• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Narratives Constitutional Law II Michael Vernon Guerrero Mendiola 2005 Shared under Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Philippines license. Some Rights Reserved. Table of Contents Salonga vs. Hermoso [GR L-53622, 25 April 1980] … 1 Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals [GR L-62100, 30 May 1986] … 1 Marcos vs. Manglapus [GR 88211, 15 September 1989] … 2 Silverio vs. Court of Appeals [GR 94284, 8 April 1991] … 4 Lorenzo vs. Director of Health [GR 27484, 1 September 1927] … 5 This collection contains five (5) cases summarized in this format by Michael Vernon M. Guerrero (as a senior law student) during the First Semester, school year 2005-2006 in the Political Law Review class under Dean Mariano Magsalin Jr. at the Arellano University School of Law (AUSL). Compiled as PDF, September 2012. Berne Guerrero entered AUSL in June 2002 and eventually graduated from AUSL in 2006. He passed the Philippine bar examinations immediately after (April 2007). berneguerrero.wordpress.com Narratives (Berne Guerrero) 476 Salonga vs. Hermoso [GR L-53622, 25 April 1980] En Banc, Fernando (CJ): 9 concur, 1 concurs in separate opinion, 1 on leave Facts: This is not the first time Jovito R. Salonga came to the Supreme Court by way of a mandamus proceeding to compel the issuance to him of a certificate of eligibility to travel. In the first case, Salonga v. Madella (GR L-49130), the case became moot and academic as the Office of the Solicitor General, in its answer to the petition, stated that the travel eligibility certificate was not denied and, as a matter of fact, had been granted. Herein, in the motion to dismiss of the Solicitor General dated 21 April 1980, it was stated that the certificate of eligibility to travel had been granted Salonga. A xeroxed copy was enclosed. Held: The Travel Processing Center should exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression that certain citizens desirous of exercising their constitutional right to travel could be subjected to inconvenience or annoyance. In the address of President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E. Marcos before the American Newspaper Publishers Association on 22 April 1980, he emphasized anew the respect accorded constitutional rights. The freedom to travel is certainly one of the most cherished. He cited with approval the ringing affirmation of Willoughby, who, as he noted was "partial to the claims of liberty." Burdick and Willis, both of whom were equally convinced that there be no erosion to human rights even in times of martial law, likewise received from President Marcos the accolade of his approval. It would appear, therefore, that in case of doubt of the Officer-in-Charge of the Travel Processing Center, the view of General Fabian Ver should immediately be sought. It goes without saying that the petition for such certificate of eligibility to travel be filed at the earliest opportunity to facilitate the granting thereof and preclude any disclaimer as to the person desiring to travel being in any way responsible for any delay. 477 Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851 (1940) 478 Manotoc vs. Court of Appeals [GR L-62100, 30 May 1986] En Banc, Fernan (J): 9 concur, 1 took no part Facts: Ricardo L. Manotoc, Jr., is one of the two principal stockholders of Trans-Insular Management, Inc. and the Manotoc Securities, Inc., a stock brokerage house. Having transferred the management of the latter into the hands of professional men, he holds no officer-position in said business, but acts as president of the former corporation. Following the "run" on stock brokerages caused by stock broker Santamaria's flight from this jurisdiction, Manotoc, who was then in the United States, came home, and together with his co- stockholders, filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the appointment of a management committee, not only for Manotoc Securities, Inc., but likewise for Trans-Insular Management, Inc. The petition relative to the Manotoc Securities, Inc. (SEC Case 001826, "In the Matter of the Appointment of a Management Committee for Manotoc Securities, Inc., Teodoro Kalaw, Jr., Ricardo Manotoc, Jr., Petitioners"), was granted and a management committee was organized and appointed. Pending disposition of SEC Case 001826, the SEC requested the then Commissioner of Immigration, Edmundo Reyes, not to clear Manotoc for departure and a memorandum to this effect was issued by the Commissioner on 4 February 1980 to the Chief of the Immigration Regulation Division. When a Torrens title submitted to and accepted by Manotoc Securities, Inc. was suspected to be a fake, 6 of its clients filed six separate criminal complaints against Manotoc and one Raul Leveriza, Jr., as president and vice-president, respectively, of Manotoc Securities, Inc. In due course, corresponding criminal charges for estafa were filed by the investigating fiscal before the then Court of First Instance of Rizal (Criminal Cases 45399 and 45400, assigned to Judge Camilon; Criminal Cases 45542 to 45545, raffled off to Judge Pronove). In all cases, Manotoc has been admitted to bail in the total amount of P105,000.00, with FGU Insurance Corporation as surety. On 1 March 1982, Manotoc filed before each of the trial courts a motion entitled, "motion for permission to leave the country", stating as ground therefor his desire to go to the United States, "relative to his business transactions and opportunities." The prosecution opposed said motion and after due hearing, both Judge Camilon and Judge Pronove in their orders dated 9 March 1982, and 26 March 1982, respetively, Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 1 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero) denied the same. It appears that Manotoc likewise wrote the Immigration Commissioner a letter requesting the recall or withdrawal of the latter's memorandum dated 4 February 1980, but said request was also denied in a letter dated 27 May 1982. anotoc thus filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus before the then Court of Appeals seeking to annul the judges' orders, as well as the communication-request of the Securities and Exchange Commission, denying his leave to travel abroad. On 5 October 1982, the appellate court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit. Dissatisfied with the appellate court's ruling, Manotoc filed the petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. Pending resolution of the petition, Manotoc filed on 15 August 1984 a motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. On 20 September 1984, the Supreme Court in a resolution en banc denied Manotoc's motion for leave to go abroad pendente lite. Issue: Whether a court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. Held: A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines bail as the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance. The condition imposed upon Manotoc to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. As held in People v. Uy Tuising (61 Phil. 404 [1935]), "the result of the obligation assumed by appellee (surety) to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court, was to prohibit said accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be nugatory, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction." Indeed, if the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts. The effect of a recognizance or bail bond, when fully executed or filed of record, and the prisoner released thereunder, is to transfer the custody of the accused from the public officials who have him in their charge to keepers of his own selection. Such custody has been regarded merely as a continuation of the original imprisonment. The sureties become invested with full authority over the person of the principal and have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state. If the sureties have the right to prevent the principal from leaving the state, more so then has the court from which the sureties merely derive such right, and whose jurisdiction over the person of the principal remains unaffected despite the grant of bail to the latter. In fact, this inherent right of the court is recognized by petitioner himself, notwithstanding his allegation that he is at total liberty to leave the country, for he would not have filed the motion for permission to leave the country in the first place, if it were otherwise. The constitutional right to travel being invoked by Manotoc is not an absolute right. Section 5, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution states that "the liberty of abode and of travel shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public safety or public health." The order of the trial court releasing Manotoc on bail constitutes such lawful order as contemplated by the constitutional provision. 479 Marcos vs. Manglapus [GR 88211, 15 September 1989] En Banc, Cortes (J): 6 concur, 1 concurs in separate opinion, 5 dissent in separate opinions, 1 on leave Facts: In February 1986, Ferdinand E.

Load more

  7

Copy Link