Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Constitutional Law 2 February 10 Discussion Review: Freedom of Abode and Right to Travel Freedom of Abode exc: lawful order

der of the court Right to Travel exc: national security, public health and public safety as may be provided by law may be enforced by administrative bodies, as may be provided by law o exc: if one is charged with criminal case and posted bail - and under such, they made an undertaking that whenever required by the court, they shall make themselves available, so if the court needed them they should be available (court order) Freedom of Religion Non-establishment of religion separation of church and state; no religion that should be established by the state, but that doesn't mean hostility with religion; o exc: provided for by the Constitution Freedom of religion o belief of religion absolute o exercise of the belief regulated by state; free to exercise it as long as it is not contrary to law, public policy, public moral 1. bottom-line: Estrada vs Escritor by all means you should be allowed to exercise your freedom of religion, unless there is a clear and present danger that by allowing them to exercise that rights the state can prevent them from exercising it because of the evil that may be produced of that right 2. policy now benevolent-neutrality accommodation Religious test to determine state and religious activity; if it would tend to favor to the discrimination or exclusion of a religion o GR: no public funds should used for any religious purpose o Exc: if funds will be used to pay a priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or any penal institution or government orphanage or leprosarium o Test determine WON there is a violation: 1. Purpose of the aid should be purely legislative secular Case: Manosca v. Court expropriation of the lot to preserve it as the birthplace of the founder of the religious sect because of his role in Philippine history and culture is for a public purpose 2. No excessive entanglement of the state with the church NOTE: This applies only to Government, if its a private institution requiring religion as a requirement NO violation on the provision

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN Sources: Those in Art 2, Sec. 1 Philippines is a republican and democratic state. Scope: Only to citizens of the country (political right); foreign journalists cant access public information, even if they invoke their freedom of the press Not demandable as a matter of right

2 rights involved: 1. Right to information matter of right; government has no discretion to determine WON that should be granted or not; ministerial function cant deny a citizen , access to records 2. Right to access these information constitutional right; manner of accessing information is discretionary to the court subject to limitations according to law; discretionary to the government agency (ie. can only get it during office hours, charge with fees, etc) Cases and Examples: Legaspi vs. CSC client was extorted money from officers of city health, asked from CSC WON the engineers may be robbers, CSC denied the request for personal data sheets o SC: qualifications of government employees are matters of public concern; personal data sheet is public Valmonte vs. Belmonte Congressmen borrowing money from GSIS w/o collateral, not paying their loans, now becomes a burden to the people (still paying it); Valmonte now, wanted to know those legislators o SC: accounts with GSIS is not confidential, it is a matter of public concern Access to court records; court refused to give access to someone who wanted to know the status of the case; o Q: Are court records confidential? NO, they are accessible to the public o Exc: if it includes minor children need permission from court; ie: adoption Contracts of the government contract is not yet signed, still on-going negotiation o Chavez vs PEA wanted to know if Chaves is selling reclaimed lands to foreigners o SC: should the people be denied of the information, the contract was already perfected; even if its still under negotiation people would have the right to know; NOT diplomatic, treaties Exceptions: not all information is accessible or you have the right to access it Information retaining to national interest Intelligence reports of law enforces (ie: still pursuing criminals, cant disclose it to media) Administrative investigation that is still pending (RA 6713, RA 3019) not disclose it prematurely Trade secrets Banking transactions secrecy on banking accounts o Exc: if there is a court order for cases pertaining to the account Executive privilege of the President conversations of the President and subordinate (cabinet) o Neri vs Senate question on what the president told him after informing her that he was offered a bribe from Abalos concerning ZTE contract; Neri invoked executive privilege SC: sustained the argument of Neri o AKBAYAN vs Aquino JPEPA negotiation (dump trash in the Philippines, with pay); still under negotiation SC: executive privilege of the president was sustained (treaty) Legislative sessions (executive close-door meetings) o In the aid of legislative inquiry; can be done with the exclusion of media Cabinet meetings of the President SC deliberations (before the decision is written by the ponente) o Case of Limkaichong (question of the citizenship) Berdin vs. Mascarinas 526 SCTA 592- While access to official records may not be prohibited, it certainly may be regulated RIGHT TO FORM UNION AND ASSOCIATION

By nature we are gregarious Section 8 right of Government employees to form a union or association but that does not mean that they can also engage in concerted activities; there is a law, a CSC circular, an executive order, prohibiting government employees from engaging in concerted activities because after all, the terms and conditions of the employment are not negotiable, they are not subject to CBA, but are already determined by law; public service is provided by the government; GOCC involved in proprietary function governed by corporation law or their own charter Cant compel someone to join o Example: on the matter of homeowners association, where practically the residents of the subdivision are made members of the homeowners association, in fact it is annotated in the title that should you buy the property, you automatically become a member of the association. SC: there is no compulsion because in the first place, you were never compelled to buy the land. The moment you bought it, you conceded to the rules annotated in the acquisition of the property. Additionally, it is not the government who imposed the condition, but the owner or developer of the subdivision, which is private. Membership of Lex Circle no government compulsion; can always go to other school

Rights to form association o Free to organize any organization, union as long as the purpose is not contrary to law o Doesnt include the right to be given a legal personality by SEC (not essential) Not allowed to join unions or associations: (exceptions) Supervisors joining for rank-and-file conflict of interest Security guards they are armed Political parties prohibition on election of barangays to give equal footing to everyone o Objection PP is an organization of people; purpose to get position on the government o SC prohibition is justified by police power Compelled to join (because of police power) Membership on IBP o Case: In re: Edillon - there is compulsion to membership in the IBP due to police power Q: Malabanan Case teachers strike because of salary; ordered by Secretary of Education o SC: they were dismissed because of insubordination and the students are affected NOTE: right to association doesn't include: right to strike acquire property o case: foreigners who are members of church who wanted to acquire land for their organization denied, only Filipinos can acquire land