People v. Andre Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 18 January 1991: Human Rights Law

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

HUMAN RIGHTS LAW informed them that the rest of the

shipment was still in his office.


People v. Andre Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 18 ● Therefore, Job Reyes and three NBI
January 1991 agents, and a photographer, went to
FACTS: the Reyes’ office at Ermita.
● Petitioner: ● The package which allegedly
● Respondent: contained books was likewise
● In 1987, the appellant informed Anita opened by Job Reyes.
Reyes that he was sending the ● He discovered that the package
packages to a friend in Zurich, contained bricks or cake-like dried
Switzerland. marijuana leaves.
● Appellant filled up the contract ● The package which allegedly
necessary for the transaction, writing contained tabacalera cigars was
therein his name, passport number, also opened.
the date of shipment and the name ● It turned out that dried marijuana
and address of the consignee, leaves were neatly stocked
namely, “WALTER FIERZ, underneath the cigars.
Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, ● The NBI agents made an inventory
Switzerland” Anita Reyes then asked and took charge of the box and of
the appellant if she could examine the contents thereof, after signing a
and inspect the packages. “Receipt” acknowledging custody of
● Appellant, however, refused, the said effects.
assuring her that the packages ● Thereafter, an Information was filed
simply contained books, cigars, and against appellant for violation of RA
gloves and were gifts to his friend in 6425, otherwise known as the
Zurich. Dangerous Drugs Act.
● In view of appellant’s representation, ISSUE:
Anita Reyes no longer insisted on ● Whether or not the search and
inspecting the packages. seizure committed by the private
● Before delivery of appellant’s box to individual inviolate the constitutional
the Bureau of Customs and/or right of the accused against unlawful
Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes searches and seizures?
(proprietor) and husband of Anita HELD:
(Reyes), following standard ● No, The constitutional proscription
operating procedure, opened the against unlawful searches and
boxes for final inspection. seizures therefore applies as a
● When he opened appellant’s box, a restraint directed only against the
peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His government and its agencies tasked
curiousity aroused, He made an with the enforcement of the law.
opening on one of the cellophane ● Thus, it could only be invoked
wrappers and took several grams of against the State to whom the
the contents thereof. restraint against arbitrary and
● Job Reyes forthwith prepared a unreasonable exercise of power is
letter reporting the shipment to the imposed.
NBI and requesting a laboratory ● Corolarilly, alleged violations against
examination of the samples he unreasonable search and seizure
extracted from the cellophane may only be invoked against the
wrapper. State by an individual unjustly
● He brought the letter and a sample traduced by the exercise of
of appellant’s shipment to the sovereign authority.
Narcotics Section of the NBI and
● To agree with appellant that an act of Nicaragua (P) failed to deposit a
a private individual in violation of the similar declaration to the Court.
Bill of Rights should also be ● On the other hand, Nicaragua (P)
construed as an act of the State based its argument on its reliance on
would result in serious legal the 1946 declaration made by the
complications and an absurd United States (D) due to the fact that
interpretation of the constitution. it was a “state accepting the same
● That the Bill of Rights embodied in obligation” as the United States (D)
the Constitution is not meant to be when it filed charges in the I.C.J.
invoked against acts of private against the United States (D).
individuals finds support in the ● Also, the plaintiff intent to submit to
deliberations of the Constitutional the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Commission. I.C.J. was pointed out by the valid
● True, the liberties guaranteed by the declaration it made in 1929 with the
fundamental law of the land must I.C.J’s predecessor, which was the
always be subject to protection. Permanent Court of International
Justice, even though Nicaragua had
Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras, failed to deposit it with that court.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 29 ● The admissibility of Nicaragua’s (P)
July 1988, Series C, No. 4 (1988) application to the I.C.J. was also
FACTS: challenged by the United States (D).
● ISSUE:
ISSUE: ● (1) Is the jurisdiction to entertain a
● dispute between two states, if they
HELD: both accept the Court’s jurisdiction,
● within the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice?
Nicaragua v. United States of America, ● (2) Where no grounds exist to
International Court of Justice, 27 June 1986 exclude the application of a state, is
FACTS: the application of such a state to the
● Petitioner: International Court of Justice
● Respondent: admissible?
● The United States (D) challenged HELD:
the jurisdiction of the I.C.J when it ● (1) Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court
was held responsible for illegal to entertain a dispute between two
military and paramilitary activities in states if each of the States accepted
and against Nicaragua (P) in the suit the Court’s jurisdiction is within the
the plaintiff brought against the jurisdiction of the International Court
defendant in 1984. of Justice.
● Though a declaration accepting the ● Even though Nicaragua (P)
mandatory jurisdiction of the Court declaration of 1929 was not
was deposited by the United States deposited with the Permanent Court,
(D) in a 1946, it tried to justify the because of the potential effect it had
declaration in a 1984 notification by that it would last for many years, it
referring to the 1946 declaration and was valid.
stating in part that the declaration ● Thus, it maintained its effect when
“shall not apply to disputes with any Nicaragua became a party to the
Central American State….” Statute of the I.C.J because the
● Apart from maintaining the ground declaration was made
that the I.C.J lacked jurisdiction, the unconditionally and was valid for an
States (D) also argued that unlimited period.
● The intention of the current drafters Regional Trial Court, National capital
of the current Statute was to Judicial Region against defendant
maintain the greatest possible (respondent) Secretary of the
continuity between it and the Department of Environment and
Permanent Court. Natural Reasources (DENR).
● Thus, when Nicaragua (P) accepted Plaintiffs alleged that they are
the Statute, this would have been entitled to the full benefit, use and
deemed that the plaintiff had given enjoyment of the natural resource
its consent to the transfer of its treasure that is the country's virgin
declaration to the I.C.J. tropical forests.
● (2) Yes. When no grounds exist to ● They further asseverate that they
exclude the application of a state, represent their generation as well as
the application of such a state to the generations yet unborn and asserted
International Court of Justice is that continued deforestation have
admissible. caused a distortion and disturbance
● The five grounds upon which the of the ecological balance and have
United States (D) challenged the resulted in a host of environmental
admissibility of Nicaragua’s (P) tragedies.
application were that the plaintiff ● Plaintiffs prayed that judgement be
failed because there is no rendered ordering the respondent,
“indispensable parties” rule when it his agents, representatives and
could not bring forth necessary other persons acting in his behalf to
parties, Nicaragua’s (P) request of cancel all existing Timber License
the Court to consider the possibility Agreement (TLA) in the country and
of a threat to peace which is the to cease and desist from receiving,
exclusive province of the Security accepting, processing, renewing or
Council, failed due to the fact that approving new TLAs.
I.C.J. can exercise jurisdiction which ● Defendant, on the other hand, filed a
is concurrent with that of the motion to dismiss on the ground that
Security Council, that the I.C.J. is the complaint had no cause of action
unable to deal with situations against him and that it raises a
involving ongoing armed conflict and political question.
that there is nothing compelling the ● The RTC Judge sustained the
I.C.J. to decline to consider one motion to dismiss, further ruling that
aspect of a dispute just because the granting of the relief prayed for
dispute has other aspects due to the would result in the impairment of
fact that the case is incompatible contracts which is prohibited by the
with the Contadora process to which Constitution.
Nicaragua (P) is a party. ● Plaintiffs (petitioners) thus filed the
instant special civil action for
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101063, 30 certiorari and asked the court to
July 1993 rescind and set aside the dismissal
FACTS: order on the ground that the
● Petitioner: respondent RTC Judge gravely
● Respondent: abused his discretion in dismissing
● The plaintiffs in this case are all the action.
minors duly represented and joined ISSUE:
by their parents. ● (1) Whether or not the plaintiffs have
● The first complaint was filed as a a cause of action.
taxpayer's class suit at the Branch ● (2) Whether or not the complaint
66 (Makati, Metro Manila), of the raises a political issue.
● (3) Whether or not the original ● Petitioners maintain that the granting
prayer of the plaintiffs result in the of the TLA, which they claim was
impairment of contracts. done with grave abuse of discretion,
HELD: violated their right to a balance and
● First Issue: Cause of Action. healthful ecology.
● Respondents aver that the ● Hence, the full protection thereof
petitioners failed to allege in their requires that no further TLAs should
complaint a specific legal right be renewed or granted.
violated by the respondent Secretary ● After careful examination of the
for which any relief is provided by petitioners' complaint, the Court
law. finds it to be adequate to show,
● The Court did not agree with this. prima facie, the claimed violation of
● The complaint focuses on one their rights.
fundamental legal right -- the right to ● Second Issue: Political Issue.
a balanced and healthful ecology ● Second paragraph, Section 1 of
which is incorporated in Section 16 Article VIII of the constitution
Article II of the Constitution. provides for the expanded
● The said right carries with it the duty jurisdiction vested upon the
to refrain from impairing the Supreme Court.
environment and implies, among ● It allows the Court to rule upon even
many other things, the judicious on the wisdom of the decision of the
management and conservation of Executive and Legislature and to
the country's forests. declare their acts as invalid for lack
● Section 4 of E.O. 192 expressly or excess of jurisdiction because it is
mandates the DENR to be the tainted with grave abuse of
primary government agency discretion.
responsible for the governing and ● Third Issue: Violation of the
supervising the exploration, non-impairment clause.
utilization, development and ● The Court held that the Timber
conservation of the country's natural License Agreement is an instrument
resources. by which the state regulates the
● The policy declaration of E.O. 192 is utilization and disposition of forest
also substantially re-stated in Title resources to the end that public
XIV Book IV of the Administrative welfare is promoted.
Code of 1987. ● It is not a contract within the purview
● Both E.O. 192 and Administrative of the due process clause thus, the
Code of 1987 have set the non-impairment clause cannot be
objectives which will serve as the invoked.
bases for policy formation, and have ● It can be validly withdraw whenever
defined the powers and functions of dictated by public interest or public
the DENR. welfare as in this case.
● Thus, right of the petitioners (and all ● The granting of license does not
those they represent) to a balanced create irrevocable rights, neither is it
and healthful ecology is as clear as property nor property rights.
DENR's duty to protect and advance ● Moreover, the constitutional
the said right. guaranty of non-impairment of
● A denial or violation of that right by obligations of contract is limit by the
the other who has the correlative exercise by the police power of the
duty or obligation to respect or State, in the interest of public health,
protect or respect the same gives safety, moral and general welfare. In
rise to a cause of action. short, the non-impairment clause
must yield to the police power of the
State. (e) The certification of petitioner under oath
● The instant petition, being impressed that:
with merit, is hereby GRANTED and (1) petitioner has not commenced
the RTC decision is SET ASIDE. any action or filed any claim
involving the same issues in any
Writ of Kalikasan, Rule 7, A.M. No. court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
09-6-8-SC agency, and no such other action or
claim is pending therein;
RULE 7 (2) if there is such other pending
WRIT OF KALIKASAN action or claim, a complete
Section 1. Nature of the writ. - The writ is a statement of its present status;
remedy available to a natural or juridical (3) if petitioner should learn that the
person, entity authorized by law, people’s same or similar action or claim has
organization, non-governmental been filed or is pending, the
organization, or any public interest group petitioner shall report to the court
accredited by or registered with any that fact within five (5) days
government agency, on behalf of persons therefrom; and
whose constitutional right to a balanced and (f) The reliefs prayed for which may include
healthful ecology is violated, or threatened a prayer for the issuance of a TEPO.
with violation by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or private Section 3. Where to file. - The petition shall
individual or entity, involving environmental be filed with the Supreme Court or with any
damage to such magnitude as to prejudice of the stations of the Court of Appeals.
the life, health or property of inhabitants in
two or more cities or provinces. Section 4. No docket fees. - The petitioner
shall be exempt from the payment of docket
Section 2. Contents of the petition. - The Fees.
verified petition shall contain the following:
(a) The personal circumstances of the Section 5. Issuance of the writ. - Within
petitioner; three (3) days from the date of filing of the
petition, if the petition is sufficient in form
(b) The name and personal circumstances and substance, the court shall give an
of the respondent or if the name and order: (a) issuing the writ; and (b) requiring
personal circumstances are unknown and the respondent to file a verified return as
uncertain, the respondent may be described provided in Section 8 of this Rule. The clerk
by an assumed appellation; of court shall forthwith issue the writ under
the seal of the court including the issuance
(c) The environmental law, rule or regulation of a cease and desist order and other
violated or threatened to be violated, the act temporary reliefs effective until further order.
or omission complained of, and the
environmental damage of such magnitude Section 6. How the writ is served. - The writ
as to prejudice the life, health or property of shall be served upon the respondent by a
inhabitants in two or more cities or court officer or any person deputized by the
provinces. court, who shall retain a copy on which to
make a return of service. In case the writ
(d) All relevant and material evidence cannot be served personally, the rule on
consisting of the affidavits of witnesses, substituted service shall apply.
documentary evidence, scientific or other
expert studies, and if possible, object Section 7. Penalty for refusing to issue or
evidence; serve the writ. - A clerk of court who unduly
delays or refuses to issue the writ after its
allowance or a court officer or deputized Section 10. Effect of failure to file return. -
person who unduly delays or refuses to In case the respondent fails to file a return,
serve the same shall be punished by the the court shall proceed to hear the petition
court for contempt without prejudice to other ex parte.
civil, criminal or administrative actions.
Section 11. Hearing. - Upon receipt of the
Section 8. Return of respondent; contents. - return of the respondent, the court may call
Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) a preliminary conference to simplify the
days after service of the writ, the issues, determine the possibility of obtaining
respondent shall file a verified return which stipulations or admissions from the parties,
shall contain all defenses to show that and set the petition for hearing.
respondent did not violate or threaten to
violate, or allow the violation of any The hearing including the preliminary
environmental law, rule or regulation or conference shall not extend beyond sixty
commit any act resulting to environmental (60) days and shall be given the same
damage of such magnitude as to prejudice priority as petitions for the writs of habeas
the life, health or property of inhabitants in corpus, amparo and habeas data.
two or more cities or provinces.
Section 12. Discovery Measures. - A party
All defenses not raised in the return shall be may file a verified motion for the following
deemed waived. reliefs:
(a) Ocular Inspection; order — The motion
The return shall include affidavits of must show that an ocular inspection order is
witnesses, documentary evidence, scientific necessary to establish the magnitude of the
or other expert studies, and if possible, violation or the threat as to prejudice the life,
object evidence, in support of the defense of health or property of inhabitants in two or
the respondent. more cities or provinces. It shall state in
detail the place or places to be inspected. It
A general denial of allegations in the petition shall be supported by affidavits of witnesses
shall be considered as an admission having personal knowledge of the violation
thereof. or threatened violation of environmental law.
After hearing, the court may order any
Section 9. Prohibited pleadings and person in possession or control of a
motions. - The following pleadings and designated land or other property to permit
motions are prohibited: entry for the purpose of inspecting or
(a) Motion to dismiss; photographing the property or any relevant
object or operation thereon.
(b) Motion for extension of time to file return;
The order shall specify the person or
(c) Motion for postponement; persons authorized to make the inspection
and the date, time, place and manner of
(d) Motion for a bill of particulars; making the inspection and may prescribe
other conditions to protect the constitutional
(e) Counterclaim or cross-claim; rights of all parties.

(f) Third-party complaint; (b) Production or inspection of documents


or things; order – The motion must show
(g) Reply; and that a production order is necessary to
establish the magnitude of the violation or
(h) Motion to declare respondent in default. the threat as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities neglecting the performance of a duty in
or provinces. violation of environmental laws resulting in
environmental destruction or damage;
After hearing, the court may order any
person in possession, custody or control of (b) Directing the respondent public official,
any designated documents, papers, books, government agency, private person or entity
accounts, letters, photographs, objects or to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore
tangible things, or objects in digitized or the environment;
electronic form, which constitute or contain
evidence relevant to the petition or the (c) Directing the respondent public official,
return, to produce and permit their government agency, private person or entity
inspection, copying or photographing by or to monitor strict compliance with the
on behalf of the movant. decision and orders of the court;

The production order shall specify the (d) Directing the respondent public official,
person or persons authorized to make the government agency, or private person or
production and the date, time, place and entity to make periodic reports on the
manner of making the inspection or execution of the final judgment; and
production and may prescribe other
conditions to protect the constitutional rights (e) Such other reliefs which relate to the
of all parties. right of the people to a balanced and
healthful ecology or to the protection,
Section 13. Contempt. - The court may preservation, rehabilitation or restoration of
after hearing punish the respondent who the environment, except the award of
refuses or unduly delays the filing of a damages to individual petitioners.
return, or who makes a false return, or any
person who disobeys or resists a lawful Section 16. Appeal. - Within fifteen (15)
process or order of the court for indirect days from the date of notice of the adverse
contempt under Rule 71 of the Rules of judgment or denial of motion for
Court. reconsideration, any party may appeal to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the
Section 14. Submission of case for Rules of Court. The appeal may raise
decision; filing of memoranda. - After questions of fact.
hearing, the court shall issue an order
submitting the case for decision. The court Section 17. Institution of separate actions. -
may require the filing of memoranda and if The filing of a petition for the issuance of the
possible, in its electronic form, within a writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing
non-extendible period of thirty (30) days of separate civil, criminal or administrative
from the date the petition is submitted for actions.
decision.
In re Yamashita, 237 U.S. 1 (1946)
Section 15. Judgment. - Within sixty (60) Oposa v. Factoran, G.R. No. 101063, 30
days from the time the petition is submitted July 1993
for decision, the court shall render judgment FACTS:
granting or denying the privilege of the writ ●
of kalikasan. ISSUE:

The reliefs that may be granted under the HELD:
writ are the following: ●
(a) Directing respondent to permanently
cease and desist from committing acts or

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy