INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS : INTRODUCTION

CASE REPUBLIC VS. SANDIGAN BAYAN

FACTS

ISSUE WON

RULING

CASE RUBI ET AL VS. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO

Manguianes was deprived of their liberty by the provincial board by containing them in a
FACTS
reserved area and was forbidden to leave the area.

ISSUE WON they are deprived of their liberty.

RULING No. Governments purpose was justified for their protection and general welfare.

CASE REYES VS. GONAZALS

Reyes was issued a hold departure order for the crime of rebellion. However the case was
FACTS
dismissed due to lack of probable cause. However, HDO was still in force.

ISSUE WON the right to travel is covered by the Writ of Amparo.

No. Right to travel is not included in the Writ of Amparo which safeguards the right of an
RULING
individual to life, liberty and security.

CASE GAMBOA VS. CHAN

Mayor Gamboa was alleged to be keeping a private army group which made the
FACTS government made surveillance operations. Mayor petitioned the issuance of writ of habeas
data against respondents since she contends that her right to privacy was violated.

ISSUE WON Right to privacy was violated.

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS : INTRODUCTION

RULING No, State interest of dismantling PAGs overpowers the alleged intrusion to privacy.

CASE MAJ. GEN BARBIETO VS. CA

FACTS

ISSUE WON

RULING

CASE IN RE: SENIN VS. DOJ

FACTS

ISSUE WON

RULING

CASE ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE

Echegaray was convicted for rape and was sentenced to death penalty. On the day he was
FACTS
about to be executed, A TRO for death penalty was issued by SC. SOJ

ISSUE WON SC has the power to release a TRO against Death penalty.

Yes. The three branches of government has the power to save a life of a death convict.
RULING There is no other right higher than right to life. However, the execution was continued since
it will be a contraventiontion to the finality of the judgment rendered.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS : INTRODUCTION

CASE IMBONG VS. OCHOA

Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the RH Law, since it is alleged to violate the right of
FACTS
the unborn.

ISSUE WON the law violates the right to life.

RULING No. Unborn has no juridical personality hence, cannot invoke its right to life.

CASE DE ASIS VS. CA

FACTS

ISSUE WON

RULING

CASE ALITA VS. CA

Petitioners was granted parcels of land through a homestead patent. Ejectment of

FACTS
petitioners from their land is in connection with the Agrarian reform act.
WON parcel of land granted through homestead patent be subjected to Agrarian Reform
ISSUE
Act.

RULING No. It violates the person’s right to property and a right to live a good life.

CASE PHIL. BLOOMING BILLS EMPLOYMENT ORG. VS. PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC.

Petitioner wanted to have a mass demonstration to express grievances against the abuse of
FACTS Pasig Police. The company threatened the employees that they will be suspended if they
join such activity and it violates their CBA.

ISSUE WON human rights is supreme over the company’s property rights.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS : INTRODUCTION

RULING Yes. Human rights are delicate and vulnerable as well as supremely precious in our society.

CASE NUNEZ VS. AVERIA

Nunez questioned the result of the election. However the proclaimed mayo was killed in an
FACTS ambush. Vice mayor contends that the case filed by Nunez is moot and academic since the
one complained was already dead.

ISSUE WON Nunez may claim right to hold office even if Morales was already dead.

Yes. Because public office is not property. But one unlawfully ousted from it may institute
RULING
an action to recover the same, flowing from the de jure officer’s right to office.

CASE REPUBLIC VS. ROSEMOOR MINING

Maceda cancelled the license of defendant as it contravenes the law because it exceeds
FACTS
maximum area that may be granted which renders the license to be void ab initio

ISSUE WON revocation of such license is valid.

Yes. Licenses granted are merely vested rights and privileges that may be revoked anytime.
RULING
It is not a property and is not protected by due process of law.

CASE SOUTHERN LUZON DRUG VS. DSWD

RA 7432 Granting senior citizen discount of 20% was questioned by the petitioner.
FACTS
Petitioner contends that it violates their right to property.

ISSUE WON it violated the petitioner’s right to property.

RULING No. supposed taking was not earned profits but expected profits.