Ang LADLAD v COMELEC Ruling:

Ang Ladlad LGBT Party’s application for registration should be granted.

Comelec’s citation of the Bible and the Koran in denying petitioner’s application was a
violation of the non-establishment clause laid down in Article 3 section 5 of the
Constitution. The proscription by law relative to acts against morality must be for a
secular purpose (that is, the conduct prohibited or sought to be repressed is
“detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and
progress of human society"), rather than out of religious conformity. The Comelec
failed to substantiate their allegation that allowing registration to Ladlad would be
detrimental to society.

The LGBT community is not exempted from the exercise of its constitutionally vested
rights on the basis of their sexual orientation. Laws of general application should apply
with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the party-list system on
the same basis as other marginalized and under-represented sectors. Discrimination
based on sexual orientation is not tolerated ---not by our own laws nor by any
international laws to which we adhere.

The non-establishment clause prohibits the State from setting up a church,

passing laws which aid one religion, or all religions, or prefer one religion over
another, and from participating openly or directly in the affairs of any religious
organizations or groups and vice versa

Mejoff v. Director of Prisons

Ruling:

The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released from custody but be
placed under reasonable surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure
that he keep peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport
him. In the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines in its constitution adops
the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
Nations. Also, the Philippines has joined the United Nations in its Resolution
entitled “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” in proclaiming that life and
liberty and all other fundamental rights shall be applied to all human beings.
The contention that he remains a threat of to the security of the country is
unfounded as Japan and the US or the Phils are no longer at war.

Government of Hongkong v. Olaila

Ruling: (WON an extraditee is able to post bail)

The Court took cognizance of the following trends in international law:

(1) the growing importance of the individual person in public international;

(2) the higher value now being given to human rights;

(3) the corresponding duty of countries to observe these universal human rights in fulfilling
their treaty obligations; and

(4) the duty of this Court to balance the rights of the individual under our fundamental law,
on one hand, and the law on extradition, on the other.

In light of the recent developments in international law, where emphasis is given to the
worth of the individual and the sanctity of human rights, the Court departed from the ruling
in Purganan, and held that an extraditee may be allowed to post bail.

International Court of Justice Contentious Case: The North Sea

Continental Shelf Cases (Germany/Denmark; Germany/Netherlands).

Year of Decision: 1969.

Note: This post discusses only aspects of the case related to treaty and
customary international law.

Overview: The jurisprudence of the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases sets
out the dual requirement for the formation of customary international law: (1)
State practice (the objective element) and (2) opinio juris (the subjective
element). In these cases, the Court explained the criteria necessary to
establish State practice – widespread and representative participation. It
highlighted that the practices of those States whose interests were specially
affected by the custom were especially relevant in the formation of customary
law. It also held that uniform and consistent practice was necessary to
demonstrate opinio juris – opinio juris is the belief that State practice amounts
to a legal obligation. The North Sea Continental Self Cases also dispelled the
myth that duration of the practice (i.e. the number of years) was an essential
factor in forming customary international law.
The case involved the delimitation of the continental shelf areas in the North
Sea between Germany and Denmark and Germany and Netherlands beyond
the partial boundaries previously agreed upon by these States. The parties
requested the Court to decide the principles and rules of international law that
are applicable to the above delimitation because the parties disagreed on the
applicable principles or rules of delimitation. Netherlands and Denmark relied
on the principle of equidistance (the method of determining the boundaries in
such a way that every point in the boundary is equidistant from the nearest
points of the baselines from which the breath of the territorial sea of each State
is measured). Germany sought to get a decision in favour of the notion that the
delimitation of the relevant continental shelf was governed by the principle that
each coastal state is entitled to a just and equitable share (hereinafter called
just and equitable principle/method). Contrary to Denmark and Netherlands,
Germany argued that the principle of equidistance was neither a mandatory
rule in delimitation of the continental shelf nor a rule of customary international
law that was binding on Germany. The Court was not asked to delimit because
the parties had already agreed to delimit the continental shelf as between their
countries, by agreement, after the determination of the Court on the applicable
principles.

For a customary rule to emerge the Court held that it needed: (1) very
widespread and representative participation in the Convention, including
States whose interests were specially affected (in this case, they were coastal
States) (i.e. generality); and (2) virtually uniform practice (i.e. consistent and
uniform usage) undertaken in a manner that demonstrates (3) a general
recognition of the rule of law or legal obligation (i.e. opinio juries). In the North
Sea Continental Shelf cases the court held that the passage of a considerable
period of time was unnecessary (i.e. duration) for the formation of a customary
law.

Opinio juris is reflected in acts of States (Nicaragua Case) or in omissions

(Lotus case), in so far as those acts or omissions were done following a belief
that the said State is obligated by law to act or refrain from acting in a particular
way.

Simon v. CHR

Facts :

Petitioner Mayor Simon asks to prohibit CHR from further hearing and
investigating "demolition case" on vendors of North EDSA.
Constitutional Issue :
Whether the CHR is authorized to hear and decide on the "demolition case"
and to impose a fine for contempt.

Ruling :
Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution empowered the CHR to
investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights.
The demolition of stalls, sari-sari stores and carenderia cannot fall within the
compartment of "human rights violations involving civil and political rights".

Human rights are the basic rights which is inherent in man by virtue of his
humanity and are the same in all parts of the world.

Human rights include civil rights (right to life, liberty and property; freedom of
speech, of the press, of religion, academic freedom; rights of the accused to
due process of law), political rights (right to elect public officials, to be elected
to public office, and to form political associations and engage in politics), social
rights (right to education, employment and social services.

Human rights are entitlements that inhere in the individual person from the
sheer fact of his humanity...Because they are inherent, human rights are not
granted by the State but can only be recognized and protected by it.

Human rights includes all the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights
defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Human rights are rights that pertain to man simply because he is human. They
are part of his natural birth, right, innate and inalienable.

CIVIL RIGHTS - are those that belong to every citizen and are not connected
with the organization or administration of the government.

POLITICAL RIGHTS - are rights to participate, directly or indirectly, in the

establishment or administration of the government.

People v. Echegaray:
Harden v. Director of Prison- "The penalty complained of is neither cruel,
unjust nor excessive. In Ex-parte Kemmler, 136 U.S., 436, the United States
Supreme Court said that 'punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a
lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of
that word as used in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and
barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life.

PP v Marti
ISSUE:
May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant’s
constitutional rights be invoked against the State?

HELD:
No. As the Court held in several other cases, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State in the absence of
governmental interference. This constitutional right (against unreasonable
search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one’s person, whether citizen or
alien, from interference by government; and the search and seizure clauses
are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals.
In the present case, it was the proprietor of the forwarding agency who made
search/inspection of the packages and the contraband came into possession
of the Government without the latter transgressing appellant’s rights against
unreasonable search and seizure. The NBI agents made no search and
seizure, much less an illegal one. Thus, the alleged act of the private individual
in violation of a constitutional right cannot be invoked against the State.

Nicaragua case:
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America (1986) is a public
international law case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The
ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded
reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international
law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan
government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to
participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ
lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. also blocked enforcement of the
judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented
Nicaragua from obtaining any compensation. Nicaragua, under the later,
post-FSLN government of Violeta Chamorro, withdrew the complaint from the
court in September 1992 following a repeal of the law which had required the
country to seek compensation.
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its
obligations under customary international law not to use force against another
State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not
to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its
obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and
Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."

US v. Mexico (Neer Claim)

In its decision, the Commission, in relation to the denial of justice standard,

stated that “the treatment of an alien, in order to constitute an
international delinquency, should amount to an outrage, to bad faith, to
willful neglect of duty, or to an insufficiency of governmental action so
far short of international standards that every reasonable and impartial
man would readily recognize its insufficiency.”

A violation of this standard occurs both when there is a clear lack of

compliance and when a law does not fully satisfy the standard. This is
therefore a broad definition creating a high substantive standard.
Moreover, “governmental action” is construed to include all branches
of the government, including the judiciary, the legislature and the
executive.

In addition, a party alleging the violation of the standard must prove

the facts with “convincing evidence”, meaning that there must be
evidence of outrageous, bad faith conduct, and also evidence that the
local laws prevented the government authorities from complying with
the international standard.

Poe v. COMELEC

HELD:
YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born Filipino Citizen. For that, she
satisfied the constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos may run for
Presidency.

(1) there is high probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos, as being shown in
her physical features which are typical of Filipinos, aside from the fact that she
was found as an infant in Jaro, Iloilo, a municipality wherein there is 99%
probability that residents there are Filipinos, consequently providing 99%
chance that Poe’s bilogical parents are Filipinos. Said probability and
circumstancial evidence are admissible under Rule 128, Sec 4 of the Rules on
Evidence.

(2) The SC pronounced that FOUNDLINGS are as a class, natural born-

citizens as based on the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention,
wherein though its enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no
restrictive language either to definitely exclude the foundlings to be natural
born citizens.

(3) That Foundlings are automatically conferred with the natural-born

citizenship as to the country where they are being found, as covered and
supported by the UN Convention Law.

As to the residency issue, Grace Poe satisfied the 10-year residency

because she satisfied the requirements of ANIMUS MANENDI (intent to
remain permanently) coupled with ANIMUS NON REVERTENDI (intent
of not returning to US) in acquiring a new domicile in the Philippines. Starting
May 24,2005, upon returning to the Philippines, Grace Poe presented
overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon permanently
her domicile in the US, coupled with her eventual application to reacquire
Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225. Hence, her candidacy for Presidency was
granted by the SC.

Marcos v. Manglapus

Whether or not President Aquino has the power to deny the return of Marcos' remains.

Yes. Contrary to petitioners' view, it cannot be denied that the President, upon whom executive
power is vested, has unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive
power and which are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The
powers of the President are not limited to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the
Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the Constitution.
 Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in compliance with
his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote the interest and welfare
of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the Marcoses and
subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time and under
present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty.

ZULUETA VS. CA

Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.

The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication
and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply
because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's
infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is
to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution
is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision
renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any
proceeding."

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in
breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does
not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.

Gamboa v. Chan

RULING

NO.

The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to

protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of
an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to
informational privacy. It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information
regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being
collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. It must be
emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ to be granted, there must
exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life,
liberty or security on the other.

In this case, the Court ruled that Gamboa was unable to prove through
substantial evidence that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining
PAGs made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to
increased police surveillance. In this regard, respondents sufficiently explained
that the investigations conducted against her were in relation to the criminal
cases in which she was implicated. As public officials, they enjoy the
presumption of regularity, which she failed to overcome. [T]he state interest of
dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion on the private life of
Gamboa, especially when the collection and forwarding by the PNP of
information against her was pursuant to a lawful mandate. Therefore, the
privilege of the writ of habeas data must be denied.

SANCHEZ v PEOPLE

In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 and Section
10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides:

SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. —

(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty
or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's
development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No.
603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those
enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four
distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d)
 being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s development. The
Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately
defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts
are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the child’s
development. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, an accused can be prosecuted
and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he
commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that the
acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the
prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child
is different from the former acts.

Sec. 10 RA 7610 - Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other condition
prejudicial to the child’s development x x x,”