What does the 1935 Constitution say?

What does the 1935 Constitution say?

The 1935 Constitution, which featured a political system virtually identical to the American one, became operative. The system called for a President to be elected at large for a 4-year term (subject to one re-election), a bicameral Congress, and an independent Judiciary.

What is the meaning of Article 3 Section 4 of Philippine Constitution?

The 1987 Philippine Constitution under Article 3, Section 4 of the Bill of Rights provides, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”, while Section 8 under the same …

What is the meaning of Article 3 Section 4 Bill of Rights?

What is Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution about?

Article III, Section 2, clause 1, is also a pillar for the legitimacy of constitutional judicial review itself. It authorizes the courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution. During the 1790s, federal courts in several cases declared their power to exercise judicial review over state laws.

What is 1899 constitution all about?

The Political Constitution of 1899 (Spanish: Constitución Política de 1899), informally known as the Malolos Constitution, was the constitution of the First Philippine Republic. The constitution placed limitations on unsupervised freedom of action by the chief executive which would have hampered rapid decision making.

What is 1986 freedom Constitution all about?

Often called the “Freedom Constitution”, this constitution was intended as a transitional constitution to ensure democracy and the freedom of the people. The Freedom Constitution provided for an orderly transfer of power while a Constitutional Commission was drafting a permanent constitution.

Is the right to travel impaired by a court order?

As to liberty of travel, under the 1987 law, it may be impaired even without a court order, but the appropriate executive officer is not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations.

Is the right to travel under the Constitution impaired?

Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as maybe provided by law.” Our right to travel is held to be part and parcel of our freedom of movement guaranteed under our Constitution.

Is the power to issue HDO inherent to the courts?

In said ruling, the Supreme Court further emphasized that the power to issue HDO is “inherent to the courts”, and it “does not require legislative conferment or constitutional recognition”; it co-exists with the grant of judicial power.”

Is the right to travel, hold departure order unconstitutional?

De Lima, docketed as G.R. No. 197930, promulgated on 17 April 2018, the Supreme Court struck down DOJ Circular No. 41 as unconstitutional as it violates one’s constitutional right to travel, and that there is no law which authorizes the Secretary of Justice to issue HDOs, WLOs, or allow departure orders (ADO).