VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN (1919)

Question: Are we a government of laws or a government of men? Would we disregard law just to give way for the most popular leader? Let's see what the Supreme Court will have to say. Lest we forget this long standing jurisprudence.

Again this is a landmark case. In this classic case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban,  the Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to Freedom of Domicile.

Brace yourselves. Here's the facts:

Justo Lukban was then the Mayor of the City of Manila. Problem with this dude was he ordered the deportation of 170 agogo dancers and prostitutes to Davao. Which was then not a city yet I guess. This case is dated 1919 so take note, the President wasn't even born yet. Said women were inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

(So there was a brothel house in that area during those days)  

The mayor's reason for doing this was to preserve the morals of the people of Manila.

(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite there ever was during those early days)

He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo.  He had the prostitutes confined in houses meaning the one in Gardenia Street before boarding them, at the dead of night, in two boats bound for Davao. (If Digong was alive and kicking during those days, this dodgy mayor would have really gonna get it).  The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to another police station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes. 

(Poor guy. Imagine all the commotion starting to happen in your place and you're still fuckin' totally clueless) 

So the families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against 3 people. Lukban.  Anton Hohmann, who was the Chief of Police who rounded and took custody of the the dancers and prostitutes, and Francisco Sales, the Governor of Davao. 

(Of course there's a considered conspiracy between these three)

They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their knowledge and will. During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without their consent. Infact there was no law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation of the 170 prostitutes.

(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Obviously the guy doesn't know anything about the law and fundamental human rights)

Liberty of abode was raised here versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge and consent in his capacity as Mayor.

You know what the mayor did? He got technical.  The guy moved for the dismissal of the case stating that those women were already out of his jurisdiction and that, it should be filed in the city of Davao instead. (what a bastard) 

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners with the instructions to the respondents giving them 3 options  (1) Produce the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ. (2) Show by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons (170 women subject of the writ of habeas corpus) could not safely be brought before the court, or (3) Present affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be present.  

(So the mayor resorted to technicalities in his defense and he was slapped by the court through technicalities as well giving him a dose of his own medicine) 

The three respondents hence appealed to the Supreme Court. 

ISSUE: 

Whether we are a government of laws or a government of men? Was the act of the mayor in deporting these women valid?

RULING:

The Supreme Court said "We are clearly a government of laws". Lukban committed grave abuse of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. 

There is no law expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials, not expressly authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence.

Furthermore, the prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every other citizen. Their choice of profession should not be a cause for discrimination. It may make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the human race. These women have been deprived of their liberty by being exiled to Davao without even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse,without even consenting to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban et al must be severely punished.

Court reasoned further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality, then the more the writ of habeas corpus should be enforced.

Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila. 

The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their place of residence. 

The then mayor of Manila Justo Lukban loses this case.

ANG LADLAD vs. COMELEC

Nung 1st year law ako ang halos biruan namen sa school yung sa CR ng lalake yung pagnagkasabaysabay kayo sa salamen grooming your selves before the class para sa mga chikababes sa klase. Yung tipong kararating mo pa lang before 5 p.m. para sa Criminal Law class mo daladala mo yung makakapal mong libro na yung iba di mo pa binasa at hinugot mo pa lang sa locker mo at may 30 minutos ka pa para magbasa LOL tas derecho ka sa CR para i-retouch mo yung napakagroovy mong naka-gel na hair haha! (mas importante pa talaga yung buhok e).

Pagdating mo nakahilera kayo sa salamen. Mga usual na mga banat habang nagsusuklay kayo eh "Gwapo na pre!" "Tama na yan Chip! gwapo ka naaa!!" haha. Tapos may biglang dadateng na susundot na lintik na sasabihin "Uy gwapo ah pakiss nga!" LOL. "Po' taena! hahaha" biglang magtatawanan kayo. Mga lalake yon ah. Hehe.

So sa kakabiroan namen we couldn't help carrying it outside. Kaya pag may pinahiram kang libro & binalik sayo.. "Chip eto na.. thanks pare... (biglang popose ngingite ng nakakaloko) I lab you pare" Ha ha ha. Kaya susuntukin mo sa balikat,  Tapos sa susunod paghumiram ka.. taena.. gagawin mo ren. I'm a bit homo-phobic pero natatawa talaga ako pag nagbibiruan kame barkada ng ganon. We couldn't help it minsan nadadala namen yun kulitan sa library. "O kinuha ko na yung SCRA ah.. jan yun xerox ah" "Ok pare thankyou pare... I love you pare" tatawa ng "Hihihihihi!!" taena. Biglang sisitsit yung librarian "(tok tok tok!) Sileeence!!!". LOL.

Let's get to the case. This one's for the 3rd gender. Obviously haha.

This is a fairly new case, in such a way na buhay pa mga proponents ng kaso na to.. of course led by no less than Professor Danton Remoto whom I have a disrespe...  no no no.. I mean a deep respect... (Lol sorry) for his brilliant commentaries in his radio program that I always try to listen to whenever I got the free time. Funny and brilliant, that’s what I can say for the good professor. 

Okay.. let’s see what happened here. 

Petitioner in this is case.. of course we all know... ANG LADLAD (aaaahhhyyy!!) LOL just kidding  is a national organization representing the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders (LGBT) community.  I think this was during the hype of the 2006 National Election?.. Yup Arroyo administration. Kung anuano kasi ininsert nila sa Freedom Constitution.

This is the time when everyone was filing Petition for Accreditations  with of course our electoral body the COMELEC. Comelec kase has announced that pursuant to the constitutional provision that the state in its duty to promote social justice gives way for the marginalized group to be heard and be part of the decision making process of the nation.  I remember during that time everyone seemed to be grouping together creating a so called marginalized sector... mga trycicle driver, pedicab driver, barbero... magsasaka.. magbobote... so probably one gay fella said to another gay fella...  “E bat sila? E bat tayo hindweh... mas may karapwatan twayoo nwo! malakwe ang ambag natwen sa lipunan kaya di ba teh?”  “Ay korek ka jan baklush!!”  LOL. hehe joke lang. 

So in consideration of this new found ‘marginalized’ freedom  the LGBT community assembled themselves under one umbrella organization called ANG LADLAD with a soul intent to function as a political group. Of course it’s second step was to be recognized and be accredited as a political party. Hence,  it filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to public respondent in this case, the COMELEC. 

However, due to moral grounds, the latter denied the said petition.  

So... the accreditation petition was denied. And to buttress their denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also stated that since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered nuisance. In fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. 

'Ahhyyy nakwooo! bruhang Comelec yan! Nuisance lang kamweh.. ganwon??' (LOL) 

So a motion for reconsideration (MR) was filed and denied, Hence petitioner filed this instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.  

So before the court Ang Ladlad argued that:

1. the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion.

'dogma lang ang dahilahn your honor!!  isa itong pagyurak sa aming pagkatwao!! File kami ng file tapos kami ang nagsu-SUFFER ditwoh!!'  (LOL)

2. the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In its comment, the COMELEC reiterated their stand that: 

1.petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and 

2.that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. 

3.LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941 

4.that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELEC’s field personnel.

Okay so..

ANG CHORVA (Issue) :) (jok lang)

W/N Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application on moral and legal grounds.

ANG CHUK CHAK CHENES NG KORTE (ahahaha) (Ruling):

Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, “the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is not exclusive”. The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.

Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it noted that government action must have a secular purpose.

Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its position that petitioner’s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.

We also find the COMELEC’s reference to purported violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as “any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality,” the remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability.

As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. THE DENIAL OF ANG LADLAD’S REGISTRATION ON PURELY MORAL GROUNDS AMOUNTS MORE TO A STATEMENT OF DISLIKE AND DISAPPROVAL OF HOMOSEXUALS, RATHER THAN A TOOL TO FURTHER ANY SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST.

Ang Ladlad wins this case. Finally. A breath of fresh air for our LGBT brothers/sisters. 

Although ewan ko kung anu na nangyari dito.. I've never seen Danton sitting in Congress. Didn't they make it through the ballot count?....  Matanung ko nga si Proffessor Danton pag nakita ko. LOL.

LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION, INC. vs. RAMOS

Somebody gave me a playboy bunny sticker sa koche.. di ko alam kung ikakabit ko o hinde.. para warning daw,.. ano "playboy on board"?  kabit ko kaya para lalong maines.  

“Bakit ngayon ka lang ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ dumating sa buhay ko.. ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ pilit binubuksan..”  A B C.. okay?  

A. Eto yung kanta pag nasa party ka.. kaen ka ng kaen  tapos.. busog ka  na saka pa lang dumating yung lechon… LOL (ay lechon de leche talaga oh!) “bakit ngayon kung kelan ang aking tiyan.. meron ng laman”.

B. Eto yung kantang walang kamatayan request pag nasa inuman ka.. and lahat kayo kumakanta bigay na bigay.. parang anthem or bayang magiliw.. may imaginary mike pa and naka bromance akbay pa kayo.  LOL

C. Eto yung kantang.. nung dumating ka pagpasok mo biglang nagkatitigan kayo ng magandang chik.. tapos ngumiti yung kalahati ng labi mo and kumindat yung kilay mo.. and huling-huli mo ngumiti sya sweet na sweet so napakagat ka sa labe aw!... and inaproach mo.. woohoo!! eto yung ibig sabihen dumating na talaga yung true love mo.. kase biglang nagbago lahat nung nakita mo sya .. kase yung true love mo talaga.. biglang naging fling (LOL). Sumaryosep oh! kung kelan... wag na nga.

Makapag digest nanga lang ng kaso... FACTS of the case states (sorry ah ganto ka-short.. pang recitation mode to eh)

1. This petition for prohibition and mandamus challenges the constitutionality of :

a. R.A. 7942 (The Philippine Mining Act of 1995), 

b. its IRR 

c. Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) by the govt.  with Western Mining Corporation (Philippines) . (WMC-Phil)

2. FTAA violated the 1987 Constitution in that it is a service contract and is antithetical to the principle of sovereignty over our natural resources, because they allowed foreign control over the exploitation of our natural resources, to the prejudice of the Filipino nation.

ISSUE:

What is the proper interpretation of the phrase “Agreements involving Either Technical or Financial Assistance” contained in paragraph 4, Section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.

RULING:

SC upheld the constitutionality of the Philippine Mining Law, its IRR insofar as they relate to financial and technical agreements as well as the subject Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement.

Full control is not anathematic to day-to-day management by the contractor, provided that the State retains the power to direct overall strategy; and to set aside, reverse or modify plans and actions of the contractor. 

The idea of FULL CONTROL is similar to that which is exercised by the board of directors of a private corporation, the performance of managerial, operational, financial, marketing and other functions may be delegated to subordinate officers or given to contractual entities, BUT THE BOARD RETAINS FULL RESIDUAL CONTROL OF THE BUSINESS.

(Whuteveer... Ang haba talaga nitong kasong to eh.. sorry ah tinamad na ako)

JAWORSKI vs. PAGCOR (2004)

"You didn't have to be so nice.. I would have liked you anyway", say that to a naughty little child and for sure he or she'll act behaved while you're around. That's the best diplomatic reverse psychology you could give a child.

I smiled and tapped the chair beside me "here.. sit.." the kid smiled and sat right beside me "Did your dad fix your bike? (I asked).. what have you been doin' lately?" "We went to this restaurant in.." "In?" "Ta.. tag" "Taguig?" "Yeah" "And what did you order?" "I ate.. fo.. foye gra" "Foie Gras?" "Yup" "Aw! don't eat that" "Why?" "That's (whispering) duck liver" "Ewe!.. but it taste.. delicious" "I know but.. they torture the duck before they get the liver" "What's torture?" "Never mind.. don't think about it.. let's never even go there". "Alright.."  I dunno by the looks on his face it seemed he knew and do not like it. And that's good you know, it's nice to instill in a child's fragile heart not to hurt anyone or anything. But I still think I shudda said about that duck liver thing while the mom or dad's around.. anyway.. let the kid just find out and decide for himself.  LOL.

I dunno back when I was a kid.. I also thought that hotdogs came from dogs. And I stopped eating for a while. You see during my  toddler years one of my favorite food are hotdogs. And I couldn’t even say it. “Ha-og” (Lol) remember when you were a baby? And you talk in mumbled cut syllables and your momma or yaya couldn’t decipher what you’re sayin’? “Ano gusto kainin?” “Ha-og!” “Anu nga, anu nga, anu nga ulet?” “Haaa- Og!” And they think it’s so cute they still repeat the question even if they already knew it just to hear you say it again. “Ha-Og!!  Ha-Og!! Ha-Og!!” (foot stump tantrums) “Ha- OoooOOOOAAAAG!!!” “Aaah HOTDOG!”  (LOL).   Parang.. “Philip!” “Chi-ip” “Phi-?” “Chi-?” “lip” “ip” “Philip” “Chi-ip” (LOL). WTF.

I know kids love hotdogs but don't you know that hotdogs are cancerous? So it's bad to feed your kids too much of it from their growing years. They'll be growing cancer cells with them till they grow up. It's good that I'm not very fond if it anymore but way back when I was a kid? I wait for it at the table and when it's served? I raise my fork in the air and yell somethin' like a battle cry "Haaa oooOOOOOOGG!!!!" (Lol)

Anyway.. FACTS of the Case states that: 

(Ow BTW If you're a Baranggay Ginebra fan, you'll surely like this case. The Big-J won this case)

1.  PAGCOR is a GOCC existing under PD 1869 (legislative frenchise)  issued on 1983 by then Pres. Marcos.

2.  1998, PAGCOR’s  BOD  (Board of Directors) approved and granted authority to  Sports and Games and Entertainment Corporation (SAGE) to operate and maintain Sports Betting station including Internet betting in PAGCOR’s casino locations

3.  SAGE commenced its operations by conducting gambling on the Internet on a trial-run basis, making pre-paid cards and redemption of winnings available at various Bingo Bonanza outlets.

4.  Petitioner Senator Robert Jaworski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Games, Amusement and Sports, filed the petition, praying that the grant of authority by PAGCOR in favor of SAGE be NULLIFIED. 

5.  He said PAGCOR committed GADALEJ  (gadalej - ow sorry thats just my acro -  grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, its just 'ultra vires') when it authorized SAGE to operate gambling on the INTERNET. He contends that PAGCOR is not authorized under its legislative franchise, PD No. 1869, to operate gambling on the internet for  said decree could not have possibly contemplated internet gambling since at the time of its enactment on July 11, 1983 the internet was yet inexistent 

ISSUE:

WON  PAGCOR is allowed to contract any of its franchise to another entity such as SAGE.

RULING:

NO.    A LEGISLATIVE FRANCHISE is a special privilege with attached public concern granted by the state to corporations to address public interest.  

The privilege  cannot be exercised at will and pleasure, but reserved for public control and administration, directly by government or public agents, under such CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS as the government may impose on them in the interest of the public. Congress that prescribes the conditions on which the grant of the franchise may be made

While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operator’s and/or management contracts, it is not allowed under the same charter to relinquish or share its franchise, much less grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. PAGCOR cannot delegate its power in view of the legal principle of delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is nothing in the charter to show that it has been expressly authorized to do so. 

(In Lim vs. Pacquing, (read the previous post) the Court clarified that “since ADC has no franchise from Congress to operate the jai-alai, it may not so operate even if it has a license or permit from the City Mayor to operate the jai-alai in the City of Manila.” By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separate legislative franchise and not “ride on” PAGCOR’s franchise if it were to legally operate on-line Internet gambling.)

LIM vs. PACQUING (1995)

There's this old samba piece by Michael Franks. "Abandoned Garden". It's actually a tribute to his mentor and friend, Antônio Carlos Jobim, the legendary Brazilian Samba guitarist and proponent who fearlessly pushed that genre to mainstream jazz. One of my early influences in nylon guitar music study as well.

It's an absolutely beautiful song.. but for me all I can say about it now that I'm hearing it from my soundstream gadget again for the first time is 'Damn! what wonderful memories this song evokes'. I dunno it somehow brings you to the depth of a deep love, now lost but never gone. It's lingering. It's there but you cant do something about it.

The song talks about abandoning a garden not because of ones own caprice but because it's just one of life's undeniable facts.. that one day you will leave everything behind. You will simply cease to exist. The abandonment is involuntary and you just realize you're staring at an unkempt garden because the one who tends it is absent.

I remember my mother's gardens as they turn brown whenever she leaves for a considerable time staying in the other house. Talk about a lady having the most green thumb, mom is it. Geez would you believe that lady? whatever flower she dumps into the ground it grows. And I could even somehow really feel they will all sob and cry & damn go melodramatically miss her right from the moment she leaves. "Oh wag kakalimutan ang halaman ko, diligan nyo". "Yes Ma!". And then her rose garden will start to sing in chorus somethin' like "After you leave I start to cry.. hu hu hu" :)

But what's so beautiful about someone abandoning a garden like that is that.. sunlight still prevails. The rain may still come. Some of the plants and flowers may die as you leave, but it's inevitable.. some of the other plants will still be able to survive.

Wouldn't that be nice if someone asks you "How are you.. and her?" And for you to be able to say.. "I dunno.. somehow our love survives".

Let's get to the case.

Here's the FACTS.. recit style.. bullet form:

1.  (1949) RA 409- CONGRESS ACT – CHARTER of MANILA 

2.  (1951) EO 392 – Transferring Authority  JAIALAI -  LG to GAB   (Local Govt – Games & Amusement Board)

3.   (1971) MBM  C.O. 7065 – Authorizing Mayor to establish & operate JAIALAI in MANILA . (Municipal Board of Manila)

4.  (1975) PD 771 was issued by Marcos. REVOKING All Powers and Authority of LG to Grant Franchise, License or Permit to Regulate  Horse and Dog Races, Jai-Alai or Pelota

5.  (1988) ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (ADC) tried to operate a Jai-Alai. Government thru  GAB  intervened and invoked PD 771 

6.  ADC assails the CONSTITUTIONALITY of P.D. No. 771.

ISSUE:

W/N   P.D. No. 771 is violative of the EQUAL PROTECTION and NON-IMPAIRMENT clauses of the Constitution.

RULING:

NO.

P.D. No. 771 is VALID AND CONSTITUTIONAL.

RATIO:

Presumption against unconstitutionality. There is nothing on record to show or even suggest that PD No. 771 has been repealed, altered or amended by any subsequent law or presidential issuance (when the executive still exercised legislative powers).

Neither can it be tenably stated that the issue of the continued existence of ADC’s franchise by reason of the unconstitutionality of PD No. 771 was settled in G.R. No. 115044, for the decision of the Court’s First Division in said case, aside from not being final, cannot have the effect of nullifying PD No. 771 as unconstitutional, since only the Court En Banc has that power under Article VIII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution. 

And on the question of whether or not the government is estopped from contesting ADC’s possession of a valid franchise, the well-settled rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistakes or errors, if any, of its officials or agents. (Republic v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 209 SCRA 90)