Untitled 1dcn
Untitled 1dcn
Untitled 1dcn
Issue whether the Maguines are being illegally deprived of their liberty by the provincial officials of
that provinnce by means of statutes
Ruling:
Liberty includes the right of the citizens to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live an
work where he will;
The pledge that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws is not infringed by a statute
which is applicable to all of a class. The classification must have a reasonable basis and cannot be
purely arbitrary in nature.
the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, for the best of all reasons, to exterminate vice, ordered
the segregated district for women of ill repute
At any rate, about midnight of October 25, the police, acting pursuant to orders from the chief of
police, Anton Hohmann and the Mayor of the city of Manila, Justo Lukban, descended upon the
houses, hustled some 170 inmates into patrol wagons, and placed them aboard the steamers that
awaited their arrival. The women were given no opportunity to collect their belongings, and apparently
were under the impression that they were being taken to a police station for an investigation. They had
no knowledge that they were destined for a life in Mindanao. They had not been asked if they wished to
depart from that region and had neither directly nor indirectly given their consent to the deportation.
Ruling:
under the american constitutiona system. liberty of abode is a principle so deeply imbedded in
jurisprudence and considered so elementary in nature as not even to require a constitutional sanction.
to change their domicile from Manila to another locality. On the contrary, Philippine penal law
specifically punishes any public officer who, not being expressly authorized by law or regulation,
compels any person to change his residence.
The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons
from unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom. Any further
rights of the parties are left untouched by decision on the writ, whose principal purpose is to set the
individual at liberty.
erein it was admitted that the applicant was a leper. It was, however, alleged that his confinement in the
San Lazaro Hospital in the City of Manila was in violation of his constitutional rights. The further
allegation was made that leprosy is not an infectious disease. The return of the writ stated that the leper
was confined in the San Lazaro Hospital in conformity with the provisions of section 1058 of the
Administrative Code
rulling:
Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by the legislative body in the legitimate exercise
of the police power which extends to the preservation of the public health. It was place on the statute
books in recognition of leprosy as a grave health problem. The methods provided for the control of
leprosy plainly constitute due process of law. The assumption must be that if evidence was required to
establish the necessity for the law, that it was before the legislature when the act was passed. In the case
of a statute purporting the have been enacted in the interest of the public health, all questions relating to
the determination of matters of fact are for the legislature. If there is probable basis for sustaining the
conclusion reached, its findings are not subject to judicial review.
Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease
tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from society, and that compulsory
segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the disease of supported by high scientific
authority
G.R. No. L-53622 April 25, 1980
JOVITO R. SALONGA, petitioner,
vs.
CAPTAIN ROLANDO HERMOSO, TRAVEL PROCESSING CENTER, and GENERAL
FABIAN VER, respondents.
Facts
President Marcos made reference to martial law being instituted in accordance with law and
that the Constitution had been applied in appropriate cases. As an agency of the executive
branch, therefore, the Travel Processing Center should ever be on its guard, lest the
impression be created that such declarations amount, to paraphrase Justice Jackson, to no
more than munificent bequests in a pauper's will.
Ruling;
Nonetheless, in view of the likelihood that in the future this Court may be faced again with a
situation like the present which takes up its time and energy needlessly, it is desirable that
respondent Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression
that certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel could be subjected
to inconvenience or annoyance. In the address of President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E.
Marcos before the American Newspaper Publishers Association last Tuesday April 22, 1980,
emphasized anew the respect accorded constitutional rights The freedom to travel is certainly
one of the most cherished.
the case became moot and academic as the Office of the Solicitor General, in its answer to
the petition, stated that the travel eligibility certificate was not denied and, as a matter of fact,
had been granted. Nonetheless, a brief separate opinion was filed, concurring in the
resolution, and worded thus: "Clearly this petition had assumed a moot and academic
character
Petitioner Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular
Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having
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.
Ruling:
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail
bond.
Liberty, the most important consequence of bail, albeit provisional, is indivisible. If granted at all, liberty operates as fully within as without the boundaries of the
granting state. This principle perhaps accounts for the absence of any law or jurisprudence expressly declaring that liberty under bail does not transcend the
territorial boundaries of the country.
The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed 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 keepers 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.14