You are on page 1of 7

Narratives

Constitutional Law II
Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAli e !"0 #hili$$ines license"

Some %i&hts %eserved"

'able o( Contents

Salon&a vs" )ermoso *G% L-5!+22, 25 A$ril -./00 1 Manotoc vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% L-+2-00, !0 Ma2 -./+0 1 Marcos vs" Man&la$us *G% //2--, -5 Se$tember -./.0 1 2 Silverio vs" Court o( A$$eals *G% .32/3, / A$ril -..-0 1 3 Loren4o vs" 5irector o( )ealth *G% 263/3, - Se$tember -.260 1 5

This collection contains five (5) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First emester! school year "##5$"##% in the &olitical 'aw (eview class under )ean Mariano Magsalin *r. at the +rellano ,niversity chool of 'aw (+, '). -om.iled as &)F! e.tember "#/". 0erne Guerrero entered +, ' in *une "##" and eventually graduated from +, ' in "##%. 1e .assed the &hili..ine bar e2aminations immediately after (+.ril "##3).

berne&uerrero"word$ress"com

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

476 Salonga vs. Hermoso [GR L-53622, 25 April 19 !" En Banc, Fernando (CJ): 9 concur, 1 concurs in separate opinion, 1 on leave #a$%s& This is not the first time Jovito R. Salonga came to the Supreme Court by way of a mandamus proceeding to compel the issuance to him of a certificate of eligibility to travel. In the first case, Salonga v. Madella !R "#$%&'(), the case became moot and academic as the *ffice of the Solicitor !eneral, in its answer to the petition, stated that the travel eligibility certificate was not denied and, as a matter of fact, had been granted. +erein, in the motion to dismiss of the Solicitor !eneral dated ,& -pril &%.(, it was stated that the certificate of eligibility to travel had been granted Salonga. - /ero/ed copy was enclosed. Hel'& The Travel 0rocessing Center should e/ercise the utmost care to avoid the impression that certain citi1ens desirous of e/ercising their constitutional right to travel could be sub2ected to inconvenience or annoyance. In the address of 0resident and 0rime Minister 3erdinand 4. Marcos before the -merican 5ewspaper 0ublishers -ssociation on ,, -pril &%.(, he emphasi1ed anew the respect accorded constitutional rights. The freedom to travel is certainly one of the most cherished. +e cited with approval the ringing affirmation of 6illoughby, who, as he noted was 7partial to the claims of liberty.7 8urdic9 and 6illis, both of whom were e:ually convinced that there be no erosion to human rights even in times of martial law, li9ewise received from 0resident Marcos the accolade of his approval. It would appear, therefore, that in case of doubt of the *fficer#in#Charge of the Travel 0rocessing Center, the view of !eneral 3abian ;er should immediately be sought. It goes without saying that the petition for such certificate of eligibility to travel be filed at the earliest opportunity to facilitate the granting thereof and preclude any disclaimer as to the person desiring to travel being in any way responsible for any delay. 477 47 (a)n$a vs. Sala*ar, 2 +,il. 51 -194!.

/ano%o$ vs. (o)r% o0 Appeals [GR L-621!!, 3! /a1 19 6" En Banc, Fernan (J): 9 concur, 1 took no part

#a$%s& Ricardo ". Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal stoc9holders of Trans#Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stoc9 bro9erage house. +aving transferred the management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds no officer#position in said business, but acts as president of the former corporation. 3ollowing the 7run7 on stoc9 bro9erages caused by stoc9 bro9er Santamaria<s flight from this 2urisdiction, Manotoc, who was then in the =nited States, came home, and together with his co# stoc9holders, filed a petition with the Securities and 4/change Commission S4C) for the appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc Securities, Inc., but li9ewise for Trans#Insular Management, Inc. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc. S4C Case ((&.,>, 7In the Matter of the -ppointment of a Management Committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc., Teodoro ?alaw, Jr., Ricardo Manotoc, Jr., 0etitioners7), was granted and a management committee was organi1ed and appointed. 0ending disposition of S4C Case ((&.,>, the S4C re:uested the then Commissioner of Immigration, 4dmundo Reyes, not to clear Manotoc for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued by the Commissioner on $ 3ebruary &%.( to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation @ivision. 6hen a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fa9e, > of its clients filed si/ separate criminal complaints against Manotoc and one Raul "everi1a, Jr., as president and vice#president, respectively, of Manotoc Securities, Inc. In due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal before the then Court of 3irst Instance of Ri1al Criminal Cases $A'%% and $A$((, assigned to Judge CamilonB Criminal Cases $AA$, to $AA$A, raffled off to Judge 0ronove). In all cases, Manotoc has been admitted to bail in the total amount of 0&(A,(((.((, with 3!= Insurance Corporation as surety. *n & March &%.,, Manotoc filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, 7motion for permission to leave the country7, stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the =nited States, 7relative to his business transactions and opportunities.7 The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, both Judge Camilon and Judge 0ronove in their orders dated % March &%.,, and ,> March &%.,, respetively,
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

denied the same. It appears that Manotoc li9ewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter re:uesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter<s memorandum dated $ 3ebruary &%.(, but said re:uest was also denied in a letter dated ,C May &%.,. anotoc thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of -ppeals see9ing to annul the 2udges< orders, as well as the communication#re:uest of the Securities and 4/change Commission, denying his leave to travel abroad. *n A *ctober &%.,, the appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lac9 of merit. @issatisfied with the appellate court<s ruling, Manotoc filed the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. 0ending resolution of the petition, Manotoc filed on &A -ugust &%.$ a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. *n ,( September &%.$, the Supreme Court in a resolution en banc denied Manotoc<s motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. 2ss)e& 6hether a court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the 0hilippines. Hel'& - court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the 0hilippines. This is a necessary conse:uence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Rule &&$, Section & of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security re:uired and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be re:uired as stipulated in the bail bond or recogni1ance. The condition imposed upon Manotoc to ma9e himself available at all times whenever the court re:uires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. -s held in 0eople v. =y Tuising >& 0hil. $($ D&%'AE), 7the result of the obligation assumed by appellee surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court, was to prohibit said accused from leaving the 2urisdiction of the 0hilippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be nugatory, and inasmuch as the 2urisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not e/tend beyond that of the 0hilippines they would have no binding force outside of said 2urisdiction.7 Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the 0hilippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. The effect of a recogni1ance or bail bond, when fully e/ecuted or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to 9eepers of his own selection. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and whose 2urisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the court is recogni1ed by petitioner himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country, for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place, if it were otherwise. The constitutional right to travel being invo9ed by Manotoc is not an absolute right. Section A, -rticle I; of the &%C' Constitution states that 7the liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired e/cept upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.7 The order of the trial court releasing Manotoc on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the constitutional provision. 479 /ar$os vs. /anglap)s [GR 211, 15 Sep%em3er 19 9" En Banc, Cortes (J): 6 concur, 1 concurs in separate opinion, 5 dissent in separate opinions, 1 on leave #a$%s& In 3ebruary &%.>, 3erdinand 4. Marcos was deposed from the presidency via the non#violent 7people power7 revolution and forced into e/ile. In his stead, Cora1on C. -:uino was declared 0resident of the Republic under a revolutionary government. +er ascension to and consolidation of power have not been unchallenged. The failed Manila +otel coup in &%.> led by political leaders of Mr. Marcos, the ta9eover of television station Channel C by rebel troops led by Col. Canlas with the support of 7Marcos loyalists7 and the unsuccessful plot of the Marcos spouses to surreptitiously return from +awaii with mercenaries aboard an aircraft chartered by a "ebanese arms dealer awa9ened the nation to the capacity of the Marcoses to stir trouble even from afar and to the fanaticism and blind loyalty of their followers in the country. The ratification of the &%.C Constitution enshrined the victory of 7people power7 and also clearly reinforced the
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 2 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

constitutional moorings of Mrs. -:uino<s presidency. This did not, however, stop bloody challenges to the government. *n ,. -ugust &%.C, Col. !regorio +onasan, one of the ma2or players in the 3ebruary Revolution, led a failed coup that left scores of people, both combatants and civilians, dead. There were several other armed sorties of lesser significance, but the message they conveyed was the same F a split in the ran9s of the military establishment that threatened civilian supremacy over the military and brought to the fore the reali1ation that civilian government could be at the mercy of a fractious military. 8ut the armed threats to the !overnment were not only found in misguided elements in the military establishment and among rabid followers of Mr. Marcos. There were also the communist insurgency and the secessionist movement in Mindanao which gained ground during the rule of Mr. Marcos, to the e/tent that the communists have set up a parallel government of their own in the areas they effectively control while the separatists are virtually free to move about in armed bands. There has been no let up in these groups< determination to wrest power from the government. 5ot only through resort to arms but also through the use of propaganda have they been successful in creating chaos and destabili1ing the country. 5or are the woes of the Republic purely political. The accumulated foreign debt and the plunder of the nation attributed to Mr. Marcos and his cronies left the economy devastated. The efforts at economic recovery, three years after Mrs. -:uino assumed office, have yet to show concrete results in alleviating the poverty of the masses, while the recovery of the ill#gotten wealth of the Marcoses has remained elusive. 5ow, Mr. Marcos, in his deathbed, has signified his wish to return to the 0hilippines to die. 8ut Mrs. -:uino, considering the dire conse:uences to the nation of his return at a time when the stability of government is threatened from various directions and the economy is 2ust beginning to rise and move forward, has stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Mr. Marcos and his family. +ence, Marcos< petition for mandamus and prohibition, as9ing the court to order Raul Manglapus as Secretary of 3oreign -ffairs, Catalino Macaraig as 4/ecutive Secretary, Sedfrey *rdone1 as Secretary of Justice, Miriam @efensor Santiago as Immigration Commissioner, 3idel Ramos as Secretary of 5ational @efense, and Renato de ;illa as Chief of Staff, to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to en2oin the implementation of the 0resident<s decision to bar their return to the 0hilippines. 2ss)e& 6hether 3erdinand 4. Marcos and his family have the right to travel and liberty of abode, in light of the attendant circumstances in the present case. Hel'& The individual right involved is not the right to travel from the 0hilippines to other countries or within the 0hilippines. These are what the right to travel would normally connote. 4ssentially, the right involved is the right to return to one<s country, a totally distinct right under international law, independent from although related to the right to travel. Thus, the =niversal @eclaration of +umans Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and 0olitical Rights treat the right to freedom of movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave a country, and the right to enter one<s country as separate and distinct rights. The @eclaration spea9s of the 7right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state7 separately from the 7right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.7 *n the other hand, the Covenant guarantees the 7right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence7 and the right to 7be free to leave any country, including his own.7 which rights may be restricted by such laws as 7are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the separate rights and freedoms of others.7 as distinguished from the 7right to enter his own country7 of which one cannot be 7arbitrarily deprived.7 It would therefore be inappropriate to construe the limitations to the right to return to one<s country in the same conte/t as those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel. The right to return to one<s country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the 8ill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land. +owever, it is distinct and separate from the right to travel and en2oys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and 0olitical Rights, i.e., against being 7arbitrarily deprived7 thereof. *n the other hand, the Constitution declares among the guiding principles that 7the prime duty of the !overnment is to serve and protect the people7 and that 7the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 3 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

promotion of the general welfare are essential for the en2oyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.7 -dmittedly, service and protection of the people, the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essentially ideals to guide governmental action. Thus, in the e/ercise of presidential functions, in drawing a plan of government, and in directing implementing action for these plans, or from another point of view, in ma9ing any decision as 0resident of the Republic, the 0resident has to consider these principles, among other things, and adhere to them. 3aced with the problem of whether or not the time is right to allow the Marcoses to return to the 0hilippines, the 0resident is, under the Constitution, constrained to consider these basic principles in arriving at a decision. More than that, having sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution, the 0resident has the obligation under the Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national interest. Since the persons who see9 to return to the country are the deposed dictator and his family at whose door the travails of the country are laid and from whom billions of dollars believed to be ill#gotten wealth are sought to be recovered, the constitutional guarantees must be ad2usted to the re:uirements of e:ually important public interests, as such are neither absolute nor infle/ible. The 0resident has determined that the destabili1ation caused by the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse. !iven what is within our individual and common 9nowledge of the state of the economy, the Court cannot argue with that determination. 4 ! Silverio vs. (o)r% o0 Appeals [GR 942 4, April 1991" Second Division, elencio!"errera (J): # concur #a$%s& *n &$ *ctober &%.A, Ricardo C. Silverio was charged with violation of Section ,( $) of the Revised Securities -ct in Criminal Case C8=#>'($ of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu. In due time, he posted bail for his provisional liberty. *n ,> January &%.., or more than , years after the filing of the Information, the 0eople of the 0hilippines filed an =rgent e/ parte Motion to cancel the passport of and to issue a hold# departure *rder against Silverio on the ground that he had gone abroad several times without the necessary Court approval resulting in postponements of the arraignment and scheduled hearings. *verruling opposition, the Regional Trial Court, on $ -pril &%.., issued an *rder directing the @epartment of 3oreign -ffairs to cancel Silverio<s passport or to deny his application therefor, and the Commission on Immigration to prevent Silverio from leaving the country. This order was based primarily on the Trial Court<s finding that since the filing of the Information on &$ *ctober &%.A, 7the accused has not yet been arraigned because he has never appeared in Court on the dates scheduled for his arraignment and there is evidence to show that accused Ricardo C. Silverio, Sr. has left the country and has gone abroad without the 9nowledge and permission of this Court.7 Silverio<s Motion for Reconsideration was denied on ,. July &%... Silverio<s Certiorari 0etition before the Court of -ppeals met a similar fate on '& January &%%(. +ence, the 0etition for Review filed on '( July &%%(. 2ss)e& 6hether the right to travel can be impaired upon lawful order of the Court, even on grounds other than the 7interest of national security, public safety or public health.7 Hel'& -rticle III, Section > of the &%.C Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court *rder, the appropriate e/ecutive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of 7national security, public safety, or public health7 and 7as may be provided by law,7 a limitive phrase which did not appear in the &%C' te/t. -pparently, the phraseology in the &%.C Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel 0rocessing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party. -rticle III, Section > of the &%.C Constitution should by no means be construed as delimiting the inherent power of the Courts to use all means necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal cases pending before them. 6hen by law 2urisdiction is conferred on a Court or 2udicial officer, all au/iliary writs, process and other means necessary to carry it into effect may be employed by such Court or officer. +erein, Silverio is facing a criminal charge.
Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 4 )

Narratives (Berne Guerrero)

+e has posted bail but has violated the conditions thereof by failing to appear before the Court when re:uired. 6arrants for his arrest have been issued. Those orders and processes would be rendered nugatory if an accused were to be allowed to leave or to remain, at his pleasure, outside the territorial confines of the country. +olding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the 0hilippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the 0eople of the 0hilippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court *rders and processes. 4 1 Loren*o vs. 4ire$%or o0 Heal%, [GR 274 4, 1 Sep%em3er 1927" First Division, alcol$ (J): 6 concur #a$%s& -ngel "oren1o was a leper. +e filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of 3irst Instance of Manila, alleging that his confinement in the San "a1aro +ospital in the City of Manila was in violation of his constitutional rights. "oren1o was confined in said hospital in conformity with the provisions of section &(A. of the -dministrative Code. The trial court sustained the law authori1ing the segregation of lepers, and denied the petition for habeas corpus, by re:uiring the trial court to receive evidence to determine if leprosy is or is not a contagious disease. "oren1o appealed. 2ss)e& 6hether the -dministrative Code provision on the confinement of lepers violative of the latterGs constitutional rights on freedom of travel. Hel'& The 0hilippine law pertaining to the segregation of lepers is found in article H; of chapter 'C of the -dministrative Code. Codal section &(A. empowers the @irector of +ealth and his authori1ed agents 7to cause to be apprehended, and detained, isolated, or confined, all leprous persons in the 0hilippine Islands.7 In amplification of this portion of the law are found provisions relating to arrest of suspected lepers, medical inspection and diagnostic procedure, confirmation of diagnosis by bacteriological methods, establishment of hospitals, detention camps, and a leper colony, etc. Section &(A. of the -dministrative Code was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate e/ercise of the police power which e/tends to the preservation of the public health. It was placed on the statute boo9s in recognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. Judicial notice will be ta9en of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and e/cluded from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease is supported by high scientific authority. =pon this view, laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over. Similarly, the local "egislature has regarded leprosy as a contagious disease and has authori1ed measures to control the dread scourge. It would re:uire a much stronger case than the present case for the Court to sanction admitting the testimony of e/pert or other witnesses to show that a law of this character may possibly violate some constitutional provision.

Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 5 )

You might also like