Villavicencio vs.
Lukban
Facts:
Justo Lukban, Mayor of Manila, together with Anton Hohmann,
Chief of Police of the city, took custody of about 170 women of illrepute on the night of October 25, as a means to exterminate vice, and
thereafter were shipped to Davao, Mindanao, where they were signed
as laborers. Said women are inmates of the houses of prostitution
situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.
Issue:
Whether or not the person be actually confined for writ of
Habeas Corpus to issue.
Ruling:
No, there is no need for actual confinement. Any restraint which
precludes freedom of action is sufficient. The forcible taking of
women of ill-repute from Manila to be brought to Davao, deprived
them of their freedom of locomotion just as effectively as if they were
imprisoned.
Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons
Facts:
Petitioner, an alien of Russian descent was brought to the
Philippines from Shanghai as a Japanese spy and was arrested upon
liberation the countrys liberation. He was kept under prolonged
detention while arrangements for his departure are being made, so he
filed a petition for habeas corpus. For two years, the Government has
not found ways and means of deporting the petitioner because no
ship nor country would take the latter. It is insinuated that the
petitioner might join or aid the disloyal elements if allowed to be at
large.
Issue:
Whether or not an alien, not enemy, against whom no charge
has been made other than that their permission to stay has expired,
may be detained indefinitely for as long as the Government is unable
to deport him.
Ruling:
No, a foreign national, not enemy, against whom no criminal
charges have been formally made or judicial order issued, may not
indefinitely be kept in detention. He also has the right to life and
liberty and all other fundamental rights as applied to human beings.
Petitioner is ordered to be released upon the condition of being under
surveillance and exact bail in a reasonable amount with sufficient
sureties. The possibility that he might join or aid disloyal elements if
turned out at large does not justify prolonged detention.
Agustin vs. Edu
Facts:
A petition assailing the constitutionality of Letter of Instruction
No. 229, issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, requiring all
vehicle owners, users or drivers to procure early warning devices to be
installed a distance away from such vehicle when it stalls or is
disabled, was filed. In compliance with such letter of instruction, the
Commissioner of the Land Transportation Office issued
Administrative Order No. 1 directing the compliance thereof.
Issue:
Whether or not the Letter of Instruction and the Administrative
Order issued is constitutional?
Ruling:
Yes. These acts were definitely in the exercise of police power
established to promote public welfare and public safety. In fact, the
letter of instruction is based on the constitutional provision of
adopting the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land. The letter of instruction mentions, as its
premise and basis, the resolutions of the 1968 Vienna Convention on
Road Signs and Signals and the discussions on traffic safety by the
United Nations - that such letter was issued in consideration of a
growing number of road accidents due to stalled or parked vehicles
on the streets and highways.
Lim vs. Exec. Sec.
Facts:
Arthur Lim and Paulino Ersando filed a petition for certiorari
and prohibition attacking the constitutionality of Balikatan-02-1. The
petitioners alleged that it is not covered by the Mutual Defense Treaty
(MDT) between the Philippines and the United States. Petitioners
posited that the MDT only provides for mutual military assistance in
case of armed attack by an external aggressor against the Philippines
or the US. Petitioners also claim that the Visiting Forces Agreement
(VFA) does not authorize American Soldiers to engage in combat
operations in Philippine Territory.
Issue:
Whether the Balikatan is constitutional?
Ruling:
The MDT is the core of the defense relationship between the
Philippines and the US and it is the VFA which gives continued
relevance to it. Moreover, it is the VFA that gave legitimacy to the
current Balikatan exercise. Indeed, US Forces are prohibited from
engaging war on Philippine territory. This limitation is explicitly
provided for in the Terms of Reference of the Balikatan exercise. The
issues that were raised by the petitioners was only based on fear of
future violation of the Terms of Reference. Based on the facts
obtaining, the Supreme court find that the holding of Balikatan joint
military exercise has not intruded into that penumbra of error that
would otherwise call for the correction on its part.
Pharmaceutical vs. Health Secretary
Facts:
