Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    2nd Cases Consti

    Uploaded by

    Ladylee Marim
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of Manila did not have the authority to deport women from the district of ill-repute to Davao without their consent. Liberty of abode is a fundamental right protected by the constitution. 2) The Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to freedom of domicile, or liberty of abode. No defenses offered by the respondents constituted a legitimate bar to granting habeas corpus. 3) While not explicitly protected by the bill of rights, the right to return to one's own country is considered a generally accepted principle of international law and is part of Philippine law. The request of Marcos to return to the Philippines cannot be considered solely based on constitutional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2nd Cases Consti

    Uploaded by

    Ladylee Marim
    18 views2 pages
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of Manila did not have the authority to deport women from the district of ill-repute to Davao without their consent. Liberty of abode is a fundamental right protected by the constitution. 2) The Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to freedom of domicile, or liberty of abode. No defenses offered by the respondents constituted a legitimate bar to granting habeas corpus. 3) While not explicitly protected by the bill of rights, the right to return to one's own country is considered a generally accepted principle of international law and is part of Philippine law. The request of Marcos to return to the Philippines cannot be considered solely based on constitutional

    Original Title

    2nd cases consti.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of Manila did not have the authority to deport women from the district of ill-repute to Davao without their consent. Liberty of abode is a fundamental right protected by the constitution. 2) The Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to freedom of domicile, or liberty of abode. No defenses offered by the respondents constituted a legitimate bar to granting habeas corpus. 3) While not explicitly protected by the bill of rights, the right to return to one's own country is considered a generally accepted principle of international law and is part of Philippine law. The request of Marcos to return to the Philippines cannot be considered solely based on constitutional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views2 pages

    2nd Cases Consti

    Uploaded by

    Ladylee Marim
    1) The Supreme Court ruled that the mayor of Manila did not have the authority to deport women from the district of ill-repute to Davao without their consent. Liberty of abode is a fundamental right protected by the constitution. 2) The Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to freedom of domicile, or liberty of abode. No defenses offered by the respondents constituted a legitimate bar to granting habeas corpus. 3) While not explicitly protected by the bill of rights, the right to return to one's own country is considered a generally accepted principle of international law and is part of Philippine law. The request of Marcos to return to the Philippines cannot be considered solely based on constitutional

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    SECTION 6, Philippines Constitution- The

    liberty of abode and of changing the same


    within the limits prescribed by law shall not
    be impaired upon lawful order of the court.
    Neither shall the right to travel be impaired
    except in the interest of national security,
    public safety or public health, as may be
    provided by law.
    \VLLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN

    Justo Lukban, mayor of Manila, ordered the district of ill-repute women closed.
    One hundred and seventy women were deported to Davao without their
    knowledge and consent. The women were received as laborers in a banana
    plantation. Some of the women were able to escape and return to Manila. The
    attorney for the relatives and friends of a considerable number of the deportees
    presented an application for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court

    nder the American constitutional system, liberty of abode is a principle so deeply


    imbedded in jurisprudence and considered so elementary in nature as not even to require
    a constitutional sanction.

    1) Whether or not the respondents had authority to deport the women to


    Davao; 
    The respondents may not be permitted to restrain a fellow citizen of her liberty
    by forcing her to change her domicile and to avow the act with impunity in the
    courts. The great writ of liberty may not be easily evaded. No one of the defense
    offered constituted a legitimate bar to the granting of the writ of habeas
    corpus.The supreme court upheld the right of filipino citizens to freedom of domicile or the
    Liberty of abode. "Ours is a government of laws and not of men."
    Manglapus

    The right to return to one's country is not among the rights specifically guaranteed in the
    Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but it is our
    well-considered view that the right to return may be considered, as a generally accepted
    principle of international law and, under our Constitution, is part of the law of the land
    [Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.] However, it is distinct and separate from the right to
    travel and enjoys a different protection under the International Covenant of Civil and
    Political Rights, i.e., against being "arbitrarily deprived" thereof [Art. 12 (4).]
    What we are saying in effect is that the request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed
    to return to the Philippines cannot be considered in the light solely of the constitutional
    provisions guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel, subject to certain
    exceptions, or of case law which clearly never contemplated situations even remotely
    similar to the present one. It must be treated as a matter that is appropriately addressed
    to those residual unstated powers of the President which are implicit in and correlative to
    the paramount duty residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare. In
    that context, such request or demand should submit to the exercise of a broader
    discretion on the part of the President to determine whether it must be granted or
    denied.hether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by the Constitution, the President may
    prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines.

    ruling

    You might also like