CASES Fundamental Principles and State Policies I. A government of laws and not of men. Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil.

778 Fact: A mayor of Manila had been motivated by his desire to protect the morals a nd health of the people when he "deported" 170 prostitutes from Manila to Davao. Issue: Whethet his noble desire is sufficient to allow him to do such. Held: The Court had no choice except to condemn his act, there being no showing that it had been authorized by any law or even an ordinance. Indeed, the nobilit y of intention is insufficient to validate an unauthorizd act. II. The Defense of the State (Sec. 4, Art. II) 1. People v. Lagman and People v. Zosa (38 O.G. 1676) Facts: The accused were charged with and convicted of refusal to register for mi litary training as required by C.A. No.1 (National Defense Act). On appeal, Lagm an alleged that he had a father to support, had no military learnings, and didn' t wish to kill or be killed. Zosa argued he was fatherless and had a mother and 8 brothers to support. Both claimed that the said statute was unconstitutional. Issue: Whether the aforementioned statute was unconsitutional. Held: The Court held that the statute in question was based on the Constitution (Sec. 4, Art. XVI). 2. Foreign Cases: a. Jacobson v. Massachusettes (197 U.S. 11) Court Ruled: Without violating the Constitution, it was said that a person may b e compelled against his will if necessary, to join the military. Even if it may be against his pecuniary interests, or even agaist his religious or political co nvictions, a person can be compelled to take his place in the ranks of the armyo f his country and risk being shot down in its defense. Racio decidendi: Both the government and the people has the obligation to defend the State. And in cases of emergency, it is a constitutional duty of every citi zen to defend the country. b. United States v. Olson (253 Fed., 233) Court Ruled: Such is not a deprivation of property without due process of law, b ecause in its just sense, there is no right of property to an office or employme nt. Racio decidendi: What justifies compulsory military service is the constitutiona l obligation of the people to defend the state. III. The Incorporation Clause (Sec. 2, Art. II) 1. Kuroda v. Jalandoni (42 O.G. 4282) Fact: Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the military commission, contend ing that the Philippines was not covered by the Hague Convention in which he was being prosecuted, since the Philippines was not a signatory thereof. Issue: Whether the country was not covered by mentioned international convention law. Held: SC rejected petitioner's argument. The aforementioned convention embodied generally accepted principles of international law which is binding upon all sta tes. 2. Co Kim Chan v. Valdez Tan Keh Fact: It was argued that the MacArthur Procalamation of October 23, 1944 which i nvalidated "all laws, regulations and processes" of the Occupation government al so applies to judicial decisions.

Issue: whether aforecited statute should be applied to judicial processes. Held: SC did not agree. Racio decidendi: It declared that it was against the principle of international law that "all judgments and judicial proceedings which are not of a political co mplexion of a de facto government during the Japanese military occupation." It c ould not have been the intention of General MacArthur to apply to judicial proce sses. 3. Ichong v. Hernandez (101 Phil. 1155) Fact: Petitioner asked for the invalidation of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law which it argued was inconsistent with the amity between the Philippines and China, the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Issue: Whether the RTN law should rule over the other laws. Held: Court saw no conflict. However, it declared that even assuming that there exists a conflict, it was the aforementioned statute which should be upheld beca use it was enacted by the police power which is inherent and thus could not be b argained away through a medium of treaty. Racio decidendi: When there is an irreconcilable conflict between an internation al law and the law of the land, the latter should be upheld if it is a represent ation of the olice power of the state. 4. Gonzales v. Hechanova (9 SCRA 230) Fact: Issue: Held: Racio decidendi: Municipal law must be upheld against international law on the b asis of the separation of powers and under the rule-making powers of the SC. IV. Rearing of the Youth A. Unreaasonable Interference of the Government 1. Meyer v. Nebraska (supra.) Held: It is unreasonable for the government to prohibit the teaching of the Germ an language to children since there is nothing inherently harmful in the languag e that would impair their proper upbringing. It could in fact improve their acad emic background. 2. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (262 U.S. 390) Fact: There was a law which prohibited the establishment of private schools and in effect confind the education of the youth to public institutions. Held: The said law was annulled. Racio decidendi: Such would standardize the thinking of the children who, as the Court put it, were not "mere creatures of the State." B. Reasonable interference by the Government People v. Ritter (194 SCRA 690) Fact: There was an alien who had enticed Filipino children with money and then s exually abused them. Held: The alien was expelled fom the country. Racio decidendi: The State is committed to "defend the right of children to assi stance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploit ation, and other condidions prejudicial to their development." C. The Role of the Youth in Nation-Building 1. Department of Education v. San Diego (180 SCRA 533) Fact: private respondent had failed the NMAT for the fifth time and was prohibit ed from taking up the same.

Issue: Whether the petitioner's rule which prohibited any student from taking th e National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) if he had already fild it three times i s valid. Held: The SC sustained the rule. Racio decidendi: The Court felt that it was insufficient to merely invoke the ri ght to quality education. It was that just the private respondent must be better in any other calling that has not excited his interest yet. As was said by Just ice Holmes, we may be "swamped with incompetence not because we are lacking inte lligence but because we are a nation of misfits." 2. Virtuoso v. Municipal Judge (82 SCRA 191) Fact: A 17-year old was accused of robbery and was required to post bail in the amount of P16,000.00. Issue: Whether the minor should be required to post such bail. Held: The SC released him on the recognizance of his parents and counsel. Racio decidendi: The Court held that he was a minor and thus was entitled to the benefits of the Child and Youth welfare Code which was an implementation of Sec tion 12, Article II.