Submitted by: Bautista, Mira Student No.

2019300855
Constitutional Law 2

Bill of Rights
Article III

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Section 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against

any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll

tax.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Liberty of Abode and of travel

Villavicencio vs. Lukban G.R L-14639

Fact

Justo Lukban, mayor of Manila, ordered the district of ill-repute women closed.
One hundred and seventy women were deported to Davao without their
knowledge and consent. The women were received as laborers in a banana
plantation. Some of the women were able to escape and return to Manila. The
attorney for the relatives and friends of a considerable number of the deportees
presented an application for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether or not the Mayor of Manila had the authority to deport the women to
Davao

Ruling

The respondent cannot permit to restrain a fellow filipino of his or her liberty by
forcing her to change domicile. No defense offered constituted a legitimate bar
to the granting of the writ of habeas corpus. The supreme court upheld the
citiziens right to freedom of domicile or the liberty of abode.

They were not able to produce the body in whose behalf the writ wAs granted.
They were not able to show the impossibility of performance and they were not
able to present writing that waived the rights of those deported.

Marcos vs. Manglapus

G.r 88211

Fact.

Former President Marcos was oust from his presidency thru the People Power
revolution and made him to exile. Marcos while on the bridge of dying showed
his interest and wish to return to the Philippines to die. But unfortunately the
President then Corazon Aquino said that it would not create a good
consequence to the nation since the nation is just beginning to recupitate.

Issue

Whether or not in the exercise of power granted by the constitution to

President Aquino gave him the right to prohibit Marcos from returning to the
Philippines.

Ruling
We all know that the President has the power of control of all the matters
involving the executive department. The President unde the constiution has the
power to bar Marcoses return has the interest in regards of national security,
public safety or public health can justify and even require restrictions on the
right to travel, and that the clause as may be provided by law contained in
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution merely declares a constitutional
leave or permission for Congress to enact laws that may restrict the right to
travel in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.

The power of the State, in particular cases, to restrict travel of its citizens finds
abundant support in the police power of the state wich may be exercised to
preserve and maintain government as well as promote the general welfare of
the greatest number of people.

B. Non- Impairment Clause

Ortigas and Co. Ltd Partnership vs. Feati Bank and TRUST cO.

Facts
Plantiff known as Ortigas is engaged in real estate business defendant is Feati
Bank and Trust Co., a Corporation duly organized in existence and accordance
of the law. The plantiff vendor and Angeles as vendees entered into agreement
of sale of 2 parcels of land in Manila and the vendee transfered lot to Chaves.
In the deed of sale it was stipulated that it should be exclusively use for
residential purpose.

Eventually defendant appelle acquired Lot 5 and C . Defendant upon the other
hand, maintains that the area along the western part of Epifanio de los Santos
Avenue (EDSA) from Shaw Boulevard to Pasig River, has been declared a
commercial and industrial zone, per Resolution No. 27, dated February 4, 1960
of the Municipal Council of Mandaluyong, Rizal.

Issue:
Whether or not Resolution No. 27 s-1960 can nullify or supersede the
contractual obligations assumed by defendant

Ruling:

Resolution should prevail than what is stipulated in the contract.  With regard to
the contention that said resolution cannot nullify the contractual obligations
assumed by the defendant referring to the restrictions incorporated in the
deeds of sale and later in the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title issued
to defendant it should be stressed, that while non-impairment of contracts is
constitutionally guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to be
reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power, i.e., the power to
prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good
order or safety and general welfare of the people.

BPI vs SEC
G. r. No. 16461

Fact:
The Bank of the Philippine Island extended its credit accomodation to ASB
group with the amount of P86 billion. It was secured by a real estate mortgage
of 2 properties. ASB group filed a petition for rehabilitation and suspension of
payment before SEC. The rehabilitation will provide dacion en pago to BPI one
of the properties mortaged.

Issue:
Doe the requirement for SEC approval of Rehabilitation Plan will impair the
contract?

Ruling:

By approving the Rehabilitation Plan, the SEC hearing panel totally disregarded
the efficacy of the mortgage agreements between the parties, and sanctioned a
mode of payment which is solely for the unilateral benefit of the ASB Group.
This is so because in the event that the secured creditors such as itself would
not agree to dacion en pago, the ASB Groups obligations would be settled at
the selling prices of the mortgaged properties to be dictated by the ASB Group,
rendering BPIs status as a preferred creditor illusory. If dacion en pago fails to
materialize, the Rehabilitation Plan contemplates to settle the obligations to
secured creditors with mortgaged properties at selling prices. Finally, they claim
that BPI failed to submit any valuation of the mortgage properties to
substantiate its objection to the Rehabilitation Plan, making its objection thereto
totally unreasonable.

C. Access to courts
In Re: Mr. Roger Prioresch
 A.M. No. 09-06-09 SC

Fact:
The Hon. Court Administrator Jose Perez pointed out to the Good Shepherd’s
Foundation need of complying with OCA Circular No. 42-2005 and Rule 141
that reserves this "privilege" to indigent persons. In addition, this law deals
mainly with "individual indigent" and it does not include Foundations or
Associations that work with and for the most Indigent persons

Issue: Should an incoprorated foundation serving indigent litigatns be exempted

from paying docket fees?

Ruling:

The Courts cannot grant to foundations like the Good Shepherd Foundation,
Inc. the same exemption from payment of legal fees granted to indigent
litigants even if the foundations are working for indigent and underprivileged
people.

The legal fees shall be a lien on any judgment rendered in the case favorable to
the indigent litigant unless the court otherwise provides.

D. Prohibited Punishment
People vs. Estorista G.R. L-5793

Fact:

Prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Lanao for homicide through reckless
imprudence and illegal possession of firearm under one information, the
appellant was acquitted of the first offense and found guilty of the second, for
which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment.

Issue:
Whether or not the penalty or punishment is cruel?

Ruling:

The confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing of carrying firearm is not

cruel or unusual, having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law
proposes.

Any person who manufactures, deals in, acquires, disposes, or possesses, any
firearm, parts of firearms, or ammunition therefor, or instrument or implement
used or intended to be used in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition in
violation of any provision of sections 877- 906t inclusive, of this Code, as
amended, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment for a period of
not less than a year and one day nor more than five years, or both such
imprisonment and a fine of not less than one thousand pesos nor more than
five thousand pesos, in the discretion of the court.less than five years nor more
than ten years.

People vs. Esparas

Gr. 120034 August 20 1996

Facts:
accuse and her husband was charge with R.A. No. 6425 for importing 20
grams of shabu. During the investigation, accused Esparas submitted a counter-
affidavit, dated June 6, 1994, wherein she claimed that the traveling bags belong
to Robert Yu, a Chinese national introduced to her by her husband, accused
Libed. Department of Justice charged accused Esparas and Libed with a violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act 6425). Juson was excluded from the
information for lack of complicity in the offense.The trial court found accused
Esparas guilty as charged and sentenced her to suffer the death penalty
During the investigation, accused Esparas submitted a counter-affidavit, dated
June 6, 1994, wherein she claimed that the traveling bags belong to Robert Yu,
a Chinese national introduced to her by her husband, accused Libed.

Issue:
WON the court can proceed and review the Death penalty?
 Ruling:
It is urged that appellant should not have been penalized with death because
the prosecution failed to establish that she is a member of an organized or
syndicated group. The governing law at the time the crime was committed is
Republic Act No. 7659 28 which amended Republic Act No. 6425 the penalty for
unlawfully bringing 200 grams or more of shabu into the country is reclusion
perpetua to death and the imposable fine may range from five hundred
thousand pesos to ten million pesos. The crime is aggravated when committed
by any person who belongs to an organized or syndicated crime group. In such
a case, the death penalty shall be imposed. 

Echagaray vs. Secretary of Justice

G.R. 132601 October 12 1998

Fact:

Echegaray filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for

Reconsideration raising for the first time the constitutionality of RA 7659 The
Death Penalty Law , and the imposition of death penalty for the crime of rape.

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition, injunction and TRO to enjoin the
Secretary of Justice and Director of Bureau of Prisons from carrying out the
execution, contending that RA 8177 and its implementing rules are
unconstitutional and void.

Petitioner filed a very urgent motion to clarify status quo and to request for
TRO until resolution of the petition.

Issue:
Whether or not it is a violation of constiution in regards to humane
punishment? Is it an undue delegation of powers?

Ruling:

The powers of the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary to save the life of
a death convict do not exclude each other for the simple reason that there is no
higher right than the right to life. 

 The question of capital punishment had been the subject of endless discussion
and will probably never be settled so long as men believe in punishment."
 it is the very purpose of the Constitution particularly the bill of rights to declare
certain values transcendent, beyond the reach of temporary political majorities.
Wherefore the Court grants the public respondents' Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration.
E. Non imprisonment for DEBT
Lozano vs. Martinez G.R. No. L63419 January 21 1993

Fact:
Petitioners were charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (Bouncing
Check Law). They moved seasonably to quash the informations on the ground
that the acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being
unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent trial courts, except
in one case, wherein the trial court declared the law unconstitutional and
dismissed the case. The parties adversely affected thus appealed.

Issue: Whether or not (W/N) BP 22 violates the constitutional provision

forbidding imprisonment for debt.

Ruling
No. What is punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not
the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not
intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt.

BP 22 punishes a person who makes or draws and issues any check on account
or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds
in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of said check in full upon
presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment.

F. Expost Facto Law and Bill of Attainder

United States vs. Conde G.R. No. L18208 February 14 1922

Fact:
On 30 December 1915, Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco borrowed P300
from the defendants and by virtue of a contract, the former obligated themselves
with the interest rate of 5% per month. Usury Law (Act. 2655) took effect on 01
May 1916, or four months subsequent to the execution of said contract. A
complaint was filed against them for violating the Usuary Law.

Issue:

W/N the defendants are guilty in violation of Usury Law (Act. No. 2655).

Ruling:

No. An ex post facto law is a law that makes an action, done before the passage
of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such
action. In the present case, the defendants executed an act which was legal
before the Usury Law. To make said law applicable to the defendants’ previous
act would render it an ex post facto operation. And no law shall be passed
impairing the obligation of contracts.

Wherefore, all premises considered, the higher court hereby decide that the acts
complained of the defendants did not constitute a crime at the time they were
committed, and therefore the sentence of the lower court should be, and is
hereby, revoked.

Salvador vs. Mapa Jr.

G.R. NO. 13080 November 28 2007

Fact:
Petition for review filed by the oppositor-petitioner Pangasinan Transportation
Co., Inc., against the decision of the Public Service Commission in its Case No.
96322, ordering the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience to the
respondent Times Transportation Co., Inc. to operate a TPU service on the
following lines: The evidence of record establishes fully the need for more
transportation services on the lines sought to be established by the respondent
Times Transportation Co., Inc., a domestic corporation wholly owned by citizens
of the Philippines.

Existing operators admit there is no direct and continuous service from Vigan to
Dagupan City or from Vigan to Bolinao, and with respect to the Vigan-Baguio
City route, that only the Manila Railroad Company renders such service.

Issue:
WON the petitioner should be granted the certificate

Ruling:
The evidence of record establishes fully the need for more transportation
services on the lines sought to be established by the respondent Times
Transportation Co.
It clearly appears that there was no competent evidence before it to support
reasonably its decision. the grant of the certificate in question would only lead
to ruinous competition appears to be mere speculation, not supported by the
evidence of record.

ESSAY ON RIGHT TO TRAVEL:

The right to travel of a Filipino is not absolute. Section 6, Article III of

the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to travel of every citizen,
however, it may only be impaired for the interest of national security,
public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.