Ermita Malate Hotel v Manila Facts: -Petitioner Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association is a non-stock corporation dedicated

to promotion and protection of the interests of its 18 member hotels and motels -Municipal Board of Manila enacted Ordinance 4760 -Section 1 of said ordinance was alleged to be violative of due process due to fees imposed on hotels and motels. -Another provision in same section requires guests to fill out prescribed form in a lobby open to public view at all times in the presence of a duly authorized representative of the hotel. Said form requires personal details up to and including number of companions in the room, with name, relationship, age, and sex to be specified, his residence certificate and passport number. -Yet another provision provides that the premises would be open to duly authorized representatives of the Mayor or Chief of Police. -Both aforementioned provisions were assailed as unconstitutional and void on due process grounds, not only for being arbitrary, unreasonable, or oppressive but also for being vague, indefinite, and uncertain. Also alleged was the invasion of the right to privacy and guaranty against self-incrimination -Section 2 that requires maintenance of certain minimum facilities in said hotels

were similarly alleged to be void on due process grounds for being arbitrary, unreasonable, and oppressive. -Another assailed provision prohibits billeting a person less than 18 years old unless accompanied by guardians and also makes it unlawful to lease any room for more than twice every 24 hours -Lower court makes the preliminary injunction prayed for permanent after coming to the conclusion that the City of Manila lacked the authority to regulate motels and as such said ordinance was null and void

Issue: WON said ordinance is unconstitutional

Ratio: No -Finding of unconstitutionality is reversed due to the absence of evidence to offset presumption of validity of an assailed statute or ordinance. Judiciary may not set aside legislative enactments when there are no clear invasion or personal/property rights under the guise of police regulation. -Presumption of validity holds unless rebutted by evidence, or if the statute is void on its face (which is not applicable in the instant case). No factual foundations were laid out in the present case, thus the presumption of validity prevails and as such judgment against the ordinance is set aside

-Manifestation of police power in the present case is specifically aimed to safeguard public morals and as such is immune to imputations of nullity resting primarily on conjecture and unsupported by anything of substance -not allowing said power would destroy the very purpose of the state since it would be deprived of its competence to promote public health, public morals, public safety and the general welfare. Police power is ultimately the inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. -challenged ordinance seeks to curb increase in rate of prostitution, adultery, and fornication attributable to the existence of said motels that enables said practices because they allow clandestine entry, presence, and exit at their establishments. -there is no arbitrariness or oppression when there appears to be a correspondence between the undeniable existence of an undesirable situation and the ligislative's attempt at correction. -liberty is not absolute, implied in the term is restraint by the law for the good of the individual and for the greater good of the peace and order of society and the general well-being. Rights of the individual is neccesarily subject to reasonable restraint by general law for the common good.

Smith v Natividad Facts: -Smith, Bell & Co. corporation owning Bato, a motorized seafaring vessel. Majority of said stockholders are British subjects -Certificate of Philippine registry was applied for at Cebu, the vessel's home port -Collector of Customs refused issuance of said certificate since stockholders were not citizens of the US or the PI. Thus the instant case.

Issues: WON prohibiting registration of a vessel, by a corporation with a majority of alien stockholders, constitutes denying said corporation due process and equal protection of the law

Ratio: -due process and equal protection are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color, or nationality. As such, Smith, Bell & Co. are entitled to protection afforded by said provision -however, said rule was not designed to interfere with the state's police power, which involves the ability to prescribe regulations to promote the health, peace, morals, education, and good order of the people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of

Note: Contrast with White Light v Manila

the state, develop its resources and add to its wealth and prosperity -Allowing boats such as those owned by petitioners to traverse our waters could conceivably be undertaken doing any particular harm to the State. However, it is equally plausible for an evil-minded foreigner to take advantage of such a privilege to chart Philippine waters, to obtain valuable information for unfriendly foreign powers, or to stir up insurrection, or prejudice to Filipino or American commerce

Issues: 1. WON assailed ordinance violates the doctrine of uniform taxation since it is a revenue measure primarily imposed on aliens employed in Manila 3. WON assailed ordinance constitutes undue delegation of legislative powers since it failed to prescribe standards to guide/delimit action of the Mayor 4. WON assailed ordinance violates due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution

Villegas v Hiu Chiong Facts: -Municipal Board of manila passes ordinance, signed by petitioner Mayor Villegas, prohibiting aliens from being employed or be engaged in any kind of trade or occupation within Manila without first securing an employment permit -Private respondent filed petition to stop enforcement of said ordinance and asking for judgement declaring said ordinance null and void on on due process grounds. Also adduced were violation of the uniformity of taxation and illegal delegation of legislative powers -CFI-Manila declares ordinance null and void, writ of preliminary injunction made permanent. Petitioner contests CFI decision and thus instant case

Ratio: 1. Yes -petitoner argues that uniformity of taxation only applies to purely tax/revenue measures. Said ordinance on the other hand was an exercise of police power since it is primarily a regulatory measure (thus not falling under the uniform taxation doctrine) -said contention has no merit. Payment of P50.00 for an employment permeit per assailed ordinance is not a regulatory but a revenue measure. There is no logic or justification in exacting said fee from aliens who have been cleared for employment.

2. Yes -assailed ordinance does not contain nor suggest any standard or criterion to guide the mayor in the exercise of the powers granted by said ordinance

3. Yes -said fee fails to consider valid substantial differences in employment status of employed aliens, be they casual or permanent, part-time or full-time, or whether he is a lowly employee or high paid executive. -Equal protection clause does not forbid classification, but such classification must be based on real and substantial differences having a reasonable relation to the subject of the particular legislation

-November 2006: Respondents and the other detainees were subsequently transferred to a 24th Infantry Battalion camp in Limay, Bataan. Raymond and Manuel were brought along during Operation Lubog where NPA sympathizers were taken and killed -May-June 2007: detainees transferred to Zambales then subsequently returned to Limay -June 2007: Raymond witnesses Merino being set afire. One of the military men implies that Empeno and Cadapan are also dead -mid-June, the brothers were brought to Pangasinan to help one of their abductors (Donald Caigas) to farm his land. -August 13, 2007: Brothers escape from their captors. -Medical examination (per the Istanbul Protocol) conducted by Dr. Molino two days after their escape corroborate their account of the physical injuries inflicted upon them -Petitioner filed Return fo the Writ of Amparo denying the involvement of M/Sgt. Rizal Hilario aka Rollie Castillo, Gen. Jovito Palparan, and Lt. Gen. Hermogenes Esperon -CAFGU Auxiliaries (Maximo dela Cruz, Roman dela Cruz, Michael dela Cruz, Randy Mendoza), an ex-CAA (Marcelo dela Cruz), and civilian Rudy Mendoza all deny involvement. They rely primarily on the Investigation Report filed by Lt. Col. Ruben U. Jimenez exonerating them of any wrongdoing

Teodoro v Manalo -Feb. 14, 2006 Buhol na Manga, San Ildefonso, Bulacan: Raymond and Reynaldo Manalo detained, beaten up, and tortured by CAFGU on the assumption that they were affiliated with the NPA. They were held in captivity for 18 months at Fort Magsaysay. -Sometime during their captivity, Raymond was interrogated by General Palparan. In exchange for his life, he was advised to tell his parents to refrain from being involved in political activities (e.g. joining human rights rallies) and to help in contacting their older brother Rolando Manalo aka "Ka Bestre" in order to make him surrender to the military -October 2006: Raymond also meets Sherlyn Cadapan in Camp Tecson, who was also tortured and raped by her abductors. Also in Camp Tecson was Karen Empeno and Manuel Merino

-CA renders a decision in faovr of the Manalo's writ of Amparo, ordering Secretary of NatDef and AFP Chief of Staff to -produce all official and unofficial reports of investigation undertaken in connection to said case -confirm where M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas are currently assigned -produce all medical documentation prescribed and personnel who attended to the petitioners

-Amparo drafted by Manuel Crescencio Rejon for the Yucatan constitution -Amparo grants judges power to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their constitutional and legal rights. It combines judicial review with judicial restraints imposed by the civil law tradition prevailing in Mexico. Allows courts to enforce constitution by protecting individual rights in particular cases, but prevents them from using said power to make law for the entire nation. -sub-types: -amparo libertad: protection of personal freedom

General Notes: -Amparo (Spanish lit. protection) Rule promulgated on October 24, 2007, which was meant to address "extra-legal killings" and "enforced disappearances". -Extralegal killings: killings committed without due process of law, i.e. without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings -Enforced disappearances: arrest, detention, or abduction of a person by: (1) a government official (2) or organized groups (3) or private individuals with the direct or indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknoledge the deprivation of liberty which places suche persons outside the protection of law.

-amparo contra leyes: judicial review of constitutionality of statutes -amparo casacion: judicial review of constitutionality and legality of a judicial decision -amparo administrativo: judicial review of administrative actions -amparo agrario: protection of peasants' rights derived from the agrarian reform process -While there are pre-existing remedies like the Grave Abuse clause per Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution and habeas corpus, amparo offers a better remedy due to its swiftness (via summary proceedings requiring only substantial evidence to make appropriate reliefs available to petitioner) and because of the availability of appropriate interim and permanent reliefs.

-amparo is not an action (involving full and exhaustive proceedings) to determine: -criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt -liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence -administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence -preventive role: breaks expectation of impunity -curative role: deter further commission of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances -substantial evidence is the degree of proof required for granting Amparo. Subtantial evidence constitutes relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion -factual findings of CA per Raymond Manalo's affidavit/testimony affirmed. His account was narrated in a clear and convincing manner, dotted with countless candid details of his experience -Raymond's affidavit/testimony corroborated by his brother Reynaldo's affidavit. Testimony and medical reports by Dr. Molino corroborates physical injuries inflicted on respondents. Raymond's familiarity with the facilities of Fort Magsaysay's Division Training Unit (DTU) shores up their claim that they were detained in said facility. -despite their forced disappearance having ceased, said brothers are still under threat of being once again abducted or killed, which

constitute a direct violation of their right to security of person. -right to security premised on Article 3 Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution providing: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge -right to security of person embodies: -freedom from fear/threat -guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity or security. -guarantee of protection of one's rights by the government. This constitutes conducting effective investigations, organizing institutions for protection of victims and their families, and bringing offenders to justice -right to security of person can exist independently of the right to liberty. Deprivation of liberty is not necessary in order to be able to invoke right to security of person -right to security not just prohibits the State from arbitrarily depriving liberty, but also imposes a positive duty on the State to afford protection of the right to liberty

Issues:

WON there is a continuing violation of the respondent's right to security of person

(3) produce all medical documentation prescribed and personnel who attended to the petitioners -production order is not equivalent to a search warrant per Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution as petitioner's aver. In any case, said provision provides protection of the people from unreasonable intrusion of the government, not protection of the government from the demand of the people such as respondents -production order more along the lines of a subpoena duces tecum, it is a rule of civil procedure that does not fall within the ambit of unreasonable searches prohibited by the constitution -also untenable is the claim that the second and thir relief sought will unnecessarily compromise and jeopardize exercise of official functions and duties of military officers. Such disclosure would facilitate serving said parties with notices and court processes in relation to any investigation and action pertaining to their violation

Ratio: Yes -while under detention, they were threatened that if they escaped, their families (and petitioner's would be killed). Condition has now passed and continuing threat to their life is more than apparent -military failed in protecting respondents by perpetrating said abduction themselves. They further failed to conduct an effective investigation of respondent's abduction -Said one-day investigation was very limited, superficial, and one-sided. -No questions were propounded to ascertain the veracity of the statments of the six implicated CAFGU members and civilians being investigated. -No witnesses were called to test the alibis given by those implicated -Nor were the family or neighbors of the respondent involved in said investigation -thus petitioners ordered to: (1) produce all official and unofficial reports of investigation undertaken in connection to said case (2) confirm where M/Sgt. Hilario aka Rollie Castillo and Donald Caigas are currently assigned

Pestano v GRP-Human Rights Committee -Phillip Pestano - cargo officer of BRP Bacolod City -Sept. 25, 1995: Ship commander allows loading of 14k board feet of logs without proper papers or authorization. -Sept. 26: victim discloses to his father that unauthorized cargo includes 20 sacks of shabu

-Sept. 27: 4 am, Pestano boards; 11 am: parents asked to proceed to Navy HQ, since Phillip had an accident. Navy alleges their son committed suicide -PNP-CID and NBI affirms Navy's findings -radio operator of BRP Bacolod City (a friend of Phillip Pestano) drowns under highly suspicious circumstances -Another member of the Navy (perceived as an ally of Pestano) who was also aboard BRP Bacolod City during Pestano's death mysteriously dissappears -several Navy Flag Officers ask Felipe Pestano, the victim's father, to refrain from pursuing their son's case against the Navy. The elder Pestano was offered a hundred million peso contract together with a waiver of his action against the Navy. Pestano refuses and subsequently, four ships being repaired by his company sinks mysteriously, and their offices are ransacked and looted. His nephew, the company's property custodian was also shot dead. -leaked copy of an armed forces intelligence report states the Phillip was killed to prevent him from revealing criminal activities aboard the ship -Senate Committee report investigating the incident concludes that Pestano was murdered -Case reopened by Ombudsman in December 2005 but was subsequently abandoned then left uninvestigated thus this petition. Alleging violation of rights under the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights this communication thus submitted -Authors allege that entire State aside from Senate jointly and severally deprived Phillip of his right to redress for violation of his rights, denying him justice for twelve years -State challenges admissibility per exhaustion of administrative remedies, case is pending with the Ombudsman -Committee points out that remedies must both be effective and available and must not be unduly prolonged. Considering 15 years has elapsed since commission of offense, domestic remedies has been deemed unreasonably prolonged -threats and unlawful attack against honor inadmissible -There is a deliberate attempt to make it appear that the authors son committed suicide -author alleges death of multiple people connected to the case and threat by a viceadmiral to lose their business should they persist in their complaint -positive obligation insists for a speedy investigation. Merely avowing direct participation of the state falls short of such an obligation -State party in breach of obligation to properly investigate death of authors son, prosecute perpetrators and ensure redress

Marcellana v Republic -Marcellana former SecGen of KarapatanSouthern Tagalog, Gumanoy Chair of Kasama (organization of farmers) were leading a fact finding mission in Mindoro Oriental to inquire about abduction of three individuals committed by the military under Col. Jovito Palparan -incident on 2003, DOJ proceedings were closed on 2007, appeal with OP pending on 2007. Unreasonably prolonged -there appeared to have been an objective need for them to be afforded protective measures to guarantee their security by the State. -

all that is needed so far and so fast as its means allow

Terrace v Thompson -enjoin enforcement of anti-alien land law in conflict with due process and equal protection. -Terraces are citizens of the US, Nakatsuka a Japanese citizen -Terraces wish to lease their land to Nakatsuka, but for the aforesaid act -state has the power to deny aliens the right to own land within its borders

Buck v Bell -due process and equal protection violation -health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by sterilization of mental defectives -heredity plays an important part in transmission of insanity and imbecility. Thus it is for the best interest of the patients and society. -...the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the Strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices -why can we not apply said reasoning to those outside of said institutions? Law does