J

Memorandum
For the Defendant

To: Congressman Voltaire G. San Pedro

From: Atty. John Rey A. Feraren
Date: 21 November 2019
On The validity of the arrest by law enforcement officials to several
citizens for vaping.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On the 10th of November 2019, the President Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte
declared that he will ban vaping in the country together with the
importation and sale thereof.

Five days later on the 15 th of November 2019, the Philippine National

Police declared that the police force will arrest anyone seen vaping in
public

On the same day several citizens were arrested for vaping

ARGUMENTS

It is important to point out that the arrest made by some of the

Police Officers five days right after the pronouncement the President
made regarding the ban in vaping in the country and its importation is a
clear violation of the right of every citizens to be informed.

In Civil Code, Art 31. “Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith”. The citizens has person has the right to be
informed regarding the use of vaped because before the verbal order of

Civil Code, Art 3

the president the use of vape is still considered not to be a violation or a
criminal offense for that matter.

It is the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for

the transgression of a law of which he had no notice whatsoever, not
even a constructive one ( Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R No. L-63915, 24 April
1985)2.

The President’s statement should not be taken as a national policy per

se since he already has a history of making audacious statements that his
cabinet members has no prior knowledge about. Since there is no
express law that prohibits the use of vape then those citizens should not
have been arrested. A well-known maxim in criminal law which is “nullum
crimen nulla poena sine lege it means that “there is no crime, if there is
no law punishing it”.

Another point of contention here is that the people which has been
arrested has been denied their due process. In CONST. (1987), Art III,
Sec 13. “No person shall be deprive of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall anyone be denied the equal protection of the
laws.” There should have been a procedural fairness before the people
have been arrested. Also Miranda v. Arizona4 law enforcement officials
must informed the person in custody at the outset in clear and
unequivocal terms that he has a right to remain silent and a right to
consult with a lawyer or a counsel. The actions of the police officers can
be seen as a violation of procedural due process

Tanada v, Tuvera, G.R. No. L -63915, 24 April 1985

3

CONST. (1987), Art III, Sec 1

4

Miranada v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

2
CONCLUSION

Therefore with sufficient legal basis from the law and jurisprudence it
could be concluded that certain rights of private individuals has been
violated by the state. The actions that has conducted by the police
officers coming from the rhetoric of the President is clearly an unlawful
use of police power.