e#ploent to a prospectie e#plo&er$ does notrender the la+ oerbroad Eidentl&, ela Piedra#isapprehends concept of oerbreadth A statute #a& be saidto be oerbroad +here it operates to inhibit the eHercise ofindiidual freedo#s affir#atiel& guaranteed b& the"onstitution, such as the freedo# of speech or religion Agenerall& +orded statute, +hen construed to punish conduct

+hich cannot be constitutionall& punished is unconstitutionall&ague to the eHtent that it fails to gie adeuate +arning of theboundar& bet+een the constitutionall& per#issible and theconstitutionall& i#per#issible applications of the statute

93 Anent t2e second issue( Dela 5iedra invo=es t2e e>ual

protection clause in 2er defense* 3he points out thatalthough the

eidence purportedl& sho+s that Jas#ine Alejandro handedout application

for#s and een receied /ourdes >odestos paent,appellant +as the onl& one cri#inall& charged Alejandro, onthe other hand, re#ained scot-free ro# this, she concludesthat the prosecution discri#inated against her on grounds of

regional origins Appellant is a "ebuana +hile Alejandro is aa#boangueSa, and the alleged cri#e took place ina#boanga "it&

2he 3upre#e "ourt held that the argu#ent has no #erit

2he prosecution of one guilt& person +hile others euall&guilt& are not prosecuted, is not, b& itself, a denial of the eualprotection of the la+s 2he unla+ful ad#inistration b& officersof a statute fair on its face, resulting in its uneual applicationto those +ho are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of

eual protection unless there is sho+n to be present in it anele#ent of intentional or purposeful discri#ination

9ut a discri#inator& purpose is not presu#ed, there #ust be asho+ing of Qclear and intentional discri#inationN

4n the case at bar, ela Piedra has failed to sho+ that, incharging her, there +as a Qclear and intentional discri#inationNon the part of the prosecuting officials


9/22

urther#ore, the presu#ption is that the prosecuting officersregularl& perfor#ed their duties, and this presu#ption can beoerco#e onl& b& proof to the contrar&, not b& #erespeculation As said earlier, accused has not presented an&eidence to oerco#e this presu#ption 2he #ere allegation

that dela Piedra, a "ebuana, +as charged +ith theco##ission of a cri#e, +hile a a#boangueSa, the guilt&part& in appellants e&es, +as not, is insufficient to support aconclusion that the prosecution officers denied appellant eualprotection of the la+s

Board of Education v. Earls

2he 3upre#e "ourt eHpanded schoolsF abilit& to conduct drugtests inBoard of Education v. Earls, C' 3 8** (*00*$ 2hecase began +hen the school board in 2ecu#seh, 6klaho#a

deeloped a polic& to test all students in eHtracurricularactiities .igh school student /indsa& Earls and her fa#il&,+ith the legal backing of the A#erican "iil /iberties nion,challenged the polic& as an unla+ful search that iolatedstudentsF right to priac&

2he docu#entar& tells the stor& of the case through interie+s+ith the people inoledG the Earls fa#il&, their A"/ la+&er,#e#bers of the 2ecu#seh 3chool 9oard and their la+&er, andthe federal judges +ho heard the case

4n a #ajorit& opinion deliered b& Justice "larence 2ho#as,the "ourt held that students in eHtracurricular actiities had adi#inished eHpectation of priac&, and that the polic& furtheredan i#portant interest of the school in preenting drug usea#ong students 2his rationale +as based on theprecedent Vernonia School District 47 v. !cton, +hichallo+ed drug testing for athletes Justice 3tephen 9re&erfiledan opinion concurring in the "ourtFs judg#ent

2he 3tudent Actiities rug 2esting Polic& adopted b& the2ecu#seh, 6klaho#a 3chool istrict (3chool istrict$ reuiresall #iddle and high school students to consent to urinal&sistesting for drugs in order to participate in an& eHtracurricularactiit& 2+o 2ecu#seh .igh 3chool students and their

parents brought suit, alleging that the polic& iolates the ourthA#end#ent 2he istrict "ourt granted the 3chool istrictsu##ar& judg#ent 4n reersing, the "ourt of Appeals heldthat the polic& iolated the ourth A#end#ent 2he appellatecourt concluded that before i#posing a suspicionless drug-testing progra# a school #ust de#onstrate so#e identifiabledrug abuse proble# a#ong a sufficient nu#ber of thosetested, such that testing that group +ill actuall& redress itsdrug proble#, +hich the 3chool istrict had failed tode#onstrate

Social Justic Socity v. Dangrous Drugs Board! G.".No. #$%&%' (and ot)r consolidatd *titions+! Nov,br-! ''&

D & 4 I S I O N9&n ?anc

&!AS4O( J.:

I* %H& FA4%S

2hese consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionalit& of3ec C' of RA )%', the "o#prehensive Dangerous Drugs

!ct of $%%$,insofar as it reuires #andator& drug testing of (%$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernonia_School_District_47J_v._Actonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurring_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extracurricular_activityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extracurricular_activityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomashttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernonia_School_District_47J_v._Actonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Breyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurring_opinionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extracurricular_activityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extracurricular_activity


10/22

candidates for public office (*$ students of secondar& andtertiar& schools (C$ officers and e#plo&ees of public andpriate offices and (B$ persons charged before theprosecutors office of a cri#e +ith an i#posable penalt& ofi#prison#ent of not less than ' &ears and % da&

2he challenged section readsG

3E" C'!uthori&ed Drug 'esting Authori!ed drug testingshall be done b& an& goern#ent forensic laboratories or b&an& of the drug testing laboratories accredited and #onitoredb& the 6. to safeguard the ualit& of the test results H H H2he drug testing shall e#plo&, a#ong others, t+o (*$ testing

#ethods, the screening test +hich +ill deter#ine the positieresult as +ell as the t&pe of drug used and the confir#ator&test +hich +ill confir# a positie screening test H H H 2hefollo+ing shall be subjected to undergo drug testingG

HHH HHH HHH

(c$ 3tudents of secondar& and tertiar& schools 3tudents ofsecondar& and tertiar& schools shall, pursuant to the relatedrules and regulations as contained in the schoolFs studenthandbook and +ith notice to the parents, undergo a rando#drug testing H H H

(d$ 6fficers and e#plo&ees of public and priate offices6fficers and e#plo&ees of public and priate offices, +hetherdo#estic or oerseas, shall be subjected to undergo a rando#

drug test as contained in the co#pan&Fs +ork rules andregulations, H H H for purposes of reducing the risk in the+orkplace An& officer or e#plo&ee found positie for use ofdangerous drugs shall be dealt +ith ad#inistratiel& +hichshall be a ground for suspension or ter#ination, subject to the

proisions of Article *8* of the /abor "ode and pertinentproisions of the "iil 3erice /a+

HHH HHH HHH

(f$ All persons charged before the prosecutorFs office +ith acri#inal offense haing an i#posable penalt& of i#prison#entof not less than siH ('$ &ears and one (%$ da& shall undergo a

#andator& drug test

(g$ All candidates for public office +hether appointed orelected both in the national or local goern#ent shall undergoa #andator& drug test

3ec C'(g$ is i#ple#ented b& "6>E/E" Resolution 5o 'B8'

II* %H& ISS$&S

% o 3ec C'(g$ of RA )%' and "6>E/E" Resolution 5o'B8' i#pose an additional ualification for candidates forsenatorT "orollaril&, can "ongress enact a la+ prescribing


11/22


12/22

elected +ould be of little alue if one cannot assu#e office fornon-co#pliance +ith the drug-testing reuire#ent

.NO! *aragra*)s (c+ and (d+ of Sc. -3! "A 4#3$ ar NO/0NCONS/I/0/IONAL7 2ES! *aragra*)s (f+ t)rof is0NCONS/I/0/IONAL.

As to *aragra*) (c+! covring studnts of scondary andtrtiary sc)ools

"iting the 3 cases of 9rnonia Sc)ool District 5%J v.

Actonand Board of Education of Ind*ndnt Sc)oolDistrict No. 4 of 1otta8ato,i County( t al.v. Earls( tal., the "ourt deduced and applied the follo+ing principlesG (%$schools and their ad#inistrators stand in loco parentis+ithrespect to their students (*$ #inor students hae conteHtuall&fe+er rights than an adult, and are subject to the custod& andsuperision of their parents, guardians, and schools (C$schools, acting in loco parentis, hae a dut& to safeguard thehealth and +ell-being of their students and #a& adopt such#easures as #a& reasonabl& be necessar& to discharge suchdut& and (B$ schools hae the right to i#pose conditions on

applicants for ad#ission that are fair, just, and non-discri#inator&

?uided b& Vernonia, supra, andBoard ofEducation, supra, the "ourt is of the ie+ and so holds that theproisions of RA )%' reuiring #andator&, rando#, andsuspicionless drug testing of students are constitutional4ndeed, it is +ithin the prerogatie of educational institutions to

reuire, as a condition for ad#ission, co#pliance +ithreasonable school rules and regulations and policies 2o besure, the right to enrol is not absolute it is subject to fair,reasonable, and euitable reuire#ents

As to *aragra*) (d+! covring officrs and ,*loys of*ublic and *rivat offics

As the +arrantless clause of 3ec *, Art 444 of the "onstitutionis couched and as has been held, QreasonablenessN is thetouchstone of the alidit& of a goern#ent search orintrusion And +hether a search at issue he+s to thereasonableness standard is judged b& the balancing of the

goern#ent-#andated intrusion on the indiidualFs priac&interest against the pro#otion of so#e co#pelling stateinterest 4n the cri#inal conteHt, reasonableness reuiressho+ing of probable cause to be personall& deter#ined b& ajudge ?ien that the drug-testing polic& for e#plo&eesIandstudents for that #atterIunder RA )%' is in the nature ofad#inistratie search needing +hat +as referred toin Vernoniaas Qs+ift and infor#al disciplinar& procedures,N theprobable-cause standard is not reuired or een practicable9e that as it #a&, the reie+ should focus on thereasonableness of the challenged ad#inistratie search in

uestion

2he first factor to consider in the #atter of reasonableness isthe nature of the priac& interest upon +hich the drug testing,+hich effects a search +ithin the #eaning of 3ec *, Art 444 ofthe "onstitution, intrudes 4n this case, the office or +orkplaceseres as the backdrop for the anal&sis of the priac&eHpectation of the e#plo&ees and the reasonableness of drug


13/22

testing reuire#ent 2he e#plo&eesF priac& interest in anoffice is to a large eHtent circu#scribed b& the co#pan&Fs +orkpolicies, the collectie bargaining agree#ent, if an&, enteredinto b& #anage#ent and the bargaining unit, and the inherentright of the e#plo&er to #aintain discipline and efficienc& in the

+orkplace 2heir priac& eHpectation in a regulated officeeniron#ent is, in fine, reduced and a degree of i#pinge#entupon such priac& has been upheld

Just as defining as the first factor is the character of theintrusion authori!ed b& the challenged la+ Reduced to auestion for#, is the scope of the search or intrusion clearl&set forth, or, as for#ulated in ple v. 'orres, is the enablingla+ authori!ing a search 1narro+l& dra+n1 or 1narro+l&

focused1T

2he poser should be ans+ered in the affir#atie or one,3ec C' of RA )%' and its i#ple#enting rules and regulations(4RR$, as couched, contain proisions specificall& directedto+ards preenting a situation that +ould undul& e#barrassthe e#plo&ees or place the# under a hu#iliatingeHperience =hile eer& officer and e#plo&ee in a priateestablish#ent is under the la+ dee#ed fore+arned that he orshe #a& be a possible subject of a drug test, nobod& is reall&

singled out in adance for drug testing 2he goal is todiscourage drug use b& not telling in adance an&one +henand +ho is to be tested And as #a& be obsered, 3ec C'(d$of RA )%' itself prescribes +hat, in ple, is a narro+ingingredient b& proiding that the e#plo&ees concerned shall besubjected to Qrando# drug test as contained in the co#pan&s+ork rules and regulations H H H for purposes of reducing therisk in the +ork placeN

or another, the rando# drug testing shall be undertakenunder conditions calculated to protect as #uch as possible thee#plo&eeFs priac& and dignit& As to the #echanics of thetest, the la+ specifies that the procedure shall e#plo& t+otesting #ethods, ie, the screening test and the confir#ator&

test, doubtless to ensure as #uch as possible thetrust+orthiness of the results 9ut the #ore i#portantconsideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted b&trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories#onitored b& the epart#ent of .ealth (6.$ to safeguardagainst results ta#pering and to ensure an accurate chain ofcustod& 4n addition, the 4RR issued b& the 6. proides thataccess to the drug results shall be on the Qneed to kno+Nbasis that the Qdrug test result and the records shall be keptKconfidential subject to the usual accepted practices to protectthe confidentialit& of the test resultsN 5otabl&, RA )%' does

not oblige the e#plo&er concerned to report to the prosecutingagencies an& infor#ation or eidence relating to the iolationof the "o#prehensiveDangerous Drugs !ctreceied as aresult of the operation of the drug testing All told, therefore,the intrusion into the e#plo&ees priac&, under RA )%', isacco#panied b& proper safeguards, particularl& againste#barrassing leakages of test results, and is relatielini#al

2aking into account the foregoing factors, ie, the reducedeHpectation of priac& on the part of the e#plo&ees, theco#pelling state concern likel& to be #et b& the search, andthe +ell-defined li#its set forth in the la+ to properl& guideauthorities in the conduct of the rando# testing, +e hold thatthe challenged drug test reuire#ent is, under the li#itedconteHt of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional


14/22

/ike their counterparts in the priate sector, goern#entofficials and e#plo&ees also labor under reasonablesuperision and restrictions i#posed b& the "iil 3erice la+and other la+s on public officers, all enacted to pro#ote a highstandard of ethics in the public serice And if RA )%'

passes the nor# of reasonableness for priate e#plo&ees, the#ore reason that it should pass the test for ciil serants, +ho,b& constitutional co##and, are reuired to be accountable atall ti#es to the people and to sere the# +ith ut#ostresponsibilit& and efficienc&

As to *aragra*) (f+! covring *rsons c)argd bfor t)*roscutor:s offic 8it) a cri, 8it) an i,*osabl*nalty of i,*rison,nt of not lss t)an 3 yars and #

day

nlike the situation coered b& 3ec C'(c$ and (d$ of RA )%',the "ourt finds no alid justification for #andator& drug testingfor persons accused of cri#es 4n the case of students, theconstitutional iabilit& of the #andator&, rando#, andsuspicionless drug testing for students e#anates pri#aril&fro# the +aier b& the students of their right to priac& +henthe& seek entr& to the school, and fro# their oluntaril&sub#itting their persons to the parental authorit& of school

authorities 4n the case of priate and public e#plo&ees, theconstitutional soundness of the #andator&, rando#, andsuspicionless drug testing proceeds fro# the reasonablenessof the drug test polic& and reuire#ent

=e find the situation entirel& different in the case of personscharged before the public prosecutorFs office +ith cri#inaloffenses punishable +ith ' &ears and % da& i#prison#ent

2he operatie concepts in the #andator& drug testing areQrando#nessN and QsuspicionlessN 4n the case of personscharged +ith a cri#e before the prosecutorFs office, a#andator& drug testing can neer be rando# orsuspicionless 2he ideas of rando#ness and being

suspicionless are antithetical to their being #ade defendantsin a cri#inal co#plaint 2he& are not rando#l& picked neitherare the& be&ond suspicion =hen persons suspected ofco##itting a cri#e are charged, the& are singled out and arei#pleaded against their +ill 2he persons thus charged, b& thebare fact of being haled before the prosecutors office andpeaceabl& sub#itting the#seles to drug testing, if that be thecase, do not necessaril& consent to the procedure, let alone+aie their right to priac& 2o i#pose #andator& drug testingon the accused is a blatant atte#pt to harness a #edical testas a tool for cri#inal prosecution, contrar& to the stated

objecties of RA )%' rug testing in this case +ould iolatea persons right to priac& guaranteed under 3ec *, Art 444 ofthe "onstitution =orse still, the accused persons are eritabl&forced to incri#inate the#seles

Gla;o vs.


15/22

after ' #onths

2ecson +as initiall& assigned to #arket ?laHoFs products in the"a#arines 3ur-"a#arines 5orte area and entered intoaro#antic relationship +ith 9ets&, an e#plo&ee of Astra,

?laHoFs co#petition 9efore getting #arried, 2ecsonFs istrict>anager re#inded hi# seeral ti#es of the conflict ofinterest but #arriage took place in 3ept %))8 4n Jan %))),2ecsonFs superiors infor#ed hi# of conflict of intrest 2ecsonasked for ti#e to co#pl& +ith the condition (that either he or9ets& resign fro# their respectie positions$ nable to co#pl&+ith condition, ?laHo transferred 2ecson to the 9utuan-3urigao "it&-Agusan del 3ur sales area After his reuestagainst transfer +as denied, 2ecson brought the #atter to?laHoFs ?rieance "o##ittee and +hile pending, hecontinued to act as #edical representatie in the "a#arines

3ur-"a#arines 5orte sales area 6n 5o %, *000, the5ational "onciliation and >ediation 9oard ruled that ?laHoFspolic& +as alid

ISS$&:

=hether or not the polic& of a phar#aceuticalco#pan& prohibiting its e#plo&ees fro# #arr&ing e#plo&eesof an& co#petitor co#pan& is alid

R$!IN#:

6n Eual Protection

?laHo has a right to guard its trade secrets, #anufacturingfor#ulas, #arketing strategies, and other confidentialprogra#s and infor#ation fro# co#petitors 2he prohibition

against pesonal or #arital relationships +ith e#plo&ees ofco#petitor co#panies upon ?laHoFs e#plo&ees is reasonableunder the circu#stances because relationships of that nature#ight co#pro#ise the interests of the co#pan& 2hat ?laHopossesses the right to protect its econo#ic interest cannot be

denied

4t is the settled principle that the co##ands of the eualprotection clause are addressed onl& to the state or thoseacting under color of its authorit& "orollaril&, it has been heldin a long arra& of 3 3upre#e "ourt decisions that the eualprotection clause erects to shield against #erel& priatel&conduct, ho+eer, discri#inator& or +rongful

2he co#pan& actuall& enforced the polic& after repeatedreuests to the e#plo&ee to co#pl& +ith the polic& 4ndeed the

application of the polic& +as #ade in an i#partial and een-handed #anner, +ith due regard for the lot of the e#plo&ee

Gu,abon vs. Dirctor of 1risons

E;ual Protection< = >ernande& Doctrine

?u#abon et al +ere charged for rebellion punished under Art%CB of the RP" 2heir offense +as co#pleHed +ith #ultiple#urder, robber&, arson, and kidnapping 2he& +ere allsentenced to reclusion perpetua 2heir sentence had beco#e

final and eHecutor& +hen the .ernande! octrine +aspro#ulgated b& the 3" .ernande! octrine si#pl& states that#urder cannot be co#pleHed to rebellion as it is necessaril&absorbed therein .ence, +ithout such co#pleHion the penaltust be lo+er than reclusion perpetua ?u#abon precisel&assert a depriation of a constitutional right, na#el&, the denialof eual protection 2he petitioners +ere conicted b& "4 forthe er& sa#e rebellion for +hich .ernande! and others +ereconicted 2he la+ under +hich the& +ere conicted is theer& sa#e la+ under +hich the latter +ere conicted 4t had


16/22

not and has not been changed or the sa#e cri#e,co##itted under the sa#e la+, ho+ can the 3", inconscience, allo+ petitioners to suffer life i#prison#ent, +hileothers can suffer onl& prision #a&orT

ISS$&: =hether or not ?u#abon et al is entitled to the effectsof the .ernande! octrine

H&!D: 2he 3" ruled in faor of ?u#abon et al 2he continuedincarceration after the t+ele-&ear period +hen such is the#aHi#u# length of i#prison#ent in accordance +ith thecontrolling doctrine, +hen others si#ilarl& conicted hae beenfreed, is fraught +ith i#plications at +ar +ith eual protection2hat is not to gie it life 6n the contrar&, it +ould render itnugator& 6ther+ise, +hat +ould happen is that for anidentical offense, the onl& distinction l&ing in the finalit& of the

coniction of one being before the .ernande! ruling and theother after, a person dul& sentenced for the sa#e cri#e +ouldbe #ade to suffer different penalties 4f ?u#abon et al +ouldcontinue to endure i#prison#ent, then this +ould berepugnant to eual protection, people si#ilarl& situated +erenot si#ilarl& dealt +ith

=hat is reuired under this constitutional guarantee is theunifor# operation of legal nor#s so that all persons undersi#ilar circu#stances +ould be accorded the sa#e treat#entboth in the priileges conferred and the liabilities i#posed As+as noted in a recent decisionG aoritis# and unduepreference cannot be allo+ed or the principle is that eualprotection and securit& shall be gien to eer& person undercircu#stances, +hich if not identical are analogous 4f la+ belooked upon in ter#s of burden or charges, those that fall+ithin a class should be treated in the sa#e fashion, +hateerrestrictions cast on so#e in the group euall& binding on therest

@u 4ong &ng v* %rinidad

7 June %)*' U 2aft U "ertiorari to the 3upre#e "ourt of thePhilippine 4slands

acts

Act 5o *)7* (An act to proide in +hat languages accountbooks shall be kept, and to establish penalties for its iolation$,also kno+n as the Q"hinese 9ookkeeping Act,N +as passed b&the Philippine /egislature and approed in %)*% 4t proidesG

3ection % 4t shall be unla+ful for an& person, co#pan&,

or partnership or corporation engaged in co##erce,

industr& or an& other actiit& for the purpose of profit inthe Philippine 4slands, in accordance +ith eHistingla+, to keep its account books in an& language otherthan English, 3panish, or an& local dialect

3ection * An& person iolating the proisions of this

act shall, upon coniction, be punished b& a fine of not#ore than ten thousand pesos, or b& i#prison#ent fornot #ore than t+o &ears, or both


17/22

2rial +as about to proceed +hen


18/22

A +rit of certiorari +as filed before the 3 3upre#e "ourt toreie+ the Philippine 3upre#e "ourts decision den&ing anoriginal petition for prohibition against the enforce#ent ofcri#inal prosecution of Act 5o *)7*, on the ground of itsinalidit&

4ssues

=65 the P. 3" #ade a alid construction of Act 5o

*)7* 56

=65 Act 5o *)7* is unconstitutional S" #ade a valid construction of !ct +o.$37$. +

4t is the dut& of a court in considering the alidit& of an act togie it such reasonable construction as can be reached tobring it +ithin the funda#ental la+ .o+eer, a court #a& not

eHercise legislatie functions to sae the la+ fro# conflict +ithconstitutional li#itation

=hat the court did +as to change a penal prohibitie la+ to a#andator& la+ of great indefiniteness to confor# to +hat thecourt assu#es +as, or ought to hae been, the purpose of thelegislature, and +hich in the change +ould aoid a conflict +ithconstitutional restriction 3uch strained construction, in order

to #ake a la+ confor# to a constitutional li#itation, cannot besustained

Q4t +ould certainl& be dangerous if the legislature could set anet large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leae it tothe courts to step inside and sa& +ho could be rightfull&detained and +ho should be set at large 2his +ould, to so#eeHtent, substitute the judicial for the legislatie depart#ent ofthe goern#entN (@S v. *eese$

4ssue W *

?+ !ct +o. $37$ is unconstitutional. AES

2he la+ is inalid because it depries "hinese persons of theirlibert& and propert& +ithout due process of la+,and denies the# the eual protection of the la+s

?uarantees euialent to the due process and eualprotection clauses of the %BthA#end#ent +ere eHtended tothe P. hence, said guarantees are to be interpreted as

#eaning +hat the proisions #eant at the ti#e +hen"ongress #ade the# applicable to the P. (Serra v. 5ortiga,citing epner v. @S$

P. goern#ent #a& #ake eer& reasonable reuire#ent of itstaHpa&ers to keep records of their transactions .o+eer, it is562 +ithin the police po+er of the legislature to prohibit


19/22

"hinese #erchants fro# #aintaining a set of books in"hinese

2o justif& the state in interposing its authorit& in behalf of thepublic, %$ the interests of the publicreuire suchinterference and *$ the #eans are necessar& for theacco#plish#ent of the purpose, and not oppressie uponindiiduals 2he deter#ination as to +hat is a proper eHerciseof the legislatures police po+er is subject to the courtssuperision (Lawton v. Steel$

=e are likel& thus to trespass on the proision of the 9ill ofRights that the accused is entitled to de#and the nature and

cause of the accusation against hi#, and to iolate theprinciple that a statute +hich reuires the doing of an act soindefinitel& described that #en #ust guess at its#eaningiolates due process of la+

Act 5o *)7* depries the "hinese #erchants of so#ethingindispensable to the carr&ing on of their business, and isobiousl& intended to affect the# (as distinguished fro# therest of the co##unit&$ is a denial of the eual protection of the

la+s

)$D#1&N% R&&RS&D* A4% NO* 3.63 IS INA!ID*

Ic)ong vs. =rnand>

"onstitutional Law = 'reaties 5a8 Be Superseded 85unicipal Laws in the ECercise of Police Power

/ao 4chong is a "hinese business#an +ho entered thecountr& to take adantage of business opportunities herein

abound (then$ X particularl& in the retail business or so#eti#e he and his fello+ "hinese business#en enjo&ed aQ#onopol&N in the local #arket in Pasa& ntil in June %)B+hen "ongress passed the RA %%80 or the Retail 2rade5ationali!ation Act the purpose of +hich is to resere toilipinos the right to engage in the retail business 4chong thenpetitioned for the nullification of the said Act on the ground thatit contraened seeral treaties concluded b& the RP +hich,according to hi#, iolates the eual protection clause (pactasund seranda$ .e said that as a "hinese business#anengaged in the business here in the countr& +ho helps in the

inco#e generation of the countr& he should be gien eualopportunit&

ISS$&: =hether or not a la+ #a& inalidate or supersedetreaties or generall& accepted principles

H&!D:


20/22

or the sake of argu#ent, een if it +ould be assu#ed that atreat& +ould be in conflict +ith a statute then the statute #ustbe upheld because it represented an eHercise of the policepo+er +hich, being inherent could not be bargained a+a& orsurrendered through the #ediu# of a treat& .ence, 4chong

can no longer assert his right to operate his #arket stalls in thePasa& cit& #arket

Su,,ary of Bro8n v. Board of Education of /o*?a! -5%0.S. 5&-!7B 3 "t '8', )8 / Ed 87C (%)B$

Facts

2his case is a consolidation of seeral different cases fro#@ansas, 3outh "arolina, ;irginia, and ela+are 3eeral blackchildren (through their legal representaties, Ps$ soughtad#ission to public schools that reuired or per#ittedsegregation based on race 2he plaintiffs alleged thatsegregation +as unconstitutional under the Eual Protection"lause of the ourteenth A#end#ent

4n all but one case, a three judge federal district courtcited 1lssy v. @rgusonin den&ing relief under the Qseparatebut eualN doctrine 6n appeal to the 3upre#e "ourt, theplaintiffs contended that segregated schools +ere not andcould not be #ade eual and that the& +ere thereforedepried of eual protection of the la+s

Issue

4s the race-based segregation of children into Qseparate

but eualN public schools constitutionalT

Holding and Rule 9arren

5o 2he race-based segregation of children into

Qseparate but eualN public schools iolates the Eual

Protection "lause of the ourteenth A#end#ent and isunconstitutional

3egregation of children in the public schools solel& on thebasis of race denies to black children the eual protection of

the la+s guaranteed b& the ourteenth A#end#ent, eenthough the ph&sical facilities and other #a& be eualEducation in public schools is a right +hich #ust be #adeaailable to all on eual ter#s

2he uestion presented in these cases #ust be deter#inednot on the basis of conditions eHisting +hen the ourteenthA#end#ent +as adopted, but in the light of the role of publiceducation in A#erican life toda& 2he separate but eualdoctrine adopted in Pless& erguson, +hich applied totransportation, has no place in the field of public education

3eparating black children fro# others solel& because of theirrace generates a feeling of inferiorit& as to their status in theco##unit& that #a& affect their hearts and #inds in a +a&unlikel& eer to be undone 2he i#pact of segregation isgreater +hen it has the sanction of la+ A sense of inferiorit&affects the #otiation of a child to learn 3egregation +ith thesanction of la+ tends to i#pede the educational and #entaldeelop#ent of black children and depries the# of so#e ofthe benefits the& +ould receie in an integrated school s&ste#=hateer #a& hae been the eHtent of ps&chologicalkno+ledge at the ti#e of Pless& erguson, this finding isa#pl& supported b& #odern authorit& and an& language to thecontrar& in Pless& erguson is rejected

Disposition

Judg#ent for the plaintiffs

Brad8ll vs. Illinois
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/plessy-ferguson.htmlhttp://www.lawnix.com/cases/plessy-ferguson.html


21/22

?rief Fact Summary*>rs >&ra 9rad+ell brought suitchallenging 4llinois denial of her right to practice la+ under theourteenth A#end#ent to the nited 3tates "onstitution

Synopsis of Rule of !aw*3eparate spheres ideolog& allo+ed

4llinois to prohibit +o#en fro# practicing la+ =o#ensad#ission to the bar is not protected b& the ourteenthA#end#ent is a #atter resered to the states

Facts*>rs >&ra 9rad+ell +as denied an application topractice la+ in the 4llinois 3upre#e "ourt .er petition includedthe reuisite certificate attesting to her good character andualifications 2he nited 3tates 3upre#e "ourt affir#ed

Issue*oes the ourteenth A#end#ent to the nited 3tates"onstitution proide that one of the priileges and i##unities

of +o#en as citi!ens is to engage in an& professionT

6laguer >ilitar& "o##ission

Habeas Corpus

In 1979, Olaguer and some others were detained by military

personnel and they were placed in Camp Bagong Diwa. Logauer and

his group are all ciilians. !hey were charged with "1# unlaw$ul

possession o$ e%plosies and incendiary deices& "'# conspiracy to

assassinate (resident and )rs. )arcos& "*# conspiracy to

assassinate cabinet members +uan (once nrile, -rancisco !atad

and icente (aterno& "/# conspiracy to assassinate )essrs. 0rturo!angco, +ose o2o and Ono$re Corpus& "3# arson o$ nine buildings&

"4# attempted murder o$ )essrs. Leonardo (ere5, !eodoro alencia

and 6enerals omeo spino and -abian er& and "7# conspiracy

and proposal to commit rebellion, and inciting to rebellion. On 0ugust

19, 198, the petitioners went to the C and $iled the instant (etition

$or prohibition and habeas corpus.

ISSUE: :hether or not the petition $or habeas corpus be granted.

HELD: !he petition $or habeas corpus has become moot and

academic because by the time the case reached the C Olaguer and

his companions were already released $rom military con$inement.

;:hen the release o$ the persons in whose behal$ the application $or

a writ o$ habeas corpus was $iled is e$$ected, the (etition $or the

issuance o$ the writ becomes moot and academic. 1 Inasmuch as

the herein petitioners hae been released $rom their con$inement in

military detention centers, the instant (etitions $or the issuance o$ a

writ o$ habeas corpus should be dismissed $or haing become moot

and academic.< But the military court created to try the case o$

Olaguer "and the decision it rendered# still continues to subsist.

ISSUE2: !he issue is then shi$ted to= :hether or not a military

tribunal has the >urisdiction to try ciilians while the ciil courts are

open and $unctioning.

HELD: !he C nulli$ied $or lac? o$ >urisdiction all decisions rendered

by the military courts or tribunals during the period o$ martial law inall cases inoling ciilian de$endants. 0 military commission or

tribunal cannot try and e%ercise >urisdiction, een during the period o$

martial law, oer ciilians $or o$$enses allegedly committed by them

as long as the ciil courts are open and $unctioning, and that any

>udgment rendered by such body relating to a ciilian is null and oid

$or lac? o$ >urisdiction on the part o$ the military tribunal concerned.

Britis) A,rican /obacco (BA/+ v. Ca,ac)o

+here the 3upre#e "ourt, in a %C-0 decision, ruled that theclassification did not iolate the clause on eual protection,sa&ing that the proision for a classification free!e is notarbitrar&, nor #otiated b& a hostile or oppressie attitude tofaor eHisting brands, but introduced to proide stabilit& in thecollection of reenue 2he "ourt said this +ould i#proe theefficienc& and effectiit& of taH ad#inistration oer eHciseproducts as "ongress sought to si#plif& the entire taH s&ste#to close potential +indo+s of abuse and corruption to both the


22/22

consti 2: case digests inherent powers of the state

Documents