1.

(8points) Based on a facial challenge and the alleged violation of freedom of speech,

the law is not violative of the Constitution.

On a facial challenge, the law must be either overbroad or vague on its face. The

child pornography law was able to first define cleanly the object and subject of the

legislation which on first glance, establishes a clear classification between those who

are above 18 years of age, and of those who are below 18 who are the people this

law is trying to protect. It also ___ out the basis of their distinction from the rest of the

population: children are unable to fully take care of themselves and are prone to abuse.

Moreover, child pornography narrowly drawn as such that showcases explicit sexual

activities. The latter was defined, as well, and the enumeration of its forms(?) could

render a clear depiction of what comes into the purview of explicit sexual activities and

can thus provide a test, a standard to which a material can be scrutinized with a facial

challenge, which makes a law vague or overbroad by reading the law on its face is one

that should be immediately apparent which in RA 9775 is hard to argue.

Additionally, the argument of a violation of the freedom of speech and its

limitation in the passage of this law can note be properly invoked as child pornography

is always illegal. The reason is that such acts put the welfare of the child, someone

who can be helpless and prone to abuse, in danger and would have no redeeming

value at all. There is no test that can be used to assess the content of the materials in

question, unlike for obscenity, which must pass the miller test adopted by the Supreme

Court, albeit blindly, for it to be considered something obscene, child pornography is

unprotected speech and is thus can be prohibited by the government without even

testing such prohibitions if they are constitutionally permissible because they are.
2. (10 points) The mayors act is unlawful.
 The freedom of the people to peaceably assemble is not just a right that is

identified in the Constitution. It is also an inherent right that springs from the

establishment of the society itself in coming together and delegating their power to the

State, making the State accountable to the people. It is through this mechanism that the

need for the people to express their opinion and petition for their redress of grievances

against the government, not for anything else, especially against the Roman Catholic

Faith, ____.
The act of the mayor is unlawful on the level of the cause he had given for the

denial of the permit: that there is a possible attack on the Roman Catholic Faith. Sec. 5

of the Bill of Rights of our Constitution states the prohibition of the government to

promote or to establish any religion. The protection the mayor is arguing comes within

the purview of such establishment. Which is constitutionally impermissible as such will

constitute favoring Catholics to other people from different religions. It is a cause ___

that inadvertently shows the mayors favor towards members of the Catholic Church.
On another level, the prohibition itself is objectionable and the non-issuance of

permit to the religious group constitutes an impediment to an inherent right freedom

to assemble. The State can only regulate such actions and to adhere to the maximum

tolerance it can provide. The State can only regulate the time, the manner and the

place such assembly will be and not to prohibit such. Even though this application of

permit was made by a religious group whose leader has been criminally charged, mere

allegation, and in this case, suspicion of probable attack to the Catholic Faith does not

warrant the denial of their permit. As in the case of Reyes v Bagatsing, the authority

can only regulate such activity on the account of the time, place, and manner of the
assembly unless there is concrete proof or verified information of plans that would

endanger public safety.

3. (9 points) The arrest is not valid.

Police power is the inherent power of the State to promote public welfare through

regulation of restrictions of the peoples liberty and their use of property. The State has

to show that its means, as well, of achieving a common good is lawful and justify the

restrictions of peoples liberty. Unfortunately, in this case, the law passed has not able to

establish a connection between its subject: most likely to ensure the sanctity of a family;

to its means: asking those couples who would want to check-in those places. While the

State recognizes that the institution of family remains inviolable, asking those who

would want to secure a room to present any proof of their marriage oversteps the

boundary and would entail unreasonable and excessive curtailment of rights of public

individuals due to the face the law is too broad it does prohibit prostitutes and

patrons, and those who are doing adulterous acts from checking-in but it also prohibits

consenting adults who had made informed decisions, despite not being married to each

other to be secured in their rooms a be free for them to act on their love and affection.

Such was demonstrated in the case of Whitelight where the State failed to establish a

reasonable connection between its subject and its means despite being able to raise an

argument of restriction on the liberty of its customers, and not arguing based on

property rights.
This could also very well be a curtailment of their Crichata and Christopehers

right to privacy and liberty as it can be very well argued that the fact that they sought the

privacy of the motel shows their intent to keep those things to themselves and not

burdening other people with their actions.

4. (7 points) Yes, such is violative of the Constitution.
The State has limited is relation to religion by stating in Sec. 5 of Art III of the

Constitution by refusing to establish any kind of religion that it can promote as such will

result to serious repercussions. Through the non-establishment clause, the State and

any of its instrumentality could not, by way of preference of financial support to prefer

any kind of religion and the ALIVE program from students in public school of the DepEd

would constitute a violation of the clause. Public schools are government-funded and

would constitute disbursement of public funds funds that might not even be

contributed by Muslims. It is a noble cause, to take into consideration the situations and

needs of Muslim children in Mindanao but such will make the impression that the State

is going out of its way to prefer them than those who are not Muslim.
The same can be argued with providing honoraria for teachers of private

Madrasah schools for those schools, despite being private, are being favored by the

State through monetary support. The Madrasah schools, them being private is not

violative of the Constitution for they only rely on donations from local communities

and foreigners and could still exist despite the absence of any support from the

government but when public funds, those that are raised by the government from the

people, are given as a form of honoraria without giving all teachers something of

equivalence is a violation of the Constitution

5. (7 points) The act of the mayor in ordering the demolition of the stalls is unlawful for

it is not a valid exercise of police power.

The police power of the State, though it is argued as the one with the widest

range of all the States inherent powers in normally confined to the authority of the

legislature and their legislative acts. While the purpose of the demolishing the stalls

due to them being a public nuisance, which constitutes a threat to public order, the
authority from which it emanated the mayor is improper. For only the Sanggunian,

and only through an ordinance can it be ordered to demolish the stalls in a solid

manner.
Regardless of the reason of the mayor beforehand ordering for the demolition, he

is still not vested with such the authority. Police power is such that has the power to

regulate and to even prohibit something as long as there is a need to promote public

welfare as in the case of Beltran where despite non-drastic ___ seem to close down

commercial blood banks, by virtue of public health and safety, an enacted law can do so

and such even passed the rigorous scrutiny of the court. Such emanated from the law-

making body of the State, which is note present in this case. The act of the mayor is a

violation of the separation of powers for he being part of the executive went beyond his

boundaries and usurped that of the legislatures.

6. (6 points) Yes, it can be admitted as evidence against Joseph as it is a case of a

search made to a moving vehicle.

The exclusionary rule that was introduced in Stonehill v Diokno became part of

our Constitution is very technical in a way that any violation from the protection provided

for in the constitution as regards to unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever

form would result to the inadmissibility of the things seized. The circumstances in each

of the cases need to be scrutinized for the Court to determine whether or not the search

falls under the exemption of those searches that need not have to have warrants.
Those exception are search after a valid arrest, custom searches, stop-and-frisk,

consented searches, searches during exigent and emergency circumstances. Those by

the immigration and health check-ups among others, one of which is a search of a

moving vehicle. Josephs car was stopped by a police mobile and he had just violated

a traffic rule: beating a red light and such was even made in a major intersection,
some place where such could result to fatal accidents that could involve other motorists.

To aggravate Josephs circumstances, he was driving so late at night something that

should not be done as a normal and average driver would be more careful in driving.

There is also suspicion to his haste that he did not even notice there was a red light.