Whatever Infos

Marcos v. Manglapus 177 SCRA 668 FACTS: This case involves a petition for mandamus and prohibition asks the Courts to order the respondents to issue travel documents to Mr. Marcos and the immediate members of his family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar their return to the Philippines.  Marcos v. Manglapus The case for petitioners is founded on the assertion that the right of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is guaranteed under the following provisions of the Bill of Rights, to wit: Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except 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 b...

Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] GR No. 127685. July 23, 1998 FACTS: This is a petition raised by Senator Blas Ople to invalidate the Administrative Order No. 308 or the Adoption of a National Computerized Identification Reference System issued by President Fidel V. Ramos.  The petitioner contends that the implementation of the said A.O. will violate the rights of the citizens of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution.  Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] ISSUE: Whether or not A.O. No. 308 violates the right of privacy.  Ople vs. Torres [Rights of Privacy] Read:  Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) HELD: Yes. The right to privacy as such is accorded recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully deserving of constitutional protection. The right of privacy is guaranteed in several provisions of the Constitution: "Sections 3 (1), 1, 2, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights Sec. 3. The priva...

Govt. of the United States v. Purganan GR No. 148571, Sept. 24, 2002 FACTS: In accordance to the existing RP-US Extradition Treaty, the United States Government, through diplomatic channels, sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale an extradition request of Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon receipt of the Notes and documents, the secretary of foreign affairs (SFA) transmitted them to the secretary of justice (SOJ) for appropriate action, pursuant to Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1069, also known as the Extradition Law.  Govt. of the United States v. Purganan Jimenez then sought and was granted a TRO to prohibit the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition which was later on assailed by the SOJ. The Court initially dismissed the petition, but later on reverse its decision when it filed its Motion for Reconsideration and held that private respondent was bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation...

INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE POLICE POWER Buck v. Bell, 274 U. S. 200 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City of Manila, July 31, 1967 Taxicab Operators v. Board of Transportation, 119 SCRA 597 Republic v. Meralco, G.R. No. 141314, Nov. 15, 2002 Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 Lim v. Pacquing , 240 SCRA 649 Lutz v. Araneta , 98 Phil. 148 Magtajas v. Pryce Properties, 234 SCRA 255 Miners Association v. Factoran , 240 SCRA 100 Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA, 195 SCRA 112 Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730 Tio v. Videogram Regulatory Board, 151 SCRA 208 Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 Bunting v. State of Oregon, 243 U. S. 426 MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn., March 27, 2000 EMINENT DOMAIN Assn. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 Roxas & Co. v. CA, 321 SCRA 106 Belen v. CA, 195 SCRA 59 Manosca v. CA, Jan. 29, 1996 De Knecht v. Bautista, 100 SCRA 660 Rep...