You are on page 1of 5

MA. LOVELLA SHALOM M.

CORDERO

Principles and State Policies

Section 12

14. MEYER VS. NEBRASKA

Facts.

Plaintiff was tried and convicted in the District Court for Hamilton County,
Nebraska, under an information which charged that, on May 25, 1920, while
an instructor in Zion Parochial School, he unlawfully taught the subject of
reading in the German language to Raymond Parpart, a child of ten years,
who had not attained and successfully passed the eighth grade. The
information is based upon "An act relating to the teaching of foreign
languages in the State of Nebraska," approved April 9, 1919, which follows
[Laws 1919, c. 249.]:

"Section 1. No person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private,


denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person
in any language other than the English language."

"Sec. 2. Languages, other than the English language, may be taught as


languages only after a pupil shall have attained and successfully passed the
eighth grade as evidenced by a certificate of graduation issued by the
county superintendent of the county in which the child resides."

"Sec. 3. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this act shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be subject to a
fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25), nor more than one hundred
dollars ($100) or be confined in the county jail for any period not exceeding
thirty days for each offense."

Issue:

Does the Nebraska statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process
clause?

Ruling:

Yes, the Nebraska law is unconstitutional. Nebraska violated the liberty


protected by due process of the Fourteenth Amendment. Liberty means more
than freedom from bodily restraint. State regulation of liberty must be
reasonably related to a proper state objective. The legislature's view of
reasonableness was subject to supervision by the courts.

The state argues that the purpose of the statute is to encourage the English
language to be the native tongue of all children raised in the state.
Nonetheless, the protection of the Constitution extends to those who speak
other languages. Education is a fundamental liberty interest that must be
protected, and mere knowledge of the German language cannot be
reasonably regarded as harmful.. But these purposes were not adequate to
justify interfering with Meyer's liberty to teach or the liberty of parents to
employ him during a "time of peace and domestic tranquillity."

15. PIERCE VS SOCIETY OF SISTERS

FACTS:

The District of Oregon had approved the Oregon Compulsory Education


Act. This Act became effective on September 1, 1926. , requires every
parent, guardian or other person having control or charge or custody of a
child between eight and sixteen years to send him "to a public school for the
period of time a public school shall be held during the current year" in the
district where the child resides, and failure so to do is declared a
misdemeanor.

The Society of Sisters, is an Oregon corporation, organized in 1880, with


power to care for orphans, educate and instruct the youth, establish and
maintain academies or schools, and acquire necessary real and
personalproperty.

The Society of Sisters questioned the provisions of the said act,as the
enforcement of the statute would seriously impair, perhaps destroy, the
profitable features of appellees' business and greatly diminish the value of
their property.

Issue. Does the Act unreasonably interfere with the liberty of parents and
guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their
control?

Held. The Act violates the 14th Amendment because it interferes with
protected liberty interests and has no reasonable relationship to any purpose
within the competency of the state.
The Appellees have standing because the result of enforcing the Act would
be destruction of the appellees schools. The state has the power to regulate
all schools, but parents and guardians have the right and duty to choose the
appropriate preparation for their children.
16. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HEINRICH S. RITTERS

FACTS:

On October 10, 1986 about midnight, accused Heinrich Stefan Ritter


brought a boy and girl namely: Jessie Ramirez and Rosario Baluyot inside his
hotel room at MGM Hotel along Magsaysay Drive, Olongapo City. Ritter
masturbated Jessie and fingered Rosario. Afterwards, he inserted a foreign
object to the vagina of Rosario. The next morning, Ritter gave Jessie 200, and
Rosario 300. Rosario told Jessie that Ritter inserted an object inside her
vagina. Sometime the following day, Rosario said that the object has already
been removed from her vagina. Rosario's first ailment at the Olongapo City
General Hospital was loose bowel movement and vomiting, which was first
suspected as gastro-enteritis, but which came out later as symptoms of
peritonitis due to a massive infection in the abdominal cavity. Subsequently,
on May 17, 1987, after she was examined by the physicians at the hospital, it
was found out that there was a foreign object lodged in her vaginal canal and
she had vaginal discharge tinged with blood and foul smelling odor
emanating from her body. . She told the attending physician that a Negro
inserted the object to her vagina 3 months ago. Ritter was made liable for
rape with homicide. RTC found him guilty of rape with homicide.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ritter was liable for rape and homicide.

HELD:

No. The prosecution failed to prove that Rosario was only 12 years old when
the incident with Ritter happened. And that Rosario prostituted herself even
at the tender age. As evidence, she received 300 from Ritter the following
morning. A doctor/specialist also testified that the inserted object in the
vagina of Rosario Baluyot by Ritter was different from that which caused her
death. Rosario herself said to Jessie the following day that the object has
been removed already. She also told the doctor that a Negro inserted it to
her vagina 3 months ago. Ritter was a Caucasian.
However, it does not exempt him for the moral and exemplary damages he
must award to the victims heirs. It does not necessarily follow that the
appellant is also free from civil liability which is impliedly instituted with the
criminal action. Ritter was deported.

17. DECS vs. San Diego


G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989

Facts:
Respondent San Diego has flunked the NMAT (National Medical Admission
Test) three times. When he applied to take again, petitioner rejected his
application based on the three-flunk-rule. He then filed a petition before
the RTC on the ground of due process and equal protection and challenging
the constitutionality of the order. The petition was granted by the RTC
therefore this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not the NMAT three-flunk-rule order is valid and constitutional.

Ruling:
Yes, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure
intended to limit the admission to medical schools only to those who have
initially proved their competence and preparation for a medical education. It
is the right and responsibility of the State to insure that the medical
profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may unwarily
entrust their lives and health.The three-flunk rule is intended to insulate the
medical schools and ultimately the medical profession from the intrusion of
those not qualified to be doctors.
These resources must be applied in a manner that will best promote the
common good while also giving the individual a sense of satisfaction.The
method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the
purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The right to quality
education is not absolute. The State must take decisive steps to regulate and
enrich our system of education by directing the student to the course for
which he is best suited as determined by initial tests and evaluations.
The Constitution provides that every citizen has the right to choose a
profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable
admission and academic requirements. It is not enough to simply invoke the
right to quality education as a guarantee of the Constitution but one must
show that he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise. Petition
was granted and the RTC ruling was reversed.