CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
F.3 “INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST”
B. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
C.3 CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
In the RH Law
Sections 7, 23, and 24 of RA 10354 (Reproductive Health Law) impose upon the conscientious objector the duty to refer the patient seeking reproductive health services to another medical practitioner.
A conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance with the mandates of the RH Law. If he is compelled to act contrary to his religious belief and conviction, it would be violative of "the principle of non- coercion" enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
The Court found no compelling state interest which would limit the free exercise of conscientious objectors. Only the prevention of an immediate danger to the security and welfare of the community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. Also, respondents failed to show that the means to achieve the legitimate state objective is the least intrusive means. [Imbong vs. Ochoa (2014)]
Compulsory Military Service
It may also be a ground for exemption from compulsory military service; expanded version provides exemption even to those who object war based on non-religious beliefs i.e. non-theist.
Criteria:
(a) There must be belief in God or a parallel belief occupying a central place in the believer’s life
(b) Religion must involve a moral code transcending individual belief; cannot be purely subjective
(c) Demonstrable sincerity in belief must be shown, but court cannot inquire into its truth or reasonableness [United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)] (d) There must be some associational ties.
[Estrada v. Escritor A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003]
IX. Liberty of Abode
and
Freedom
of
Movement
Art. III, Sec. 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 be provided by law.
"Liberty" as understood in democracies, is not license; it is "liberty regulated by law."
A. LIMITATIONS
Freedom of movement includes two rights: (1) Liberty of abode
a. It may be impaired only upon lawful order of the court
b. The court itself is to be guided by the limits prescribed by law
Example: A condition imposed by the court in connection with the grant of bail.
(2) Liberty of travel
a. May be impaired even without a lawful order of the court
b. But the appropriate executive officer (who may impair this right) is not granted arbitrary discretion to impose limitations
c. He can only do so on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may be provided by law” (e.g. Human Security Act, quarantine)
d. Impairment of this liberty is subject to judicial review
The executive of a municipality does not have the right to force citizens of the Philippine Islands to change their domicile from one locality to another. [Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)]
A condition imposed by the court in connection with the grant of bail is an example of a valid limitation to liberty Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic people, is a proper restraint to their liberty. It is for their advancement in civilization and so that material prosperity may be assured. [Rubi vs. Provincial Board (1919)]
Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid the possibility of losing jurisdiction if accused travels abroad. [Manotoc vs. CA (1986)]
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 which requires that all foreign travels of judges and court personel must be with prior permission from the Court does not restrict but merely regulates the right to travel. To “restrict” is to restrain or prohibit a person from doing something, to “regulate” is to govern or direct according to rule. [OCA v. Macarine (2012)]
A person’s right to travel is subject to usual constraints imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice. In such cases, whether the accused should be permitted to leave the jurisdiction for humanitarian reasons is a matter of the court’s sound discretion. [Marcos v. Sandiganbayan (1995)]
The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the right to move from one place to another… The mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by regulation… The right to travel does not entitle a person to the best form of transport or to the most convenient route to his destination. [Mirasol v DPWH (2006)]
Watch List Order
Issued against accused in criminal cases (irrespective of nationality in RTC or below) or against any person with pending case in DOJ. (As of this publication, the constitutionality of watch list orders is being challenged in the Supreme Court in Arroyo v. Sec. of Justice.)
Hold-Departure Order
Issued against accused in criminal cases (irrespective of nationality in courts below RTC), aliens (defendant, respondent, and witness in pending civil or labor case), and any person motu proprio by Sec of Justice or request of heads of departments, Constitutional Commissions, Congress, or SC.
Both orders are issued by Secretary of Justice [Department Circular No.41, June 7, 2010].
Hold departure order is but an exercise of the [Sandiganbayan’s] inherent power to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused. [Santiago v. Vasquez (1993)]
Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. [Silverio v. CA (1991)]
B. RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE’S
COUNTRY
Right to return to one's country, a distinct right under international law, is independent from although related to the right to travel.
The President has the power (residual/implied) to impair the right to return when such return poses threats to the government. [Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)]
X. Right to Information
Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
Art. II, Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Art. XVI, Sec. 10. The State shall provide the policy environment for the full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication structures suitable to the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, out of, and across the country in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of speech and of the press.
Policy of Full Public Disclosure v. Right to Information [See IDEALS v. PSALM, G.R. No. 192088; October 9, 2012]
Policy of Full Public Disclosure [Art. II, Sec. 28]
Right to Information on Matters of Public
Concern [Art. III, Sec. 7]
Matter
All transactions involving public interest, including any matter contained in official communications and public documents of the government agency. Matters of public concern. [Public Concern: no exact definition and adjudicated by the courts on a case-by- case basis, but examples abound in jurisprudence (e.g. peace negotiations, board exams, PCGG compromise agreements, civil service matters).]
Policy of Full Public Disclosure [Art. II, Sec. 28]
Right to Information on Matters of Public
Concern [Art. III, Sec. 7]
Demand to Access
Demand or request required to gain access.
What is Asserted
Duty to disclose of the government, pursuant to the policy of full public disclosure.
Duty to permit access to information on matters of public concern.
These twin provisions of the Constitution seek to promote transparency in policy- making and in the operation of the government, as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other constitutional rights. These twin provisions are also essential to hold public official “at all times x x x accountable to the people”, for unless the citizens have the proper information, they cannot hold public officials accountable for anything. [Chavez v. PEA and Amari (2002)]
“Public concern” like “public interest” embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives, or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an ordinary citizen. [Legazpi v. CSC (1987)]
Scope of Right to Access Information Essence: matters of public concern 1. Official records
2. Documents pertaining to official acts 3. Government research date used as basis
for policy development
Matters of public concern includes: • Loanable funds of GSIS [Valmonte v.
Belmonte (1989)]
• Civil service eligibility of sanitarian employees [Legaspi v. CSC (1987)]
• Appointments made to public offices and the utilization of public property [Gonzales v. Narvasa (2000)]
• National board examinations such as the CPA Board Exams [Antolin v. Domondon (2010)]
• Names of nominees of partylists [Bantay Republic v. COMELEC (2007)]
• Negotiations leading to the
consummation of the transaction [Chavez v. PEA and Amari (2002)]
A. LIMITATIONS
The right of the people to information must be balanced against other genuine interest necessary for the proper functioning of the government (Bernas)
Restrictions to the right to information may be:
(1) Based on kinds of information. Exempted information:
(a) Privileged information rooted in separation of powers
(b) Information of military and diplomatic secrets
(c) Information affecting national and economic security
(d) Information on investigations of crimes by law enforcers before prosecution [Chavez v. PEA and Amari, (2002)]
(e) Trade secrets and banking transactions [Chavez v. PCGG (1998)]
(f) Offers exchanged during diplomatic negotiations [Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)]
(g) Other confidential matters (i.e. RA 6713, closed door Cabinet meetings, executive sessions, or internal deliberations in the Supreme Court) [Chavez v. PCGG (1998)]
(2) Based on access:
(a) Opportunity to inspect and copy records at his expense. [Chavez v. PEA and Amari, (2002)]
(b) Not the right to compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries and the like. [Valmonte v. Belmonte (1989)] (3) Based on reasonable regulation for the convenience of and for order in the office that has custody of the documents. [Baldoza v. Dimaano (1976)]
• Discretion does not carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or copying. [Lantaco v. Llamas (1981)]
• The authority to regulate the manner of examining public records does not carry with it the power to prohibit x x x Thus, while the manner of examining public records may be subject to reasonable regulation by the government agency in custody thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and to afford access to public records cannot be discretionary on the part of said agencies. [Legaspi v. CSC (1987)]
(4) Based on availability. Right available only to citizens
In case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of showing that the information requested is not of public concern, or if it is of public concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the operation of the guarantee. [Legaspi v. CSC (1987)]