MEJOFF V.

DIRECTOR OF PRISONS
Facts
Boris Mejoff, a Russian, was captured as a Japanese spy by the US Army
Counter Intelligence Corps on March 18, 1948. He was turned over to the Phil
Commonwealth Government for appropriate disposition. His case was decided on by
the Board of Commissioners of Immigration who declared him as an illegal alien.
The Board ordered his immediate deportation. In the meantime, he was placed in
prison awaiting the ship that will take him back home to Russia. Two Russian boats
have been requested to bring him back to Russia but the masters refused as they
had no authority to do so. Two years passed and Mejoff is still under detention
awaiting the ship that will take him home.
This case is a petition for habeas corpus. However, the respondent held that
the Mejoff should stay in temporary detention as it is a necessary step in the
process of exclusion or expulsion of undesirable aliens. It further states that is has
the right to do so for a reasonable length of time.
Issue
Whether or not Mejoff should be released from prison awaiting his deportation.

Ruling
The Supreme Court decided that Mejoff be released from custody but be placed
under reasonable surveillance of the immigration authorities to insure that he keep
peace and be available when the Government is ready to deport him. In the
doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines in its constitution adops the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of Nations. Also, the
Philippines has joined the United Nations in its Resolution entitled Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in proclaiming that life and liberty and all other
fundamental rights shall be applied to all human beings. The contention that he
remains a threat of to the security of the country is unfounded as Japan and the US
or the Phils are no longer at war.

Petitioner: Boris Mejoff, a Russian national brought to the Philippines as a secret

operative by the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation
Yet another petition for habeas corpus (i.e. this was not the first case filed by
Mejoff). First petition denied by SC on July 30, 1949. Upon the liberation of the
Philippines, Mejoff was arrested as a spy by the US Army Counter-Intelligence Corps
The Peoples Court ordered Mejoffs release, but the Deportation Board then found
out that he had no travel documents and referred the matter to the immigration
authorities
The Immigration Board declared Mejoff an illegal alien, having illegally entered the
Philippines in 1944, without inspection or admission by immigration officials, and
ordered that he be deported to Russia come the first available transport. Mejoff was
then under custody, having been arrested on March 18, 1948. Repeated failures to
ship Mejoff to Russia
Mejoff was moved to Bilibid where he has been confined for give or take two years;
no ship or country would take him, says the decision
ISSUE:
WON Mejoff should be released from prison pending his deportation
RULING:
The protection against deprivation of liberty without due process of law, and except
for crimes committed against the laws of the land, is not limited to Philippine
citizens but extends to all residents, except enemy aliens, regardless of nationality
Sec. 3, Art. II of the 1935 Constitution adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the Nation, which means that the
incorporation doctrine holds sway here
The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights proclaims the right to life and liberty
and all other fundamental rights as applied to all human beings, stating that all
human beings are born free and equal in degree and rights (Art. 1); that everyone
is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth, or other status (Art. 2); that
every one has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals
for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or by law
(Art. 8); that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile (Art. 9
), etc.

The writ of habeas corpus will issue commanding the respondents to release the
petitioner from custody upon these terms: that the petitioner shall be placed under
reasonable surveillance c/o the immigration authorities or their agents in such form
and manner as may be deemed adequate to insure that he keep peace and be
available when the Government is ready to deport him.

KURODA VS JALANDONI
I.

THE FACTS

Petitioner Shigenori Kuroda, the Commanding General of the Japanese

Imperial Forces in the Philippines during the Japanese occupation, was charged
before the Philippine Military Commission of war crimes. He questioned the
constitutionality of E.O. No. 68 that created the National War Crimes Office and
prescribed rules on the trial of accused war criminals. He contended the Philippines
is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Rules and Regulations covering Land
Warfare and therefore he is charged of crimes not based on law, national and
international.
II.

THE ISSUES

Was E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional?

III.

THE RULING

[The Court DENIED the petition and upheld the validity and constitutionality of E.O.
No. 68.]
YES, E.O. No. 68 valid and constitutional.
Article 2 of our Constitution provides in its section 3, that The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument of national policy and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation.
In accordance with the generally accepted principle of international law of the
present day including the Hague Convention the Geneva Convention and significant
precedents of international jurisprudence established by the United Nation all those
person military or civilian who have been guilty of planning preparing or waging a
war of aggression and of the commission of crimes and offenses consequential and
incidental thereto in violation of the laws and customs of war, of humanity and
civilization are held accountable therefor. Consequently in the promulgation and
enforcement of Execution Order No. 68 the President of the Philippines has acted in
conformity with the generally accepted and policies of international law which are
part of the our Constitution.

Petitioner argues that respondent Military Commission has no jurisdiction to

try petitioner for acts committed in violation of the Hague Convention and the
Geneva Convention because the Philippines is not a signatory to the first and signed
the second only in 1947. It cannot be denied that the rules and regulation of the
Hague and Geneva conventions form, part of and are wholly based on the generally
accepted principals of international law. In facts these rules and principles were
accepted by the two belligerent nations the United State and Japan who were
signatories to the two Convention. Such rule and principles therefore form part of
the law of our nation even if the Philippines was not a signatory to the conventions
embodying them for our Constitution has been deliberately general and extensive in
its scope and is not confined to the recognition of rule and principle of international
law as contained in treaties to which our government may have been or shall be a
signatory.
AGUSTIN V. EDU
FACTS: Petitioner assailed the validity of a Letter of Instruction (LOI 229, as
amended) providing for early warning device (EWD) for motor vehicles as an
exercise of police power is being violative of the constitutional guarantee of due
process and, its implementing rules and regulations (AO No.1 and MC No. 32) for
transgression of the principle of non-delegation of legislative power. The assailed
LOI was issued prior to a careful study by the Executive Department which was
recognized by international bodies concerned with traffic safety (1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals and the UN). Respondents deny the
allegations and contends that said allegations are without legal and factual basis.
These hazards posed by such obstructions to traffic have been recognized by
international bodies concerned with traffic safety, the 1968 Vienna Convention on
Roads and Signs and the United Nations Organization (UN). Philippine Government
under P.D. No. 207 ratified the said Vienna convention requiring the installation of
road signs and devices.
ISSUE: Whether or not a LOI nd its implementing rules and regulations,
requiring EWD for motor vehicles is a violation of the provisions and delegation of
police power.
Whether or not the assailed Letter of Instruction is invalid and violated
constitutional guarantees of due process.
HELD: No, the challenged LOI is a valid police power measure considering
that the petitioner failed to lay the necessary factual foundation to rebut its
presumed validity. Likewise, the implementing rules and regulations is free from
taint of unlawful delegation because these were promulgated by the administrative
office based on the standard of public safety laid down by the legislature.

The assailed Letter of Instruction was a valid exercise of police power and
there was no unlawful delegation of legislative power on the part of the respondent.
As identified, police power is a state authority to enact legislation that may interfere
personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare. In this case,
the particular exercise of police power was clearly intended to promote public
safety.
It cannot be disputed that the Declaration of Principle found in the
Constitution possesses relevance: The Philippines ------ adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the nation. Thus, as
impressed in the 1968 Vienna Convention it is not for this country to repudiate a
commitment to which it had pledged its word. Our countrys word was resembled in
our own act of legislative ratification of the said Hague and Vienna Conventions thru
P.D. No. 207 . The concept of Pacta sunt servanda stands in the way of such an
attitude which is, moreoever, at war with the principle of international morality.

JBL REYES V. BAGATSING

Facts : Petitioner retired Justice J.B.L Reyes on behalf of the Anti-Bases
Coalition sought a permit from the City of Manila to hold a peaceful march and rally
starting from the Luneta Park (public park) to the gates of the United States
Embassy. There was an assurance in the petition that in the exercise of the
constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, all the necessary steps would be
taken to ensure a peaceful march and rally.
It turned out that the permit was denied by the respondent Mayor. Petitioner
was unaware of such denial as it was sent through an ordinary mail.
The reason of refusing the permit was due to police intelligence reports
which strongly militate against the advisability of issuing such permit. To be more
specific, reference was made to persistent intelligence reports affirming the plans
of subversive/criminal elements to infiltrate and/or disrupt any assembly or
congregations where a large number of people are expected to attend. Mayor
suggested, however, that a permit may be issued for the rally if it will be held in
Rizal Coliseum or any other enclosed areas where the safety of the participants and
general public may be assured. The Mayor also posed the applicability of Ordinance
No.7925 of the City of Manila prohibiting the holding and staging of rallies or
demonstration within a radius of 500 feet from any foreign mission or chancery in
this case the US Embassy. However, there was no proof that the US Embassy was
indeed 500 feet away.

Issue : Whether or not the denial of permit to rally by the respondent Mayor is
valid.

Held : Even if it can be shown that such condition existed (500 feet away), it
does not follow that the respondent could legally act the way he did. Such denial
can still be challenged as to the constitutionality of the ordinance.
The Philippines is a signatory to the Vienna Convention which calls for the
protection of the premises of a diplomatic mission. But, the denial of permit to rally
in front of the US Embassy is only justified in the presence of clear and present
danger to life or property of the embassy. This is binding on the Philippines to take
appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against intrusion or
damage and prevent any disturbance of peace or impairment of its dignity. To the
extent that the Vienna Convention is a restatement of the generally accepted
principles of international law, it should be part of the law of the land. That being
the case, if there were a clear and present danger of any intrusion or damage or
disturbance of peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity, there would be a
justification for the denial of the permit insofar as the terminal point would be the
US Embassy - but there was none.
Respondent official was ordered to grant the permit.

PHILIP MORRIS V CA