Buhay, Mila

SY 2011-2012, Second Semester

  • Reaction Paper
  • Reaction Paper
  • Reaction Paper

Reaction Paper

Executive Order No. 4 was issued by now Pres. Benigno Aquino III, reorganizing and renaming the Office of the Press Secretary as the Presidential Communications Operations Office and creating the Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office and for other purposes.

As president of the Republic of the Philippines, Pres. Aquino is empowered by the Administrative Code (EO No. 292) to issue executive orders like this one subject to limitations provided for by law. This Exec. Order is a public concern since it reorganizes one of the offices under the Executive Department. It needs to be imparted to the citizens of the Philippines, its functions and the likes. The people has to be informed why there was a need to reorganize and that by this medium, the Executive Dept. will disseminate information regarding the programs, policies, official activities and achievements of the Office of the President which is a must because his office is a public trust, the Filipino people were the ones who elected him as president of the republic.

Since this Exec. Order has the effect of the law, it has to be published in the official gazette – the official publication of the government. Sec. 2 of the New Civil Code has to be complied with for this order to have a force of a law.

As ruled in Tanada vs. Tuvera, publication in the Official Gazette is indespensable for laws to be valid specially those which are public in nature like this one.

Reaction Paper

In a democratic society, the most basic human right is to be secured in our persons, homes and possessions. This includes all the physical and mental aspects of private personhood and citizenship in the private sector. As such, an entire article of the constitution guaranteed such protection – the Bill of Rights.
The same is embodied in R.A. 8505 ( an act providing for assistance and protection for rape victims). Sec. 5 – PROTECTIVE MEASURES – at any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of a complaint for rape, the police officer, the prosecutor, the court and its officers, as well as the parties shall recognize the right to privacy of the party and the accused. Towards this end, the name and personal circumstances of the offended party and/or the accused, or any other information tending to establish therein identities and such circumstances or information in the complaint shall not be disclosed to the public. R.A. 8369 (an act establishing family courts, granting them original exclusive jurisdiction over child and family cases) Section 12 – PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROCEEDINGS – “… respect their privacy at all stages of the proceedings; records of cases shall be dealt with utmost confidentiality and the identity of parties shall not be divulged unless necessary and with authority of the judge”.

However, right to privacy is not absolute where there is overriding, compelling state interest. As ruled by the Supreme Court in Morfe vs Mutuc by employing the rational basis relationship, it was held that “there was no infringement of the individual’s right to privacy as the requirement to disclosure of information is for a valid purpose”.

A person or any one for that matter, cannot ask or request for the removal of the whole Supreme Court decision in the internet by reason of his privacy because Art. 8 of the New Civil Code provides – JUDICIAL DECISION applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall form part of the legal system.

Reaction Paper

Evidence is defined as the means sanctioned by the Rules of Court of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. It is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or by the rules of court.

However, there are exceptions to the admissibility of an evidence –

In the scenario, the evidence found in a laptop of a person in a random check up being done in the immigration office cannot be used as evidence in any proceeding. In a random check up like in this case, the officers who are doing the check up or search are not armed by a search warrant hence, the plain view doctrine applies. Plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant – evidence and contraband found in plain view or which are visible to the eye upon checking on plain view. The act of opening the laptop of a person cannot be said to be in the plain view. It can be considered a violation of the right to privacy of the person.

Sec. 2 of Art. III of the Constitution provides that any evidence obtained in violation of the right of a person to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure (like this one) shall be inviolable… Sec.3(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

1 comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: