“I DO OR I SUE” (Breach of Promise to Marry)

By Obiter07

You may have seen this just recently on the news with the headline “Malaysian groom sues runaway bride”.    A Malaysian man has filed suit against his fiancee “for £219,000 after she left him six hours before their wedding.”  He and his family “were distressed and embarrassed” when the bride “called off their June wedding at the last minute.”   The groom had invited 1,200 guests and was “seeking compensation for damages and defamation” from the bride and her father.

Just in case it happens to you, way back in 1964, the Philippine Supreme Court decided a similar case in Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964. But in this case it was the bride and not the groom who was left behind. As aptly observed by the High Court the “facts that culminated in this case started with dreams and hopes, followed by appropriate planning and serious endeavors, but terminated in frustration and, what is worse, complete public humiliation.”  In appropriate dramatic fashion, the wedding was set for September 4 when the groom left this note for the bride-to-be:

“Dear ___

Will have to postpone wedding — My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today.

Please do not ask too many people about the reason why — That would only create a scandal.

P_____

A telegram followed reassuring her that nothing had changed and that he would be back soon.  He was not heard from again   The bride sued for damages and was awarded “with P2,000.00 as actual damages; P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages; P2,500.00 as attorney's fees; and the costs.”  The defendant had been declared in defaut when he failed to file an answer.

Later, defendant filed a petition to be relieved from the judgment. The court set the case for possible settlement but ultimately, the defendant’s counsel manifested that “chances of settling the case amicably were nil.”  The court denied the petition.  Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.  The Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that a “petition for relief from judgment on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, must be duly supported by an affidavit of merits stating facts constituting a valid defense. (Sec. 3, Rule 38, Rules of Court.)  The defendant's affidavit that he has a good defense due to fortuitous events which stated “mere conclusions or opinions instead of facts” was not valid.

Defendant had contended that “the judgment is contrary to law” as "there is no provision of the Civil Code authorizing" an action for breach of promise to marry.” The Court agreed but stated that “the extent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for Article 21 of said Code provides that "any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage." [underscoring supplied]

The Court adverted to the application for the license to contract marriage, how the wedding date was set, invitations printed and sent out, the trousseau and party dresses prepared and even the matrimonial bed with accessories having been purchased. Then after sending his note and subsequent telegram, defendant disappeared.  It found that “Surely this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.”

This Court affirmed the judgment but modified the award of moral and exemplary damages to P15,000.00.

As the case and the news article shows, hell hath no fury like a man or woman scorned. And, under certain circumstances, if you fail to say “I do,” the other party can say “I sue.”

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

WHEN THEY CAN MAKE YOU GO TO REHAB AND YOU CAN’T SAY NO, NO, NO (Compulsory Confinement under the Dangerous Drugs Act)

By Siesta-friendly

If only Amy Winehouse could have been subjected to compulsory confinement as a drug dependent …

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002[1] provides for both (1) Voluntary Submission to confinement, treatment and rehabilitation (upon application submitted by the drug dependent himself/herself or through his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity with the Dangerous Drugs Board or its duly recognized representative) and (2) Compulsory Confinement or Submission.

Apart from Compulsory Confinement or Submission, forced confinement may also be imposed under the Voluntary Submission Program.

Forced Reconfinement Under the Voluntary Submission Program

Under the Voluntary Submission Program, if a drug dependent escapes from the treatment and rehabilitation center where he voluntarily applied for treatment and rehabilitation, forced commitment may be imposed as follows -  

1^st escape

Section 59. Escape and Recommitment for Confinement and Rehabilitation Under the Voluntary Submission Program. – Should a drug dependent under the voluntary submission program escape from the [treatment and rehabilitation] Center, he/she may submit himself/herself for recommitment within one (1) week therefrom, or his/her parent, spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity may, within said period, surrender him for recommitment, in which case the corresponding order shall be issued by the Board.

Should the escapee fail to submit himself/herself or be surrendered after one (1) week, the Board shall apply to the court for a recommitment order upon proof of previous commitment or his/her voluntary submission by the Board, the court may issue an order for recommitment within one (1) week.

Subsequent escape

If, subsequent to a recommitment, the dependent once again escapes from confinement, he/she shall be charged for violation of Section 15 [as a person found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug but not in possession of drugs, if guilty in the first offense] and be subjected under section 61 [to Compulsory Confinement], either upon order of the Board or upon order of the court, as the case may be. [Sec. 59]

Compulsory Confinement

There are 2 types of compulsory confinement, detailed below -

Where the Board first files a petition in court

SEC. 61. Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who Refuses to Apply under the Voluntary Submission Program. – Notwithstanding any law, rule and regulation to the contrary, any person determined and found to be dependent on dangerous drugs shall, upon petition by the Board or any of its authorized representative, be confined for treatment and rehabilitation in any Center duly designated or accredited for the purpose.

A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs to a Center may be filed by any person authorized by the Board with the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where such person is found.

After the petition is filed, the court, by an order, shall immediately fix a date for the hearing, and a copy of such order shall be served on the person alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs, and to the one having charge of him.

If after such hearing and the facts so warrant, the court shall order the drug dependent to be examined by two (2) physicians accredited by the Board. If both physicians conclude that the respondent is not a drug dependent, the court shall order his/her discharge. If either physician finds him to be a dependent, the court shall conduct a hearing and consider all relevant evidence which may be offered. If the court finds him a drug dependent, it shall issue an order for his/her commitment to a treatment and rehabilitation center under the supervision of the DOH [Department of Health]. In any event, the order of discharge or order of confinement or commitment shall be issued not later than fifteen (15) days from the filing of the appropriate petition.

                                                                                     

Where the Prosecutor or Court first notifies the Board

Section 62. Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation. – If a person charged with an offense where the imposable penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug dependent, the prosecutor or the court as the case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Board.

In the event the Board determines, after medical examination, that public interest requires that such drug dependent be committed to a center for treatment and rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for his/her commitment with the regional trial court of the province or city where he/she is being investigated or tried: Provided, That where a criminal case is pending in court, such petition shall be filed in the said court. The court shall take judicial notice of the prior proceedings in the case and shall proceed to hear the petition. If the court finds him to be a drug dependent, it shall order his/her commitment to a Center for treatment and rehabilitation. The head of said Center shall submit to the court every four (4) months, or as often as the court may require, a written report on the progress of the treatment. If the dependent is rehabilitated, as certified by the center and the Board, he/she shall be returned to the court, which committed him, for his/her discharge therefrom.

Thereafter, his/her prosecution for any offense punishable by law shall be instituted or shall continue, as the case may be. In case of conviction, the judgment shall, if the accused is certified by the treatment and rehabilitation center to have maintained good behavior, indicate that he/she shall be given full credit for the period he/she was confined in the Center: Provided, however, That when the offense is for violation of Section 15 of this Act [when a person is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug but not in possession of drugs, and is guilty in the first offense], the penalty thereof shall be deemed to have been served in the Center upon his/her release therefrom after certification by the Center and the Board that he/she is rehabilitated.

Board and Authorized Representatives

Since under the rules on Compulsory Confinement, only the Board and its authorized representatives may file a petition for confinement, let’s find out who comprise the Board and who may be the latter’s authorized representatives. 

Section 78. Composition of the Board. – The Board shall be composed of seventeen (17) members wherein three (3) of which are permanent members, the other twelve (12) members shall be in an ex officio capacity and the two (2) shall be regular members.

The three (3) permanent members, who shall possess at least seven-year training and experience in the field of dangerous drugs and in any of the following fields: in law, medicine, criminology, psychology or social work, shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines. The President shall designate a Chairman, who shall have the rank of a secretary from among the three (3) permanent members who shall serve for six (6) years. Of the two (2) other members, who shall both have the rank of undersecretary, one (1) shall serve for four (4) years and the other for two (2) years. Thereafter, the persons appointed to succeed such members shall hold office for a term of six (6) years and until their successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified.

The other twelve (12) members who shall be ex officio members of the Board are the following:

(1)   Secretary of the Department of Justice or his/her representative;

(2)   Secretary of the Department of Health or his/her representative;

(3)   Secretary of the Department of National Defense or his/her representative;

(4)   Secretary of the Department of Finance or his/her representative;

(5)   Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment or his/her representative;

(6)   Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government or his/her representative;

(7)   Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or his/her representative;

(8)   Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs or his/her representative;

(9)   Secretary of the Department of Education or his/her representative;

(10)           Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education or his/her representative;

(11)           Chairman of the National Youth Commission;

(12)           Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

Cabinet secretaries who are members of the Board may designate their duly authorized and permanent representatives whose ranks shall in no case be lower than undersecretary.

Under the rules on Compulsory Confinement, nothing precludes family and friends of drug dependents – and concerned parties - from appealing to the Board and their authorized representatives to file the petition for confinement.  Love is Not a Losing Game.

I can’t help you if you won’t help yourself sang Amy Winehouse.  Under RA 9165, we don’t have to leave it to drug dependents to get themselves rehab’d.

Thank you very much for the music, Amy.  Rest in peace.

---

[1]  Republic Act No. 9165, An Act Instituting The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known As The Dangerous Drugs Act Of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes, June 7, 2002

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

OWNERSHIP WITHOUT CITIZENSHIP (Property Ownership Rights of Natural-born Citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship)

By Siesta-friendly

Are you a former Philippine citizen desiring to own real property in the Philippines yet not keen on acquiring dual citizenship?  If so, you may still acquire local real estate pursuant to Section 8, Article XII of the Constitution which says “[a] natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law. “

First of all, we will not discuss Section 7 Article XII of the Consitution which allows the transfer or conveyance of private lands to aliens in cases of hereditary succession.   We will discuss how an alien and natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may purchase Philippine real estate

Republic Act 8179

Sec. 10 of R.A. 8179[1] provides the limitations, mentioned by said Section 8 Article XII, by first defining the term “transferee” as “[a]ny natural-born citizen who has lost his Philippine citizenship and who has the legal capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine Laws” and then limiting the area that may be transferred to them as follows:  

a)      private land up to a maximum area of 5,000 square meters in the case of urban land, or

b)      private land up to a maximum area of 3 hectares in the case of rural land.

Either land may be used for “business or other purposes”.

If you and your spouse are eligible to be transferees, one of you may avail of this privilege.  But if both of you prefer to be transferees, the total area you both acquire should not exceed the maximum fixed for a single transferee (i.e., 5,000 square meters in the case of urban land or 3 hectares in the case of rural land).

And if you already own urban or rural land – less than the fixed maximum areas - you are still entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural land which when added to those you already own shall not exceed said fixed maximum areas.

You may acquire not more than 2 lots which should be situated in different municipalities or cities but, again, the total land area thereof should not exceed the maximum areas fixed.  This provision seems to mean that if you want to own more than 1 lot, you cannot own more than 2 and the other lot must be in a different municipality or city.

A transferee who has already acquired urban land is disqualified from acquiring rural land and vice versa. We take this to mean that the transferee has not yet disposed of the previously acquired land; otherwise, it seems the transferee can start from scratch.

Remember, the law speaks only of a transferee.  If you already own more than 5,000 square meters of urban land or 3 hectares of rural land (prior to the existence of RA 8179), no one will take any property away from you but you cannot be a transferee of any more property since you already own more than the fixed maximum area.

What about Batas Pambansa 185[2]?

We note that there are several internet sites (even a Philippine embassy site) which consider BP 185 valid alongside RA 8179.  BP 185 limits the transferees to own “private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence”. [emphasis supplied]

Since RA 8179 allows transferees to own land for “business or other purposes”, we opine that RA 8179 has superseded BP 185 by allowing transferees to own 5,000 square meters of urban land or 3 hectares of rural land areas for residence as well.

In fact, in the case of Matthews vs. Taylor (2009)[3] - where the Supreme Court acted upon “the validity of an Agreement of Lease of a parcel of land entered into by a Filipino wife without the consent of her British husband” - the Supreme Court cited that the “instances when aliens may be allowed to acquire private lands in the Philippines are:

a)      By hereditary succession (Section 7, Article XII, Philippine Constitution).

b)      A natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law (Section 8, Article XII, Philippine Constitution). Republic Act No. 8179 now allows a former natural-born Filipino citizen to acquire up to 5,000 square meters of urban land and 3 hectares or rural land, and he may now use the land not only for residential purposes, but even for business or other purposes.

c)      Americans who may have acquired title to private lands during the effectivity of the Parity Agreement shall hold valid title thereto as against private persons (Section 11, Article XVII, 1973 Constitution).”

In said case, the Supreme Court clearly no longer sees BP 185’s 1,000 limit for urban land and 1 hectare limit for rural land as still applicable.

We have found no provision prohibiting ownership of lands for mixed uses so it seems the transferee may be able to purchase lands, say, one for business and the other for residence (keeping in mind the limitations in area and location).

---

^[1] “An Act To Further Liberalize Foreign Investments, Amending For The Purpose Republic Act No. 7042, And For Other Purposes”, March 28, 1996.

^[2]  “An Act To Implement Section Fifteen Of Article Xiv Of The Constitution And For Other Purposes”, March 16, 1982.

^[3]  Philip Matthews vs. Benjamin A. Taylor and Joselyn C. Taylor, G.R. No. 164584, June 22, 2009.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD (An example of Philippine bureaucracy and the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)

By Siesta-friendly

It is hereby declared the policy of the State to promote integrity, accountability, proper management of public affairs and public property as well as to establish effective practices aimed at the prevention of graft and corruption in government. Towards this end, the State shall maintain honesty and responsibility among its public officials and employees, and shall take appropriate measures to promote transparency in each agency with regard to the manner of transacting with the public, which shall encompass a program for the adoption of simplified procedures that will reduce red tape and expedite transactions in government. (Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy, R.A. 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007)[1]

Too bad these inspired goals are not matched by most of the provisions of RA 9485 nor by the actions of the POEA (and possibly not a few other government agencies). Otherwise, we wouldn’t have had this recent article by Stella Ruth Gonzales, “Exit clearance: An OFW’s nightmare”[2] – where the new OFW recounts what she calls what could be “one of our worst encounters with government bureaucracy” after it took her 3 days just to get an Exit Clearance prior to her departure for work abroad -  nor would we have heard more from the dozens of similar feedback at the end of her article.

OFW’s POEA nightmare

Ms. Gonzales’ ordeal starts with a 6.30 am arrival at the POEA just to get a referral form for a medical exam and a schedule for the pre-orientation departure seminar.  Upon arrival, she was given a number only to be told to come back the next day. 

She returned early again the next day but the relevant POEA counter would only entertain applicants well beyond 8 am.  Add to that the surprise in finding out the only question posed to all applicants was: “Will your employer repatriate your remains if you die abroad?”  She was lucky, she could answer “yes”, repatriation was part of her contract.  Unknowing applicants who had no such clause in their contracts, had to go back to their employers or agencies to include the relevant provision in their contracts and line up again another day.

Knowing that the government will not spend for the repatriation of her remains, she was then given a medical exam referral form and her seminar schedule.  But since she was already late for the morning-only seminar for the day, she had to return another day.

So as not to waste time, she opted to get the medical (physical and psychological) exam that day. To get same-day results, she had to go to Manila instead of a clinic near the POEA in Pasig.

Upon returning for the seminar on another day, she discovered seminar gems such as –

“the additional talk at the start and end of the lecture—from representatives of a bank and a telecoms company who spoke about their products. It was like watching a Manny Pacquiao fight on free TV in the Philippines where you had no choice but to bear the commercials.”

xxx

“[The lecturer] wasted our time by discussing his trip to the province the previous weekend, and the beauty pageant on TV the previous night. “Who was your candidate?” he asked one of the OFWs. When she could not give a ready answer, he said: “I liked the first runner-up. I think she gave the best answer to the question.” Then he proceeded to tell us what the contestant’s answer was.

He was trying to liven up his lecture with stories, but everybody was pressed for time. Some of the applicants had to go to the OWWA office for additional requirements. But no one could leave without the precious PDOS certificate. We were trapped.”

xxx

           
“The lecturer reminded us about how our employers abroad put a premium on time. “Time is gold,” said the lecturer, who arrived 15 minutes late, and ended his talk 20 minutes beyond the allocated time.“

Once she completed the requirements, “she ran to the POEA staff member who was going to take a look at my documents. It took more than an hour for them to check the contract (the same one they had previously checked), initial it and check their database whether my employer was on the blacklist.  Was then told to have her fees assessed, “but the entire staff were about to take their lunch break. When I tried to ask the female staff member at the counter whether it would be possible for her to spare a few minutes to assess my fees, she glared at me. … The counters closed at exactly 12 p.m. They opened at 15 minutes past 1.” She eventually got her Exit Clearance.

The above is just a summary of her ordeal.  To put salt on her wounds, she left the country without Immigration officers asking for her Exit Clearance.

Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007

The POEA cannot be excused from ignorance of the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007.  Its been 4 years since the law was enacted.

Provisions relevant to Ms. Gonzales’ ordeal should have been followed -

Information Billboards

Sec. 6. Citizen’s Charter - All government agencies including departments, bureaus, offices, instrumentalities, or government-owned and/or controlled corporations, or local government or district units shall set up their respective service standards to be known as the Citizen's Charter in the form of information billboards which should be posted at the main entrance of offices or at the most conspicuous place, and in the form of published materials written either in English, Filipino, or in the local dialect, that detail:

(a) The procedure to obtain a particular service;

(b) The person/s responsible for each step;

(c) The maximum time to conclude the process;

(d) The document/s to be presented by the customer, if necessary;

(e) The amount of fees, if necessary; and

(f) The procedure for filing complaints.

The mandatory requirement which is the “repatriation clause” should have been conspicuously published at the POEA.  The computation of the fees should have also been posted.

No Lunch Breaks

Sec. 8 Accessing Frontline Services –

(e) Adoption of Working Schedules to Serve Clients - Heads of offices and agencies which render frontline services shall adopt appropriate working schedules to ensure that all clients who are within their premises prior to the end of official working hours are attended to and served even during lunch break and after regular working hours. [emphasis supplied]

Once the applicants arrive at the POEA, their papers should already be processed; they should not have been merely given a ticket to come back the following day. 

And government services are not supposed to break for lunch. 

The Implementing Rules of RA 9485 even provide that -

“… Offices and agencies may consider providing frontline services as early as seven (7) in the morning until as late as seven (7) in the evening to adequately attend to clients. The frontline services must at all times be complemented with adequate staff by adopting mechanisms such as rotation system among office personnel, sliding flexi-time, reliever system especially in peak times of the transaction, or providing skeletal personnel during lunch and snack time.“ (Sec. 3. Working Schedule, Rule VI.)

Public Assistance Desk

Confusion and questions – general time wastage - may be avoided by offering an initial assessment of requirements at the public assistance desk.

Sec. 8 Accessing Frontline Services –

(g)   Establishment of Public Assistance/Complaints Desk - Each office or agency shall establish a public assistance/complaints desk in all their offices.

5-10 days for official action

Unfortunately, the only thing that the POEA might know about the Anti-Red Tape Act of 2007 is the period between 5-10 days for acting on transactions which may justify the 3-day wait just to get the Exit Clearance.

(1)   All applications and/or requests submitted shall be acted upon by the assigned officer or employee during the period stated in the Citizen's Charter which shall not be longer than five working days in the case of simple transactions and ten (10) working days in the case of complex transactions from the date the request or application was received. Depending on the nature of the frontline services requested or the mandate of the office or agency under unusual circumstances, the maximum time prescribed above may be extended. For the extension due to nature of frontline services or the mandate of the office or agency concerned the period for the delivery of frontline services shall be indicated in the Citizen's Charter. The office or agency concerned shall notify the requesting party in writing of the reason for the extension and the final date of release for the extension and the final date of release of the frontline service/s requested.

Simple transactions (like issuing a referral form for a medical exam and scheduling a pre-orientation departure seminar) which may be actually be completed in a matter of minutes are thus allowed to remain pending for at least 5 days for the law has set a minimum of 5 days.

 

If only public servants realize and acknowledge that they are that – public servants with incomes funded directly from taxpayer money.  Then they would focus on serving the public and making it easier for the latter to transact with them and obtain whatever they need from the government without unnecessary hassle.  What’s the point in paying taxes?

Imagine OFWs needing Exit Clearances having gone home for a 1-2 week vacation.  They will have to spend a good portion of their precious vacation time obtaining government papers.  If they don’t have a POEA branch in their cities, that’s more time and money wasted. 

President Noynoy Aquino often reminds the people of walking on the straight and narrow road.  He never mentions the obstacles that the government itself puts on the road that prompts people to look for the shorter though crooked path.

---

[1]  An Act To Improve Efficiency In The Delivery Of Government Service To The Public By Reducing Bureaucratic Red Tape, Preventing Graft And Corruption, And Providing Penalties Therefor, June 02, 2007.

[2]  Gonzales, S.O. (2011, July 7). Exit clearance: an ofw’s nightmare. Retrieved from http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/21871/exit-clearance-an-ofw%E2%80%99s-nightmare

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

CAM ON QUEZON CITY (Why Quezon City’s “no CCTV, no business permit” policy is unconstitutional)

By Siesta-friendly

Several news articles last week reported Quezon City’s plans to “strictly implement the no-CCTV no business permit policy in line with the city’s peace and order campaign particularly against carnapping and kidnapping ... CCTVs will also be used by the city for disaster preparedness purposes …”.[1]  

Before Quezon City enacts a law to that effect, they should find guidance from the Bill of Rights -

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. “ (Sec. 1, Article III Bill of Rights means, Philippine Constitution)

The Due Process and Equal Protection clauses above mean that if a government plans to restrict an individual or a class of individuals’ rights to life, liberty, property and equality, the restriction must be reasonable and not arbitrary and such individuals or classes must be treated in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances

Should Quezon City be of the impression that they can proceed with their policy in its exercise of police power, the Supreme Court has several times upheld the doctrine that -

The “exercise of police power is subject to judicial inquiry and could be set aside if it is either capricious, discriminatory, whimsical, arbitrary, unjust, or a denial of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.”[2]

Equal Protection of the Laws

The Supreme Court, as recently as December 2010 in the consolidated cases declaring the unconstitutionality of the Truth Commission[3] - having been tasked to investigate corruption only during Gloria Arroyo’s administration - , reiterated the settled doctrine that to be valid, a law which denies protection to one class of subject “must pass the test of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.”

By requiring only businesses to install CCTV cameras, Quezon City has denied protection to the former that other classes like individuals, residences, government agencies, non-profit entities enjoy since the latter classes are not similarly required.

The classification must rest on substantial distinctions

In the context of peace and order for which the CCTVs are apparently required, what is the substantial distinction between businesses and other entities that justifies Quezon City’s singling out businesses?  Are residences and government offices free from crime?  Do all businesses pose a significantly high crime risk than other entities?  Quezon City has a high rate of carnapping.  Are the carnap victims predominantly business owners or do the incidents mostly occur in business premises?

What is the relation of crime and disaster preparedness to business establishments which does not exist with other entities that only businesses are required to install CCTV cameras?

Let’s take an example of reasonable classification. Requiring banks to have CCTV cameras is not unreasonable because of the money and other valuables deposited therein, the interest by their depositors in the safety of their deposits and the banks’ easy accessibility to the general public.  Banks are clearly substantially different from all other entities in any given city and may be justifiably required to raise their security by installing CCTV cameras in the interest of peace and order. Although in the interest of disaster preparedness … not so much.

The classification must be germane to the purpose of the law

What binds all businesses together that they should all be required, regardless of nature, purpose, size, location, or anything else, to install CCTVs in the interest of peace and order and disaster preparedness?    

How crucial is it for a beauty parlor to have a CCTV camera in the pursuit of peace and order and disaster preparedness?  What crimes and disasters in a carinderia would a CCTV camera frequently capture?  What is so precious inside a bakery – or how disaster prone exactly is a bakery - that CCTV cameras must be installed?  What threat to peace and order and disaster risk is being prevented by installing a CCTV camera in a Mr. Quickie shop?

                        

What is it in all business establishments that attracts threats to peace and order and raises the risks of disaster that necessitate the installation of CCTV cameras in their premises, which other entities have not?  

The classification applies equally to all members of the same class

“The mayor [Herbert Bautista] reminded business establishments, particularly the high-risk ones such as car dealership stores (both high-end and trade-ins), as well as schools, convenience stores, gasoline stations and banks to comply with the CCTV requirement or face non-renewal of their business permit.”[4] 

If the mayor readily admits some businesses as high-risk, why then require all businesses to install CCTV cameras? 

In the case of businesses that own shops, stalls and carts, where should the CCVTV cameras be installed, in the office or in each of their shops, stalls and carts or in all of them?  Do all shops, stalls and carts in a mall need to have a CCTV camera each?

And in the near future when people realize that CCTV cameras do not substantially prevent crime – as frequent news reports of crimes captured by CCTV cameras (here and abroad) show and because criminals can so readily buy and put on ski masks – nor crucially alert people to disasters, what then?  Should the whims of a city government be allowed to extend to a new law requiring all businesses to employ security guards prior to obtaining their business licenses?  Whims can be so hard to suppress.

The job of peace and order preservation and disaster prevention belongs to the government.  It is already unfair for any government to delegate that job, especially a first class city that should have enough funds to effectively accomplish such job.  It becomes more unreasonable and arbitrary when the government singles out a class of subjects for purposes that affect other classes equally.

---

[1]  Chavez, C.A. (2011, June 14). QC wants CCTV as tool to deter crimes and disasters. Retrieved from http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/322632/qc-wants-cctv-tool-deter-crimes-and-disasters

[2]  Central Bank v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-50031-32, July 27, 1981, 106 SCRA 143

[3]  Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 (G.R. No. 192935) and Lagman, et al. vs. Executive Secretary, et al. (G.R. No. 193036), December 7, 2010, citing Beltran v. Secretary of Health, 512 Phil 560, 583 (2005).

[4]  Chavez, ibid.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST