1. (8poi 8poin nts) Based on a facial challenge and the alleged violation of freedom of speech,
the law is not violative of the Constitution. On a facial challenge, the law must be either overbroad or vague on its face. The child pornography law was able to first define cleanly the object and subject of the legislation which on first glance, establishes a clear classification between those who are above 18 years of age, and of those who are below 18 – who are the people this law is trying to protect. t also !!! out the basis of their distinction from the rest of the population" children are unable to fully ta#e care of themselves and are prone to abuse. $oreover, child pornography narrowly drawn as such that showcases e%plicit se%ual activities. The latter was defined, as well, and the enumeration of its forms&'( could render a clear depiction of what comes into the purview of e%plicit se%ual activities and can thus provide a test, a standard to which a material can be scrutini)ed with a facial challenge, challenge, which ma#es a law vague or overbroad by reading the law on its face is one that should be immediately apparent which in *+ -- is hard to argue. +dditionally +dditionally,, the argument of a violation of the freedom of speech and its limitation in the passage of this law can note be properly invo#ed as child pornography is always illegal . The reason is that such acts put the welfare of the child, someone
who can be helpless helpless and prone to abuse, in danger danger and would would have have no redeeming value at all. There is no test that can be used to assess the content of the materials in
/uestion, unli#e for obscenity, which must pass the miller test adopted by the 0upreme ourt, albeit blindly, for it to be considered something obscene, child pornography is unprotected speech and is thus can be prohibited by the government without even testing such prohibitions if they are constitutionally permissible – because they are. 2. (10 points) The mayor2s act is unlawful.
The freedom of the people to peaceably assemble is not just a right that is identified in the onstitution. t is also an inherent right that springs from the establishment of the society itself in coming together and delegating their power to the 0tate, ma#ing the 0tate accountable to the people. t is through this mechanism that the need for the people to e%press their opinion and petition for their redress of grievances against the government , not for anything else, especially against the Roman Catholic Faith, !!!!. The act of the mayor is unlawful on the level of the cause he had given for the
denial of the permit" that there is a possible attac# on the *oman atholic 3aith. 0ec. of the Bill of *ights of our onstitution states the prohibition of the government to promote or to establish any religion. The 4protection5 the mayor is arguing comes within the purview of such establishment. 6hich is constitutionally impermissible as such will constitute favoring atholics to other people from different religions. t is a cause !!! that inadvertently shows the mayor2s favor towards members of the atholic hurch. On another level, the prohiition itself is objectionable and the non7issuance of permit to the religious group constitutes an impediment to an inherent right – freedom to assemble. The 0tate can only regulate such actions and to adhere to the 4ma%imum tolerance5 it can provide. The 0tate can only regulate the time, the manner and the place such assembly will be and not to prohibit such. ven though this application of permit was made by a religious group whose leader has been criminally charged, mere allegation, and in this case, suspicion of probable attac# to the atholic 3aith does not warrant the denial of their permit. +s in the case of Reyes v !agatsing, the authority can only regulate such activity on the account of the time, place, and manner of the
assembly unless there is concrete proof or verified information of plans that would endanger public safety. ". (# points) The arrest is not valid. 9olice power is the inherent power of the 0tate to promote public welfare through
regulation of restrictions of the people2s liberty and their use of property. The 0tate has to show that its means, as well, of achieving a common good is lawful and justify the restrictions of people2s liberty. :nfortunately, in this case, the law passed has not able to establish a connection between its subject" most li#ely to ensure the sanctity of a family; to its means" as#ing those couples who would want to chec#7in those places. 6hile the 0tate recogni)es that the institution of family remains inviolable, as#ing those who would want to secure a room to present any proof of their marriage oversteps the boundary and would entail unreasonable and e%cessive curtailment of rights of public individuals
due to the face the law is too broad – it does prohibit prostitutes and
patrons, and those who are doing adulterous acts from chec#ing7in but it also prohibits consenting adults who had made informed decisions, despite not being married to each other to be secured in their rooms a be free for them to act on their love and affection. 0uch was demonstrated in the case of $hitelight where the 0tate failed to establish a reasonable connection between its subject and its means despite being able to raise an argument of restriction on the liberty of its customers, and not arguing based on property rights. This could also very well be a curtailment of their richata and hristopeher2s right to privacy and liberty as it can be very well argued that the fact that they sought the privacy of the motel shows their intent to #eep those things to themselves and not burdening other people with their actions.
%. (& points)
onstitution by refusing to establish any #ind of religion that it can promote as such will result to serious repercussions. Through the non7establishment clause, the 0tate and any of its instrumentality could not, by way of preference of financial support to prefer any #ind of religion and the +=> program from students in public school of the ?epd would constitute a violation of the clause. 9ublic schools are government7funded and would constitute disbursement of public funds – funds that might not even be contributed by $uslims. t is a noble cause, to ta#e into consideration the situations and needs of $uslim children in $indanao but such will ma#e the impression that the 0tate is going out of its way to prefer them than those who are not $uslim. The same can be argued with providing honoraria for teachers of private $adrasah schools for those schools, despite being private, are being 'favored by the 0tate through monetary support. The $adrasah schools, them being private is not violative of the Constitution for they only rely on donations from local communities
and foreigners and could still e%ist despite the absence of any support from the government but when public funds, those that are raised by the government from the people, are given as a form of honoraria without giving all teachers something of e/uivalence is a violation of the onstitution . (& points) The act of the mayor in ordering the demolition of the stalls is unlawful for
it is not a valid e%ercise of police power. The police power of the 0tate, though it is argued as the one with the widest range of all the 0tate2s inherent powers in normally confined to the authority of the legislature and their legislative acts. 6hile the purpose of the demolishing the stalls
due to them being a public nuisance, which constitutes a threat to public order, the
authority from which it emanated – the mayor – is improper. 3or only the 0anggunian, and only through an ordinance can it be ordered to demolish the stalls in a solid manner. *egardless of the reason of the mayor beforehand ordering for the demolition, he is still not vested with such the authority. 9olice power is such that has the power to regulate and to even prohibit something as long as there is a need to promote public welfare as in the case of !eltran where despite non7drastic !!! seem to close down commercial blood ban#s, by virtue of public health and safety, an enacted law can do so and such even passed the rigorous scrutiny of the court. 0uch emanated from the law7 ma#ing body of the 0tate, which is note present in this case. The act of the mayor is a violation of the separation of powers for he being part of the e%ecutive went beyond his boundaries and usurped that of the legislatures. *. (* points)
search made to a moving vehicle. The e%clusionary rule that was introduced in +tonehill v ,io-no became part of our onstitution is very technical in a way that any violation from the protection provided for in the constitution as regards to unreasonable searches and sei)ures of whatever form would result to the inadmissibility of the things sei)ed. The circumstances in each of the cases need to be scrutini)ed for the ourt to determine whether or not the search falls under the e%emption of those searches that need not have to have warrants. Those e%ception are search after a valid arrest, custom searches, stop7and7fris#, consented searches, searches during e%igent and emergency circumstances. Those by the immigration and health chec#7ups among others, one of which is a search of a moving vehicle . @oseph2s car was stopped by a police mobile and he had just violated
a traffic rule" beating a red light and such was even made in a maor intersection,
some place where such could result to fatal accidents that could involve other motorists. To aggravate @oseph2s circumstances, he was driving so late at night – something that should not be done as a normal and average driver would be more careful in driving. There is also suspicion to his haste that he did not even notice there was a red light.
