Mejoff V Director of Prisons

Mejoff v Director of Prisons
Boris Mejoff Russian alien; secret operative by Japanese

Arrested as a spy by US Counter Intelligence
Peoples court ordered his release
Deportation board found he had no travel documents
In custody in Cebu Jail
Russian vessels refused to take him
Transferred to Bilibid Prison
HELD:
Art. II, Sec. 3 adopts generally accepted principles of International Law

Universal Declaration of Human Rights right to life and liberty as applied to
all human beings
Art 2, Everyone has a right to an effective remedy by a competent court
Art. 8, No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, exile
Release Mejoff but placed under surveillance of immigration authorities
Kuroda v Jalandoni
Kuroda was former Lt. General of Japanese Army; commanding general in the
Philippines
Tried for war crimes against Philippine Military Commission (EO 68)
Assails validity of EO 68 for being unconstitutional no jurisdiction to try him
Defense: Hague Convention Rules and Regulations covering Land Warfare
o Philippines is not a signatory of the Hague Convention
US is not a party of interest in the case US prosecutors cannot practice law
in the Phil
HELD:
EO 68 is constitutional Doctrine of Incorporation, Art 2, renounces war as an

instrument of national policy and adopts generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the nation
Although not a signatory It is a generally accepted principle of international
law
US is party of interest because the country and its people have been equally,
if not more, aggrieved by the Crimes of Kuroda
Phil. Military Commission is a special military tribunal and not governed by
the rules of court but by the provision of the special law
Mary's Song of Praise: The Magnificat

46 And Mary said,
My soul magnifies the Lord,

47
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.

For behold, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
49 for he who is mighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
51 He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts;
52 he has brought down the mighty from their thrones
and exalted those of humble estate;
53 he has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
54 He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
55 as he spoke to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his offspring forever.
Magna Carta
A charter agreed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June
1215.[a] First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the
unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church
rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice,
and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a
council of 25 barons.
Under what historians later labelled "clause 61", or the "security clause", a council
of 25 barons would be created to monitor and ensure John's future adherence to the
charter.[38] If John did not conform to the charter within 40 days of being notified of
a transgression by the council, the 25 barons were empowered by clause 61 to seize
John's castles and lands until, in their judgement, amends had been made.
Magna Carta was however novel in that it set up a formally recognised means of
collectively coercing the King.[40] The historian Wilfred Warren argues that it was
almost inevitable that the clause would result in civil war, as it "was crude in its
methods and disturbing in its implications".[41] The barons were trying to force John
to keep to the charter, but clause 61 was so heavily weighted against the King that
this version of the charter could not survive.[39]
By then, violence had broken out between the two sides; less than three months
after it had been agreed, John and the loyalist barons firmly repudiated the failed
charter: the First Barons' War erupted.[54][55][46] The rebel barons concluded that
peace with John was impossible, and turned to Philip II's son, the future Louis VIII,
for help, offering him the English throne.[56][46][d] The war soon settled into a
stalemate. The King became ill and died on the night of 18 October, leaving the
nine-year-old Henry III as his heir.[57]
Bill of Rights 1689
The Bill of Rights is an Act of the Parliament of England that deals with
constitutional matters and lays out certain basic civil rights. Passed on 16 December
1689, it is a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by
the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in February 1689, inviting them to
become joint sovereigns of England. The Bill of Rights lays down limits on the
powers of the monarch and sets out the rights of Parliament, including the
requirement for regular parliaments, free elections, and freedom of speech in
Parliament. It sets out certain rights of individuals including the prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishment and reestablished the liberty of Protestants to have arms
for their defence within the rule of law. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights described and
condemned several misdeeds of James II of England.[1]
Provisions of the Act

The Declaration of Right was in December 1689 enacted in an Act of Parliament, the
Bill of Rights 1689.[10] The Act asserted "certain ancient rights and liberties" by
declaring:
laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of

Parliament;
no taxes should be levied without the authority of Parliament;
the right to petition the monarch should be without fear of retribution;
no standing army may be maintained during peacetime without the consent
of Parliament;[nb 2]
subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted
by law;
the election of members of Parliament should be free;
the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament should not
to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishment inflicted;
jurors should be duly impannelled and returned and jurors in high treason
trials should be freeholders;
promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction are void;
Parliaments should be held frequently.[11]
The Act declared James' flight from England following the Glorious Revolution
to be an abdication of the throne. Furthermore, it listed twelve of James's
policies by which James designed to "endeavour to subvert and extirpate the
protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom".[12] These
were:
by assuming and exercising the dispensing power;
by prosecuting the Seven Bishops; by establishing of the court of
commissioners for ecclesiastical causes;
by levying money for the crown by pretence of prerogative than the same
was granted by Parliament;
by raising and maintaining a standing army in peacetime without the consent
of Parliament;
by disarming Protestants and arming Catholics contrary to law;
by violating the election of MPs;
by prosecuting in the King's Bench for matters cognisable only in Parliament
and "divers other arbitrary and illegal courses";
by employing unqualified persons to serve on juries;
by requiring an excessive bail for persons committed in criminal cases;
by imposing excessive fines and "illegal and cruel punishments inflicted";

by making "several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before
any conviction or judgment against the person, upon whom the same were to
be levied".[13]
Petition of Right
The Petition of Right is a major English constitutional document that sets out
specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing. Passed on
7 June 1628, the Petition contains restrictions on non-Parliamentary taxation, forced
billeting of soldiers, imprisonment without cause, and the use of martial law.
Following disputes between Parliament and King Charles I over the execution of the
Thirty Years' War, Parliament refused to grant subsidies to support the war effort,
leading to Charles gathering "forced loans" without Parliamentary approval and
arbitrarily imprisoning those who refused to pay. Moreover, the war footing of the
nation led to the forced billeting of soldiers within the homes of private citizens, and
the declaration of martial law over large swathes of the country.
In response, the House of Commons prepared a set of four Resolutions, decrying
these actions and restating the validity of Magna Carta and the legal requirement of
habeas corpus. These were rejected by Charles, who also announced that
Parliament would be dissolved; in response, the Commons met on 6 May to discuss
alternatives, and concluded that a petition of right was the way forward.
Accordingly, a committee under Sir Edward Coke drafted such a petition, and it was
passed by the Commons on 8 May and sent to the House of Lords. After three weeks
of debates and conferences between the two chambers, the Petition of Right was
ratified by both houses on the 26th and 27 May. Following additional debates in
which the King restricted the right of the Commons to freely speak, he bowed to the
pressure; in need of Parliamentary support for the war effort, the Petition was
accepted on 2 June. Unhappy with the method chosen, both houses joined together
and demanded the King fully ratify the Petition, which he did on 7 June.
Despite debates over its legal status, the Petition of Right was highly influential.
Domestically, the Petition is seen as "one of England's most famous constitutional
documents",[3] of equal value to the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights 1689. In a
period in which Charles's main protection from the Commons was the House of
Lords, the willingness of both chambers to work together marked a new stage in the
constitutional crisis that would eventually lead to the English Civil War. The Petition
remains in force in the United Kingdom and, thanks to Imperial legislation, many
parts of the Commonwealth of Nations including Australia and New Zealand.
Internationally, it helped influence the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, and is seen
as a predecessor to the Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.

Mejoff V Director of Prisons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mejoff V Director of Prisons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mejoff V Director of Prisons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mejoff v Director of Prisons

Boris Mejoff Russian alien; secret operative by Japanese

Art. II, Sec. 3 adopts generally accepted principles of International Law

EO 68 is constitutional Doctrine of Incorporation, Art 2, renounces war as an

Mary's Song of Praise: The Magnificat

My soul magnifies the Lord,

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

48 for he has looked on the humble estate of his servant.

Provisions of the Act

laws should not be dispensed with or suspended without the consent of

by imposing excessive fines and "illegal and cruel punishments inflicted";

You might also like