Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Aquino vs. Enrile: The Ilagan Case
Aquino vs. Enrile: The Ilagan Case
Enrile Ruling: He should be granted bail and provisional release for humanitarian
reason (old age and weak physical condition), and that he was not a flight
Facts: Aquino and others were detained using the authority of PP1081, risk due to his social and political standing, as well as immediate surrender.
implemented by GO2, declaring Martial Law and detaining persons for Bail allowed to ensure appearance in trial, given that he will be able to
Insurrection and Rebellion, unless otherwise released by Marcos. The properly attend to his medical condition, allowing him to prepare for trial.
petitioners were detained indefinitely without charges being filed. Diokno
and several others were eventually released, but Aquino was charged with Brocka vs. Enrile
subversion, murder, and illegal possession of firearms by the Military
Facts: Lino Brocka and others were detained after a violent dispersal of their
Commission under PP1081. He challenged the jurisdiction of the
commission, and also filed a WHC. Jeepney strike. They were charged with illegal assembly. They filed for
provisional release, but were still detained. The information was changed
Ruling: PP1081 valid. Factual basis of rebellious attacks PQ. Judicial review inciting to sedition, after which Marcos himself provisionally released
limited in whether President acted arbitrarily. WHC impliedly suspended Brocka and others.
with declaration of ML.
Ruling: The criminal proceedings for Inciting to Sedition may be enjoined
Fernando Munoz-Palma Dissent: Justiciable because involves vested right of given the manifest bad faith in the arbitrary initial charge, where no
WHC. Also, ML does not carry with it suspension of WHC. preliminary investigation was conducted until the hasty sham which led to
the second charge. Only then were their provisional release was
Enrile vs. Salazar entertained. Also, second charge illegal for being premised on the same act
Facts: Enrile and others were detained and charged with murder and premised on the same facts as the initial charge.
multiple frustrated murder due to a failed coup in 1990, later changed to The Ilagan Case
simple rebellion. Enrile filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus,
contending that his due process was violated due to the absence of a Atty. Ilagan was arrested by the military on the basis of a mission order
allegedly issued by the Ministry of National Defense. Atty. Arellana was also
complaint and preliminary investigation, and he was arrested via an invalid
arrested while visiting his colleague. Atty. Risonar was also arrested after
warrant where the judge did not personally determine probable cause. being called into the military camp because of the mission order signed by a
general. A pet for habeas corpus was assigned. SC ruled that it was moot
Ruling: HC denied. There was a complaint and preliminary investigation, and
and academic because there was already a judicial order in relation to
the change of the charges is okay given the new facts uncovered during criminal cases subsequently filed against them before the RTC. The remedy
preliminary investigation. Also, not necessary that probable cause must be of HC no monger lies.
determine by the judge in person. Sufficient that he evaluates the report of
the fiscal personally in determining probable cause. In Justice Teenhankee's dissent: Trial court did not have the jurisdiction to
issue the warrants of arrest. Petitioners must be granted the constitutional
Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan right to due process.
Facts: Enrile and others were charged with Plunder in connection to PDAF. Distinguish and Connect Essential Rights (rights that we need) vs. Custodial
He filed for bail, but was premature for not having been arrested yet. After Rights vs. Great Freedoms (make us happy individuals) vs Absolute
being arrested by the SB, he filed for bail and provisional release, Freedom
contending that his penalty was merely RT, not RP as contemplated by the
plunder law given mitigating circumstance (Voluntary Surrender and old Essential Rights – Rights that we need to survive, and is inherent for us to
age), that he was not a flight risk, and that his physical condition should be function.
considered.
Great Freedoms – Rights that allow us to enjoy our other rights, and our c. Presumptions – valid as long as
existence in general. Not needed to survive, but enhances us. presumed fact is directly related to
a fact sought to be proved.
Custodial Rights – Exclusive rights to promote Criminal Due Process. iv. Lawful judgement – judgment based on law.
Basic Doctrines of Due Process b. Administrative Due Process – notice and hearing not
indispensable as long as defendant is given an opportunity
Due Process – guarantee against arbitrariness of the government, to be heard, i.e. written arguments, pleadings, memoranda,
committed by acts of any branch. Any act that militates against social justice etc.
norms violate due process. i. Right to a hearing – presentation of one’s case and
Due Process protects both natural (life, liberty, and property) and artificial evidence.
persons (mainly property, while liberty and life is subject to legislative ii. The court or tribunal must consider the evidence
control). presented.
iii. The decision must be able to support itself.
Right to Preliminary investigation in criminal cases is indispensable for Due iv. The evidence must be substantial.
Process, but can be waived. v. The decision must be rendered on evidence
presented in hearing or record disclosed to the
Substantive Due Process vs. Procedural Due Process.
parties.
1. Substantive Due Process – Validity of Laws and Laws as proper vi. The judges must act and decide independently, not
exercise of Legislative Power. Requires that a law promulgated must just based on the opinion of a colleague.
be for a valid governmental interest that benefits the public, and vii. The tribunal should render its decision so that all
that the law must be pursued in a lawful manner. Also includes the parties know the issues and reason for the decision.
publication requirement to enforce the presumption that the public
Equal Protection Clause
knows the law.
2. Procedural Due Process – Refers to the system of proceedings which EPC – guarantee on no unwarranted impartiality or prejudice.
uses the standard of Justice laid out in the Constitution.
a. Judicial Due Process – Notice and Hearing Indispensable. General Rule – Laws and Government acts apply to all.
i. Impartial and Competent Court with lawful Exception: Valid Classification.
Jurisdiction.
ii. Jurisdiction of the court over the person of the 1. Substantial Distinction.
defendant and the property which is subject of the 2. Germane to the purpose of law.
proceeding. 3. Apply not only on existing conditions – should apply until
iii. The defendant is given the opportunity to be heard. government purpose is fulfilled.
1. Appeal not essential. May be invoked if law 4. Applicable to all members of the class.
allows it. Garcia vs Drilon
2. Exceptions:
a. Nuisance Per Se – acts that may Facts: Rosalie Garcia filed a petition for the issuance of a Temporary Protection
immediately be abated. Order (TPO) against her husband Jesus Garcia. She claimed to be a victim of
b. Nuisance Per Accidens – requires physical abuse, emotional, psychological, and economic violence as a result of
marital infidelity on the part of Jesus, with threats of deprivation of custody of her
Judicial authority. children and of financial support. She invoked the VAWC law.
They have 3 children (2 sons, 1 daughter) o Right to marry is connected with rights protecting children,
Forbid her from praying and seeing her friends. like childrearing, and support, which may still be validly
Jesus always ridiculed her ambition to be a lawyer (already in law school
exercised by same sex couples (given adoption, etc.)
and working part-time in a law school).
Had an affair with the Ninang of one of their children. o Marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. There is
They had frequent fights due to the affair, causing physical and no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with
emotional wounds on Rosalie, including physical harassment on their respect to this principle. Same sex union promotes social
daughter. order similar to opposite sex couples.
Attempted suicide via wrist cutting, survived, and is now undergoing
therapy.
The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have
Wants to separate, but afraid of the threats of deprivation of custody of seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning
her children and of financial support. of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.
RTC judge Drilon – issued TPO The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the
CA – Jesus challenged Constitutionality of VAWC. Dismissed for failure person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
to raise at RTC. Hence Petition.
Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived
Ruling: RA9262 constitutional. of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the
fundamental right to marry.
Does not violate EPC - Application of law to protect only women and
children, and punishing of fathers and husbands, is a substantial While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate
distinction based on the findings of fact by the Congress (Patriarchal process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await
Society which promotes gender-based violence, Patria Potestas, 90% of legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
female violence committed by partners, Private Crime nature of
Domestic Disputes discourages filing of complaint for fear of dismissal Dissents:
and reprisal by husband.
Does not violate DPC – TPO issuance allowed even before notice and Roberts, C.J. – The constitution does not address same-sex marriage; hence
hearing to protect life, liberty, or property of possible victim. Victim still the court cannot create a policy where issuance of marriage licenses to
required to verify accusation, and defendant still allowed to file
opposition. So given opportunity to be heard.
same sex couples should be required. Also, the main opinion disregarded
the standard and traditional tests for EPC and DPC claims, interpreting them
Obergefell vs. Hudges + Dissents very liberally and broadly, to the detriment of a democratic court system.
14 same sex couples filed a certiorari on their state cases, where their states Scalia, J. – Judicial Policy-making. Regulations on marriage is a matter which
refused to issue them marriage licenses. The US Supreme Court held that is within the power exclusive to the states. Change should be through
the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between legislation. Remedy for bad performance is election process.
two people of the same sex based on the following principles and premises:
Thomas, J. – stretched the interpretation of substantive due process too far,
The DPC in the 14th amendment extends to certain personal choices giving legislative power to the judiciary in arriving at the decision, a stray
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate from the democratic process.
choices defining personal identity and beliefs.
Four principles and traditions that tell us marriage should also apply Alito, Jr. J. – same-sex marriage not in the constitution, so definition is
to same-sex couples: exclusively a state matter.
o Right of personal choice is inherent in the DPC, and applies
to marriage (who to marry, etc.)
o Marriage is a very intimate two-person relationship (again,
two who may be the same sex)
Eminent Domain Public Use:
Eminent Domain – Forcibly acquire Private Property for Public Use Upon Any use where public has direct access, use, and has a right to
payment of Just Compensation. Offer to buy first, then expropriation upon demand use. May be free or with a fee.
disagreement. May not be directly for public use, but the purpose returns to public
benefit. (CARP)
Who may Exercise:
Just Compensation:
1. Congress
2. President Full and fair equivalent of the property taken.
3. Local Legislative Bodies (via ordinance after refusal of owner of a Owner’s loss, not taker’s gain. (owner includes anyone with lawful
valid offer) interest in the property)
4. Certain Public Corporations (NHA, Water Districts) Determination of Just Compensation is Judicial Function.
5. Quasi-Public Corporations. o If not determined by the courts, may still be valid as long as
determination is considered preliminary, and the owner can
Destruction from Necessity may be exercised by private individuals for self-
still resort appeal with the courts.
preservation, not needing public use purpose and just compensation, unlike
Eminent Domain. Made in Money.
o Exception: CARP – revolutionary. Impractical if only money.
General Rule: Eminent Domain is interpreted liberally in favor of the owner.
Police Power
Stages of Expropriation:
Police Power – Inherent power of the state to restrain and regulate Liberty
1. Determination of Validity – Court may inquire correct exercise of and Property. Lodged Primariliy with Congress but is also exercised by the
expropriation authority conferred to bodies. This involves President, administrative bodies, and local legislative bodies.
determination of factual basis for expropriation exercised by those
conferred with this authority. Courts cannot compel the exercise of Police Power by Congress. PQ.
2. Determination of Just Compensation. Indispensable requisites for valid exercise of Police Power:
Subject of Expropriation: 1. Lawful Subject – Interest of General Welfare, distinct from the
Private Property interests of a particular class.
2. Lawful Means – Reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive of
Property already devoted to Public Use – done by Congress or
individuals.
delegate with specific grant of authority for this.
Exceptions: Money and Choses in Action (right to sue). Tests of Constitutionality:
Taking: 1. Strict Scrutiny – For Laws dealing with the mind, and Political
Legislation. (Compelling State Interest + Least Intrusive Means)
1. Expropriator has entered the private Property
2. Rational-Basis Test – For Economic Legislation (Substantial State
2. Not merely momentary.
Interest)
3. Entry is with warrant or color of authority.
3. Intermediate Scrutiny – For evaluating classifications based on
4. Property has been devoted to public use.
gender and legitimacy (Substantial State Interest + Least Intrusive
5. The owner is ousted or deprived of enjoyment of the private
Means)
property.
4. Facial Challenge – Test invalidity of a law as a whole. Speedy Trial/Disposition of cases
a. Overbreadth Doctrine – when a statute needlessly restrains
even constitutionally guaranteed rights. Used to avoid Criminal vs. any case
Chilling Effect. Violation of the speedy disposition right would lead to dismissal of the case.
b. Void for Vagueness – used for laws encroaching Freedom of
Speech. Prohibiting vague classes of speech is Rules for determining existence of delay:
unconstitutional. 1. Fixed-Time Period Rule – delay if proper resolution is not done
5. As-Applied Challenge – test where petitioner may invoke any within a specified time period
constitutional right being violated on HIS person only. Does not 2. Demand-Waiver Rule – deemed waiver of right if no prior demand
include right of Third Persons. for trial
Ichong vs Hernandez 3. Balancing test – Conduct of both prosecution and defendant are
weighed.
Facts: RA 1180, An Act Regulating Retail Business, is being challenged for
being unconstitutional. Factors in determining WON defendant has denied his right or not: