BORIS MEJOFF VS.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
90 Phil. 70 (1979) Court of the Philippines
Facts:
The case is a second petition for habeas corpus filed by petitioner Boris Mejoff the first ha!in" been denied in a
decision of this Court of #uly $0 19%9.
&erein petitioner is an alien of 'ussian decent (ho (as brou"ht fro) *han"hai by the #apanese forces. +pon
liberation he (as arrested as #apanese spy by +.*. ,r)y Counter -ntelli"ence Corps and (as handed to the
Co))on(ealth .o!ern)ent for disposition in accordance (ith Co))on(ealth ,ct /o. 012. Thereafter the People
Court ordered his release but the 3eportation Board ta4in" his case up declared the petitioner as an ille"al alien for
lac4 of necessary docu)ents presented upon enterin" the Philippines. The i))i"ration officials then ordered that the
petitioner be deported on the first a!ailable transportation to 'ussia but failed to do so in se!eral ti)es. 5hile the
arran"e)ents for his departure are bein" )ade and for the best interest of the country petitioner Mejoff (as detained
at the Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa. 6!er t(o years ha!in" elapsed since the decision aforesaid (as pro)ul"ated the
.o!ern)ent has not found (ays and )eans of re)o!in" the petitioner out of the country.
Issue: 5hether or not prolon"ed detention of the petitioner is (arranted by la( and the Constitution.
Held:
The court ruled in fa!or of the petitioner and co))anded the respondents to release the for)er fro) custody subject
to ter)s and conditions. The petitioner7s unduly prolon"ed detention (ould be un(arranted by la( and the
Constitution if the only purpose of the detention be to eli)inate a dan"er that is by no )eans actual present or
uncontrollable. The possibility that he )i"ht join or aid disloyal ele)ents if turned out at lar"e does not justify
prolon"ed detention the re)edy in that case bein" to i)pose conditions in the order of release and e8act bail in a
reasonable a)ount (ith sufficient sureties. &ence a forei"n national not ene)y a"ainst (ho) no cri)inal char"es
ha!e been for)ally )ade or judicial order issued )ay not be indefinitely be 4ept in detention. &e has the ri"ht to life
and liberty and all other funda)ental ri"hts as applied to hu)an bein"s as proclai)ed in the +ni!ersal 3eclaration of
&u)an 'i"hts appro!ed by the .eneral ,sse)bly of the +nited /ations of (hich the Philippines is a )e)ber.
Kuroda vs. Jalado!
..'. 9:2002 March 20 19%9
Ponente: Moran, C.J.
;acts<
1. Petitioner *he"inori =uroda (as the for)er 9t. .eneral of the #apanese ,r)y and co))andin" "eneral of the
#apanese forces durin" the occupation (55--) in the country. &e (as tried before the Philippine Military Co))ission
for 5ar Cri)es and other atrocities co))itted a"ainst )ilitary and ci!ilians. The )ilitary co))ission (as establish
under >8ecuti!e 6rder 01.
2. Petitioner assails the !alidity of >6 01 ar"uin" it is unconstitutional and hence the )ilitary co))ission did not ha!e
the jurisdiction to try hi) on the follo(in" "rounds<
: that the Philippines is not a si"natory to the &a"ue Con!ention (5ar Cri)es)
$. Petitioner li4e(ise assails that the +* is not a party of interest in the case hence the 2 +* prosecutors cannot
practice la( in the Philippines.
Issue: "#et#er or ot EO $% !s cost!tut!oal t#us t#e &!l!tar' tr!(ual )ur!sd!ct!o !s val!d
&>93<
1. >6 01 is constitutional hence the tribunal has jurisdiction to try =uroda. >6 01 (as enacted by the President and
(as in accordance (ith *ec. $ ,rt. 2 of Constitution (hich renounces (ar as an instru)ent of national policy. &ence it
is in accordance (ith "enerally accepted principles of international la( includin" the &a"ue Con!ention and .ene!a
Con!ention and other international jurisprudence established by the +/ includin" the principle that all persons
()ilitary or ci!ilian) "uilty of plan preparin" (a"in" a (ar of a""ression and other offenses in !iolation of la(s and
custo)s of (ar. The Philippines )ay not be a si"natory to the 2 con!entions at that ti)e but the rules and re"ulations
of both are (holly based on the "enerally accepted principles of international la(. They (ere accepted e!en by the 2
belli"erent nations (+* and #apan)
2. ,s to the participation of the 2 +* prosecutors in the case the +* is a party of interest because its country and
people ha!e "reatly a""rie!ed by the cri)es (hich petitioner (as bein" char"ed of.
$. Moreo!er the Phil. Military Co))ission is a special )ilitary tribunal and rules as to parties and representation are
not "o!erned by the rules of court but the pro!ision of this special la(.
J.B.*. Re'es vs. Ba+ats!+, -R No. $./$$ Octo(er 0., 12%/
Facts : Petitioner retired #ustice #B .9 'eyes filed a petition to respondent Mayor 'a)on Ba"atsin" the city )ayor
of )anila that on behalf of anti:bases coalition sou"ht a per)it fro) the city of )anila to hold a peaceful )arch and
rally on october 20 191$ fro) 2.00 to ?.00 in the afternoon startin" fro) the luneta a public par4 to the "ates of
united states e)bassy hardly t(o bloc4s a(ay. 6nce there and in an open space of the public property a short
pro"ra) (ould be held.
6n october 20 191$ the petitioner filed a suit for )anda)us (ith alternati!e prayer for (rit of preli)inary )andatory
injunction because due to the fact that as of that date petitioner had not been infor)ed of any action ta4en on his
re@uest on behalf of the or"aniAation to hold a rally. 6n october 2? 191$ the ans(er of respondent )ayor (as filed
on his behalf by assistant solicitor "eneral eduardo ". )ontene"ro. -t turned out that on october 19 suc per)it (as
denied.
Issues :
1. 5hether or not holdin" a rally in front of the +* e)bassy (ould be applicable or a !iolation of 6rdinance no.729? of
the city of )anila.
2. 5hether or not the denial of the e8ercise of the constitutional ri"hts of free speech and peaceably asse)bly (as
justified by clear and present dan"er.
Rul!+ : The petition (as "ranted. The *upre)e Court "ranted the )andatory injunction allo(in" the proposed )arch
and rally. The court found that there (as no clear and present dan"er of a substanti!e e!il to a le"iti)ate public
interest that (ould justify the denial of the e8ercise of the constitutional ri"hts of free speech and peaceably asse)bly.
6ur country is si"natory of the Bienna Con!ention. -t is bindin" in our la(s. The second para"raph of its ,rticle 22 that
the recei!in" state is under a special duty to ta4e appropriate steps tp protect the pre)ise of the )ission a"ainst any
intrusion or da)a"e and to pre!ent any disturbance of the peace of the )ission or i)pair)ent of its di"nity. The
constitution adopts the "enerally accepted principles of international la( as part of the la( of the land. That bein" the
case if there (ere clear and present dan"er of any intrusion or da)a"e or disturbance of the of the peace of the
)ission or i)pair)ent of its di"nity there (ould be a justification for the denial of the per)it insofar as the ter)inal
point (ould be the e)bassy.
P#!l!3 Morr!s vs. Court o4 533eals
C.'/ 91$$2 #uly 10 199$.DM>96 #.<
Facts:
Pet i t i oner s Phi l i p Mor r i s - nc. Benson and &ed"es ( Canada) - nc. and ;abr i @ues of Tabac'
eunies *.,. are ascribin" (hi)si cal e8ercise of the faculty conferred upon )a"i strates by *ection 0
'ule ?1 of the 'e!ised 'ules of Court (hen respondent Court of ,ppeals lifted the (ritof preli)inary injunction it
earlier had issued a"ainst ;ortune Tobacco Corporation herein pri!aterespondent fro) )anufacturin" and sellin" EM,'=E
ci"arettes in the local )ar4et. Ban4in" on thethesis that peti tionersF respecti!e sy)bol s
EM,'= B--E F M,'= T>/E and EM,'=E also for ci"arettes )ust be protected a"ainst unauthoriAed appropriationPhi li p
Morri s -ncorporated i s a corporation or"ani Aed under the la(s of the *tate of Bir"inia +nited *tates of
,)erica and does business at 100 Par4 ,!enue /e( Gor4 /e( Gor4
+nited*t a t e s o f ,)e r i c a . T h e t (o o t h e r p l a i n t i f f f o r e i " n c o r p o r a t i o n s (h i c h a r e (h o l
l y : o (n e d subsidiaries of Philip Morris -nc. are si)ilarly not doin" business in the Philippines but are suin"on an
isolated transaction.Pl ai nt i f f s:
pet i t i oner s asser t ed t hat def endant ;or t une Tobacco Cor por at i on has no r i "ht t o)anufacture
and sell ci"arettes bearin" the alle"edly identical or confusin"ly si)ilar trade)ar4FPlaintiffs ad)it in the co)plaint that
E888 they are not doin" business in the Philippines and aresuin" on an isolated transaction 888F. This si)ply )eans
that they are not en"a"ed in the
sale)anuf act ur e i )por t at i on e8por C t at i on and ad!er t i se)ent of t hei r ci "ar et t e pr oduct s i n t
hePhilippines.
Issue:
5hether or not there has been an in!asion o plaintiffsF ri"ht of property to such trade)ar4 or tradena)e.
5hether of not there is a !iolation of the -nternational ,"ree)ent on protection of trade)ar4s.
Held:
There is no proof (hatsoe!er that any of plaintiffs products (hich they see4 to protect fro) anyad!er se ef f ect of
t he t r ade)ar 4 appl i ed f or by def endant i s i n act ual use and a!ai l abl e f or co))ercial purposes
any(here in the
Philippines.To sust ai n a successf ul pr osecut i on of t hei r sui t f or i nf r i n"e)ent pet i t i oner s as f or e
i "ncorporations not en"a"ed in local co))erce rely on *ection 21:, of the Trade)ar4 9a( readin"as
follo(s<*>CT-6/ 21:,. ,ny forei"n corporation or juristic person to (hich a )ar4 or trade:na)e has beenre"istered or assi"ned
under this act )ay brin" an action hereunder for infrin"e)ent for unfair co)petition or false desi"nation of ori"in and false
description (hether or not it has been
licensedt o do busi ness i n t he Phi l i ppi nes under ,ct /u)ber ed ;our t een hundr ed and f i f t yni ne
asa)ended other(ise 4no(n as the Corporation 9a( at the ti)e it brin"s co)plaint< Pro!ided That the country of (hi ch the
said forei "n corporation or j uristi c person i s a ci ti Aen or i n (hi ch it isdo)iciled by treaty con!ention or la(
"rants a si)ilar pri!ile"e to corporate or juristic persons of the Philippines. (,s inserted by *ec. 7 of 'epublic ,ct /o.
0$1.) to dri!e ho)e the point that theyare not precl uded fro) initiatin" a cause of acti on i n the Phil ippines
on account of the principal perception that another entity is piratin" their sy)bol (ithout any la(ful authority to do so.

-n fact in the case of
P#!l!3 Morr!s, Ic v.Court o4 533eals the Philippine *upre)e Court ruled that the fact that international la( has been
)ade part of the la( of the land does not by any )eans i)ply the pri)acy of the international la( o!er the national
la( in the )unicipal sphere. Clearly therefore e8tradition treaty asdo)estic la( cannot be superior to the Constitution.
-n interpretin" pro!isions of a treaty one cannot depart fro) the constraints and li)itations of the Constitutionby
sayin" li4e in the case of e8tradition that e8tradition rules are sui "eneris. ;inally the "o!ern)ent should al(ays bear
in )ind that the cherished liberties"uaranteed by the Constitution are non:ne"otiable ri"hts. -n the (ords of #ustice
-sa"ani CruA
(hile authority and liberty )ust co:e8ist the hi"hest function of authority is to e8alt liberty.
-n li"ht of the recent 6lalia case this (riter respectfully posits that the ori"inal rulin" laid do(n in 9antion should be
reinstated for bein"in consonance (ith the libertarian principle of justice
Agustin vs Edu
ON NOVEMBER 22, 2010
Generally Accepted Principles of International Law Police Power
Agustin is the owner of a Volkswagen Beetle Car. He is assailing the validity of Letter of Instruction No 22 which
re!uires all "otor vehicles to have early warning devices #articularly to e!ui# the" with a #air of $reflectori%ed
triangular early warning devices&. Agustin is arguing that this order is unconstitutional' harsh' cruel and
unconsciona(le to the "otoring #u(lic. Cars are already e!ui##ed with (linking lights which is already enough to
#rovide warning to other "otorists. And that the "andate to co"#el "otorists to (uy a set of reflectori%ed early
warning devices is redundant and would only "ake "anufacturers and dealers instant "illionaires.
ISSUE: )hether or not the said is E* is valid.
HELD: +uch early warning device re!uire"ent is not an e,#ensive redundancy' nor o##ressive' for car owners whose
cars are already e!ui##ed with -. /(linking0lights in the fore and aft of said "otor vehicles'1 2. /(attery0#owered
(linking lights inside "otor vehicles'1 2. /(uilt0in reflectori%ed ta#es on front and rear (u"#ers of "otor vehicles'1 or
3. /well0lighted two 42. #etroleu" la"#s 4the 5inke. . . . (ecause6 Being universal a"ong the signatory countries to the
said -78 Vienna Conventions' and visi(le even under adverse conditions at a distance of at least 399 "eters' any
"otorist fro" this country or fro" any #art of the world' who sees a reflectori%ed rectangular early warning device
installed on the roads' highways or e,#ressways' will conclude' without thinking' that so"ewhere along the travelled
#ortion of that road' highway' or e,#ressway' there is a "otor vehicle which is stationary' stalled or disa(led which
o(structs or endangers #assing traffic. *n the other hand' a "otorist who sees any of the afore"entioned other (uilt0
in warning devices or the #etroleu" la"#s will not i""ediately get ade!uate advance warning (ecause he will still
think what that (linking light is all a(out. Is it an e"ergency vehicle: Is it a law enforce"ent car: Is it an a"(ulance:
+uch confusion or uncertainty in the "ind of the "otorist will thus increase' rather than decrease' the danger of
collision.
On Police Power
;he Letter of Instruction in !uestion was issued in the e,ercise of the #olice #ower. ;hat is conceded (y #etitioner and
is the "ain reliance of res#ondents. It is the su("ission of the for"er' however' that while e"(raced in such a
category' it has offended against the due #rocess and e!ual #rotection safeguards of the Constitution' although the
latter #oint was "entioned only in #assing. ;he (road and e,#ansive sco#e of the #olice #ower which was originally
identified (y Chief <ustice ;aney of the A"erican +u#re"e Court in an -83= decision' as $nothing "ore or less than
the #owers of govern"ent inherent in every sovereignty& was stressed in the afore"entioned case of Edu v. Ericta
thus6 $<ustice Laurel' in the first leading decision after the Constitution ca"e into force' Calalang v. )illia"s'
identified #olice #ower with state authority to enact legislation that "ay interfere with #ersonal li(erty or #ro#erty in
order to #ro"ote the general welfare. >ersons and #ro#erty could thus /(e su(?ected to all kinds of restraints and
(urdens in order to secure the general co"fort' health and #ros#erity of the state. +hortly after inde#endence in -38'
>ri"icias v. @ugoso reiterated the doctrine' such a co"#etence (eing referred to as /the #ower to #rescri(e regulations
to #ro"ote the health' "orals' #eace' education' good order or safety' and general welfare of the #eo#le.1 ;he conce#t
was set forth in negative ter"s (y <ustice Aalcol" in a #re0Co""onwealth decision as /that inherent and #lenary
#ower in the +tate which ena(les it to #rohi(it all things hurtful to the co"fort' safety and welfare of society.1 In that
sense it could (e hardly distinguisha(le as noted (y this Court in Aorfe v. Autuc with the totality of legislative #ower.
It is in the a(ove sense the greatest and "ost #owerful attri(ute of govern"ent. It is' to !uote <ustice Aalcol" anew'
/the "ost essential' insistent' and at least illi"ita(le #owers'1 e,tending as <ustice Hol"es a#tly #ointed out /to all the
great #u(lic needs.1 Its sco#e' ever e,#anding to "eet the e,igencies of the ti"es' even to antici#ate the future where it
could (e done' #rovides enough roo" for an efficient and fle,i(le res#onse to conditions and circu"stances thus
assuring the greatest (enefits. In the language of <ustice Cardo%o6 /Needs that were narrow or #arochial in the #ast
"ay (e interwoven in the #resent with the well0(eing of the nation. )hat is critical or urgent changes with the ti"e.1
;he #olice #ower is thus a dyna"ic agency' suita(ly vague and far fro" #recisely defined' rooted in the conce#tion that
"en in organi%ing the state and i"#osing u#on its govern"ent li"itations to safeguard constitutional rights did not
intend there(y to ena(le an individual citi%en or a grou# of citi%ens to o(struct unreasona(ly the enact"ent of such
salutary "easures calculated to insure co""unal #eace' safety' good order' and welfare.&
It was thus a heavy (urden to (e shouldered (y Agustin' co"#ounded (y the fact that the #articular #olice #ower
"easure challenged was clearly intended to #ro"ote #u(lic safety. It would (e a rare occurrence indeed for this Court
to invalidate a legislative or e,ecutive act of that character. None has (een called to our attention' an indication of its
(eing non0e,istent. ;he latest decision in #oint' Edu v. Ericta' sustained the validity of the Beflector Law' an
enact"ent conceived with the sa"e end in view. Calalang v. )illia"s found nothing o(?ectiona(le in a statute' the
#ur#ose of which was6 $;o #ro"ote safe transit u#on' and avoid o(struction on roads and streets designated as
national roads . . .& As a "atter of fact' the first law sought to (e nullified after the effectivity of the -2C Constitution'
the National Defense Act' with #etitioner failing in his !uest' was likewise #ro"#ted (y the i"#erative de"ands of
#u(lic safety.