Introduction ‘The order of any business specially affecting the tourism and hospitality is dependent on the implementation and observance of a rule, policy, standard, system, and law. No enterprise or any business entity can exploit the environment and natural resources as incidences to their very existence without being subjected to the regulations of the local and national governing authorities. Business minded people cannot just simply put a hotel in a feasible place without considering the legal repercussions that they may be confronting with prior to, during, and after the whole operations of their business. Given the complexities of law affecting the trade of tourism and hospitality, the authors have decided to come up with this instructional material that would equip the students with basic knowledge or understanding of the laws that they may deal with in their future industry. It is hoped that this material could be instrumental to their success as managers, entrepreneurs or leaders in the future. Law Defined Law may be defined in various ways. According to Collins (retrieved, 2018), law is a system of rules that a society or government develops in order to deal with crime, business agreements, and social relationships. The law can also be used to refer to the people who work in this system, Webster (2018) has defined law as a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Characteristics of Law Itcan be observed from the definitions given by Collins and Webster that the following elements are present: Rule of human conduct Just and obligatory Promulgated by competent authority It must be observed by all. ee NSis » taken as standards or norms that every member of the communi va thehareatih be taken seriously so that order in the community can properly observed. nC 5p The passage of the law requires a careful deliberation from the la makin authorities considering the impact it may have to the Peop! le i : a in doin, so, the welfare of the people must be taken a paramount consi erat On. “Saly, popu est suprema lex” ~ The welfare of the people is the supreme law. Justness of the law is about being equitable to the extent that people ar, obligated to obey it based on their ability to observe (e.g. people ate oblige to pay taxes based on their ability to pay). Justness is about being fair and no, discriminatory in a sense that the law is being applied to all regardless of race gender, status in life, and the like. There is no justness in the law if the same ig ineffectual and cannot be obligated to everybody. The law has no meaning or void from the very beginning if not promulgated by competent authority. Laws applicable within the jurisdiction of the whole archipelago should come from the initiative of the legislative department which comprises the Senate and the Congress (composed by the District Representatives and the Party -List Representatives) All is bound to observe the law, including the corporations and partnerships, having attained artificial personality as conferred by law. Aliens, while temporarily residing in the country are likewise bound to observe the governing law for the same. The reason is obvious, while these aliens are temporarily residing in our country, they have been enjoying the protection and the security that the citizens have been enjoying from the government. No man is above the law. All is mandated to obey it, regardless of their age, gender, social st: political affiliations. Highest officials of the land the rule of law. anding, party and are likewise expected to observe Tourism Laws versus Hospitality Laws The laws on tourism may be defined as a combination of state, local, and international laws that control the different facets and functions of the (avél industry. The United Nations World Tourism Organization. (https:/ /1¥" besthospitalitydegrees.com, retrieved 2018) has maintained that tourism laws are necessary to provide a regulatory framework for the proper development and management of tourism activities to aid in the conservation of natural resout and the preservation of cultural traditions. sad on the other hand, hospitality laws deal with food service, travel, and lodging industries. It is applicable to the different nuanc y ‘es of restaurant, hotel, count’ club, bar, spa, and related industries. It embraces an extensive collection of lav like contracts torts and damages, labor, and a lot more. Hotels and restaurants a ‘© of the most common hospitality law cli 1 tality” law htm) pitality law clients (https:/ /www.hg.org/hospiKinds of Laws Laws may be classified according to the following: According to Purpose 1. Substantive Law. This is a kind of law which creates, defines, and regulates rights and duties that can give rise to a cause of action. It deals with the ends which the administration of justice seeks. It relates and determines matters litigated. It regulates the affairs controlled by procedural law. 2. Adjective Law. This provides the method of aiding and protecting certain rights. It is concerned with the means and instruments by which those ends can be achieved. It relates with the conduct and relations between courts and litigants. It regulates the conduct of affairs in the course of administration of justice. According to Scope 1. Public Law. This law applies to all of the state or to particular class of persons in the state, with equal force and obligation. Examples: Political Law, Criminal Law, International Law. 2. Private Law. This law relates to particular class of persons or things. Examples: Mercantile /Commercial Law, Maritime Law, Civil Law Constitution Defined Constitution is the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determise vie powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it. It is a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization. Constitution is said to be supreme among all the laws of the archipelago. In case of conflict between the Constitution and Municipal Law, the former shall prevail. The same is true with all other special laws, the Constitution always upholds its supremacy. The Biraogo case has reiterated the supremacy of the constitution based on a plethora of cases. According to this case, the role of the Constitution cannot be overlooked. It is through the Constitution that the fundamental powers of government are established, limited and defined, and by which these powers are distributed among the several departments. The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. Constitutional doctrines must remain steadfast no matter what may be the tides of time. It cannot be simply made to sway and accommodate the call of situations and much more tailor itself to the whims and caprices of government and the people who run it. Thus, the president himself cannot proclaim without any legislation changing thenational language of the Philippinesas specifically provided by the Constitution. This would be tantamount to a violation of the supremacy of law considering that the right to legislate is not vested to him by the Constitution. On the other hand,Development Corporation avers that hotels and motels the enumeration ntertainment. MTDC reiterates that they women as tools for entertainment, harboring thr the ordinance is of places offering amusement or 1 arket such nor do they use ; fone also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate motels byt Scena i ty reiterates that the Ordinance j cannot prohibit their operations. The oO) ies ell in the LGC. The City a valid exercise of Police Power as provicle law is to promote morality likewise emphasized that the purpose of the la the City. Issue: Whether or not Ordinance 7783 is valid. Ruling: The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC noted that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or any-statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; (6) must not be unreasonable The police power of the City Council, how: , , e) i is subordinate to the consti oth oe aa Soha y is subject In the case at bar, the enac' delegated power as it is unconstitutional and Tepugnant to general | Bill of Rights A bill of rights, sometim isa 1s es called a declarati i i palit of the ad important rights to the citizens - .. : hts or a charter of sighs The Bill of Rights ‘wet from public officials ona, private tz lowever, thi ecided ten att ; more applicsbiennors had decided to focus thay® LL Of the 1987 Constitutior le to the tourism and hospitality, Ss discussions on the provisoSection 1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of aw, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws. Two things must be remembered in the due process of law. Every person must be notified of the offense that he allegedly committed. He must be given an opportunity to be heard. Thus, any employee in the hospitality industry cannot be dismissed from employment without being notified of the offense he had committed. He must be given a reasonable time to explain his side. Likewise, a municipal mayor cannot order the foreclosure of any tourism business establishment without giving the owners notice and opportunity to be heard. Due process of law has two-fold aspect to wit: (1) Procedural due process. It refers to the method by which the law is enforced. In this particular process, hearing is necessary before condemnation. The condemnation proceeds only upon inquiry of the needed facts, and judgment is to be given only after trial. (2) Substantive due process. It requires the fairness, justness, and reasonableness of the law itself. Arbitrary reasons and flimsy grounds are of no excuse. In the word of 1 Cooley, equal protection of laws signifies that “all persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges conferred and limitations imposed.” It was held in the case of Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila Inc vs. The Board of Transportation et.al (November 15, 2010) that the Circular 77-42 is valid. BOT’s reason for enforcing the Circular initially in Metro Manila is that taxicabs in this city, compared to those of other places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and more constant use. Thus is of common knowledge. Considering that traffic conditions are not the same in every city, a substantial distinction exists so that infringement of the equal protection clause can hardly be successfully claimed. Cases White Light Corporation vs City of Manila Facts On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Alfredo S. Lim (Mayor Lim) signed into law the Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, edging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of fanila.; tion (MTDC) questioneg ‘velopment Corporation (MP uestio y ae ordinance. The Pee ea Light Titanium Corporation (TC) and ofa. 8a. Tourist fon (WLC), Tita intervened on the ground that the * poration (STDC) i on th hat Compo er business interests as operators of driven, The Malate Tourist an the constitutional f sorporati Corpor’ and Development ( ce directly Ordinance : hotels and motels in Manila, The RTC rendered a decision declaring the Ordinance null and void, e Jed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme a resolution dated January 26, 1994, the Court treateq ertiorari and referred the petition to the Court The City later fi Court. However in the petition as a petition for ce of Appeals. ' Before the Court of Appeals, the City a! valid exercise of police power pursuant to Government Code which confers on cities, among units, the power: [To] regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. sserted that the Ordinance js a Section 458 (4)(iv) of the Loca} other local government The Ordinance, it is argued, is also a valid exercise of the power of the City under Article III, Section 18 (kk) of the Revised Manila Charter. Petitioners argued that the Ordinance is unconstitutional and void since it violates the right to privacy and the freedom of movement; it is an invalid exercise of police power; and it is an unreasonable and oppressive interference in their business. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC and affirmed the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Hence, the case wa Vi the the : ry ci s elevated to Issue Whether or not the assail i i led ordinai is i 7 3 power, nce 1s an invalid exercise of police Ruling The decision of the Court of Aj i RIC is reinstated. Ordinance Novy, ras declared ne decision of te 4 was declay ‘ Thet . : : red unconstitutional. tnt ordinance is well established. A lone i isi not only be 2, Manila has held that for an ording one Line of decisions only be within the an ordinance to be valid, it must e corporate poy enact and pass according to the proce fe Hocal government unit t0 conform to the le procedure follow ‘ prescribe " B Substantive requiremen, o py awit must ao lot contra’ 14L the Constitution or any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable.[41] The Ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct business practices, namely wash rate admissions and renting out a room more than twice a day. The ban is evidently sought to be rooted in the police power as conferred on local government units by the Local Government Code through such implements as the general welfare clause. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant. The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution, drug use and alike. These goals, by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambit of the police power of the State. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. Those means must align with the Constitution, and our emerging sophisticated analysis of its guarantees to the people. The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process, as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. The purpose of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned. It cannot be denied that the primary animus behind the ordinance is the curtailment of sexual behavior. The City asserts before this Court that, the subject establishments have gained notoriety as venue of prostitution, adultery and fornications in Manila since they provide the necessary atmosphere for clandestine entry, presence and exit and thus became the ideal haven for prostitutes and thrill-seekers. Whether or not this depiction of a mise-en-scene of vice is accurate, it cannot be denied that legitimate sexual behavior among willing married or consenting single adults which is constitutionally protected will be curtailed as well, as it was in the City of Manila case. Our holding therein retains si icance for our purposes: The Court cannot discount other legitimate activities which the Ordinance would proscribe or impair. There are very legitimate uses fora wash rate or renting the room out for more than twice a day. Entire families are known to choose to pass the time in a motel or hotel whilst the power is momentarily out in their homes. In transit passengers who wish to wash up and rest between trips have a legitimate purpose for abbreviated stays in motels or hotels. Indeed any person or groups of persons in need of16 ow hours with Purposes 7 able private spacs mately !ook to Staying int using illeg enient comfort than having sex OF patel or hotel as a conv" That the Ordinance patrons of a product ane = Brother constitutional requisite a police power measure. st cba particular class, requ ein the means must a reasonabj Se not unduly oj ne ee the accomplishment of the Pi os i Be Pre i iden' € rivate rights. It must also be evi ; : Schts oe iakinent of the purpose less intrusive ot Piece nea work More importantly, a reasonable relation ae Sanit be fo s , fe of the measure and the means employe Lene a i i lic interest, under the guise of protecting the publ y ts an those pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded alternative. s the lawful uses of a wash rate depriyn, i of lucrative prevent | business ties in wit id the petitioners itimacy of the Ordinance . that the interests of the Pub, private rights and hese requisites, the police measure shall be Lacking a concurrence of # , i : struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. As held in More ». Mutuc, the exercise of police power is subject to judicial review when life, liberty or property is affected. However, this is not in any way meant to take it away from the vastness of State police power whose exercise enjoys the presumption of validity. * The Court has reiterated that the individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. The Ordinance rashly equate wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with immorality ‘without accommodating innocuous intentions. The promotion of public welfare and a sense of morality among citizers | deserves the full endorsement of the judici i e judiciary provided that such measur do not trample rights this Court is sworn to protect ae Manne fori « Resort jc peorstion (Century Park Sheraton Manila 5 abor ti issi i ii pm ‘elations Commission and Cito Betilla Mr. Motoku Okumura (Ja i Hotel for the loss of his Ce filed.2 complaint sgains, nee | US8210 inside his hotel room. 7 UNERB © 40,000 Japanese yer On April 5, 1989, Mr. M i thehote als losthis money. ANSt™oto, another Japanese Bu Respondent Betila was i of Tourism as contained in ise ae d hi lett at ] | | e findi arte | lings of the Dep’ “es | | | ter-recommendations, COP"which were attached to said letter. Private respondent was required to explain his side within forty-eight (48) hours from receipt of the letter. Despite receipt of said letter on May 11, 1989, private respondent did not submit his explanation. The hotel’s management then proceeded to evaluate the findings and recommendations made by the investigators of the Department of Tourism. It decided to dismiss private respondent from the service and he was informed of his dismissal in a Memorandum, dated July 17, 1989. He refused to acknowledge its receipt. Instead, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against petitioner. Issues: Whether or not the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that the private respondent was not accorded due process. Whether or not the respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in holding that private respondent was dismissed without just cause. Ruling We find for the petitioner. The private respondent was not denied due process on the ground that he was not formally investigated by the hotel or by the investigator of the Department of Tourism regarding the reported losses. The records clearly show that petitioner fully complied with the required notice and hearing prior to the dismissal of private respondent. Private respondent was given at least three (3) chances to explain the reported losses. The investigation reports reflect that private respondent was invited on two (2) occasions to shed light on the complaints received from the Japanese guests of the hotel. Private respondent did not appear in said investigations. Nor did he submit any written explanation to the investigators exculpating himself from the charges. Finally, petitioner itself notified private respondent of the result of the investigation conducted by the two (2) investigators. He was required to explain but private respondent did not take heed. He persisted to remain silent as a sphinx. These established facts belie the finding that private respondent was denied due process before he was dismissed. Time and again, we have stressed that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. Private respondent was given more than ample opportunity to defend himself. He chose not to use his opportunities. IN VIEW WHEREOE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of public respondent NLRC ASIDE. No costa (Second Division), dated April 27, 1993, is SETapers and documents ehelp the students understand searches and seizures. As future situ are con: pro’ napers, and effects againg, vip houses, PF secured te a nd of whatever ofa rhe right of jnures of whateve” it or warrant of arr The rig aretes and seizures Of 4 no searelt wwarrattt OF ty by the ieee Mr inci Ole, ET rapined personaly AY EM’ judge Section 2 ° ne people to be unreasonable ‘ any purpose i, a ay Ea pen except upon probable cal nat t om ion of the id the aper examination unde ‘oath or affirmat of ve to be searched a persons ibing the pla! he may produce vid particularly describ Ig e may or things to be seized. fae es tus “ality Managemen no eiality, Thi 1 id of HT ted with high confidentiality 7 iS chap, that must heir basic right to security against uneasong oe itioners, these students may encounter son, prechtione” nt to them proper), id right if taug! u ie ig nreasonable while legal ong Working in the fiel tations wherein they can invoke the sa Generally, all illegal searches and seizures ate wi oe neces, are reasonable. A search or seizure t illegal, and one made under a séarch warrant ade wi u , a 's not necessarily legal. The coury empowered to rule upon the reasonableness of the warrant, taking iny sideration the attending circumstances of every case. The case of Salazar vs. Achacoso, GR 81510 shows that Mr. Marees mulgated PD 2018, giving the Labor Minister search and seizure powers ss well. Search Warrant Distingui inguished from Warrant of Arrest + Phil search f “It is only a judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest.” Mayors may not exercise this power. Neither may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer | issue search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, Article 38, paragraph C of the Labor Code is unconstitutional and of no force and effect. For the guidance of the bench and the bar, the C. firme _ Fo , ourt principles that (1) Under Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constant is only judges, and no other, who may issue warrants of arrest and search; | | | order arrested, following a final i deporation, Thus, the Court herein gran petit os an Pa | , Paragraph c of the Labor Cod ‘ GY declaring Artic thus ordering the POEA to return na skttional and null and void and | i i turn all . implementation of Search and Seizure Orders seized as a result of the Search warrant i ico is an Bude lippines, signed by a oe in writing, issued in | judge and directeq the name of the People oft ertain, to : Rule 126, Seca) PS0P4! Property and bring je 2°® Officer, commanding hil! 18, net it before the court (Rules of COMWarrant of arrest is issued upon the probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and particularly describing the person to be arrested. (Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sec. 1) Instances Wherein Search and Seizure may be Made without Warrant 1, There is consent or waiver; 2. Search incident to a lawful arrest; 3. In case of contraband or forfeited goods being transported by ship, automobile or other vehicle, where the officer making it has reasonable cause for believing that the latter contains them, in view of the difficulty attendant to securing a search warrant; Plain view or open to eye and hand; . Incidental to inspection, supervision and regulation in the exercise of police power such as inspection of restaurants by health officers, of factories by labor inspectors, etc.; 6. Routinary searches usually made at the border or at ports of entry in the interest of national security and for the proper enforcement of customs and immigration laws. Instances Wherein Arrest may be Made Without Warrant The Rules of Court, Rule 113, Sec. 5 provides that under the following circumstances, a peace officer or private person may arrest a person even without warrant: (1) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (2) When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (3) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped froma penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Section 3 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.1 in violation of tis or the preceding section sa, ny evidence obtained in v4 re ° Aicimissible for any purpose in any P sUGOD motel located along Aven; Query: B entered in fe of A has been spying on them, y, ‘es A and his paramour B entered a ing that k officer in order to Bet so. without them knowing hed the Front des i Me ea nf Tee eaoat Nand B, If you are the front desk officer, woulg Yo necessary inform: lain. give C her desired information about A and B? Exp! Answer: ' iveC . The authors submit that the Front desk fice Shot ease oh = des information about A and B, unless anchored witl rer eri from the court. Information that may be derived aes S adition the Re a i i i s. In Y fidentiality both in the point of law and business. 1 he RA I otherwise Gown as Data Privacy Act of 2012 is emphatic on the confidentiality « information for the protection of customers like in the example given. Section 4. 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 the redress of their grievances. Event organizing is one of the prospective fields that a hospitality management student may be connected with after their college days. In working with different kind of people in different occasions, future managers like the hospitality management students must be equipped with basic knowledge about freedom of expression which their clientele may deal with in any event that they will te organizing. in the case of US vs, Bustos, 37 Phil. 731, the court held ic offical US vs, ; 731, that a public offi on oe ned with reference to comments upon his official acts. e interest of t i i The in © Bovernment and the society demands full discussion of publi same must be (aya in good faith; and ( Preventi : to hepa through radi, “ven the playing field between se mae and newspapers is valid ino candidates,Obscenity is not within the freedom of expression clause of the Constitution. The case of People vs. Go Pin, August 8, 1955 provides the test of Obscenity, to wit: a. Whether the average person applying to contemporary community standards would find the work appeals to prurient interest; b, Whether the work depicts or describes a patently offensive sexual conduct; ¢. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political of ientific value. - _ACity Mayor may not order the warrantless seizure of magazines which he believes to be obscene; otherwise, he will become the complainant, prosecutor and judge at the same time. He should obtain a search warrant from a judge. (Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362) Query: Is the Red Light District protected by the freedom of expression enshrined in the 1987 Constitution? Section 5. No law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. The Philippines is known not only on its natural beauty as a tropical country, but as well as on its rich culture and tradition mostly acquainted with religions and beliefs. It must be noted that most of festivities being celebrated in the different parts of the country have its religious significance or relevance, such as Flores de Mayo, Dinagyang, Pahiyas, Sinulog, etc. In this regard, the authors believe on the necessity of making the students realize the importance of understanding Article IIL, Sec. 5 of the Constitution. Freedom of religion is any specific system of belief, worship or conduct, often involving a code of ethics and philosophy. It is also a principle that helps the freedom of the community or even individuals, in both public and private, to express religion in teaching, practice, prayers, without government intervention or influence. It has two aspects, to wit: 1. freedom to believe (absolute), and 2. Freedom to act on ones belief (subject to States regulation). Religious freedom is considered as fundamental human right in most nations, meaning, the government allows other religious practices aside from the religion of the state. There is no punishment allowed for those who have different faith. Article II, Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution is emphatic that the separation of the Church and the States shall be inviolable. This only means that the church cannot intervene on matters purely governmental act, while the government likewise can not meddle with the church on the laters purely ecclesiastical affairs. 21330 US 1, it was ruled out hich aids on aoe Tent a lo 7 2 a or NUNC ee isha ce for . rr y : ¢ him to Pee affairs of any religig” inst his will; or fore in the affai Blu, ne a cay parm that the State ca y organization or group and vice versa. ‘The Division Superintendent of Schocls al. vs. The tioners cannot be expelled fo, ducation, the case of Everson vs. Board of E s laws W! In set up sghe State cannot Sel the sion over another nor on ase of Ebralinag, et. : > cab larch 1, 1993), the court held that she eige or sing the national anthen refusing to salute the flag, recite the patrio pe me issue WaS raised in Gerong in order to follow their religious beliefs. The s2! UE Balbuna v6. Secret vs. Seeretary of Education, 110 Phil. 106 Phil 2 (1959) a ‘ave but a symbol of the of Education, 110 Phil.150 (1960). The flag is not an imag sy, of national unt Republic of the Philippines, an emblem of national sove! ign Oition quar and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the Saw soe nae and protect. Under a system of complete separation of ch rs nce government, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious significance. The law was likewise incorporated in Executive Order No. 297, September 21, 1988. The task of the court is extremely difficult for the 30-year 0 sis of this court in Gerona upholding the salute law and approving the expulsion of students, who refuse to obey, is not lightly to be trifled with. The idea that one may be compelled to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge, during flag ceremony on pain of being dismissed from one's job or be expelled in school, is alien to the conscience of the present generation of Filipinos who cut their teeth on the Bill of Rights which guarantees their rights to free speech and the free exercise of religious profession and worship (Section 5, Art. IIL, 1987 Constitution) xxx The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the exercise of religious freedom (in the dissenting opinion of CJ Teejankee in German vs, Baranagan) is the existence of a Brave and present danger of a character both Brave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, Section 6 The liberty of abode and changing of the same lazw shall not be impaired 7 le right to travel be impaired or public health, ‘within the limits prescribed by except upon Incoful order of the court. Neither shall the except in the interest of national securit ic as may be provided by law. e sn PueBe fey The Hospitality Management i i activities wherein the liberty of. abode: ena eo isla right to travel may be invoked. The »liberty of abode and travel is the right of a person to have his home in whatever place chosen by him and thereafter to change it as will, and to go where he pleases, without anybody interfering with In the case of Manotoc vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149, the court reasoned the following for denying the petition of Manotoc to travel: d. A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving, the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel. ©. “xxx the result of the obligation assumed by appellee to hold the accused amenable at all times to the orders and processes of the lower court was to prohibit the accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines, because, otherwise, said orders and processes will be nugatory, and in as much as the jurisdiction of the courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the Philippines they would have no binding force outside of said jurisdiction.” (People vs. Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404 (1935) f. To allow the petitioner to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason would place him beyond the reach of the courts. 8: Petitioner cites the Court of Appeals case of People vs. Shepherd (C.A- G.R. No. 23505-R, Feb. 13, 1980) as authority for his claim that he could travel. The Supreme Court held however that said case is not squarely on all fours with the case at bar. Unlike the Shepherd case, petitioner has failed to satisfy the courts of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as the consent of his surety to the proposed travel. h. It may thus be inferred that the fact that a criminal case is pending against an accused does not automatically bar him from travelling abroad. He must however convince the courts of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, and that his sureties are willing to undertake the responsibility of allowing him to travel. Query: 1. Daniel Victor plans to visit his cousin in Baguio City. Unfortunately, a City Ordinance was passed by Baguio banning all the tourists from July 5 to 10, the dates wherein Daniel Victor set his vacation in Baguio. The ban for tourists was in connection with the SARS advisory issued by the Department of Health. Can Daniel Victor question the said ordinance on the ground that constitution of the Philippines is clear as to the non- impairment on his right to travel? Section 8 The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.ismissed from employ n athat prohibits the came; nola "good customs, and mora lic order age their employees to ja, id et develop as better Person, help can bi ity indust tality the hospital's if there » person from zation i Nant of joining orn ie policy, pub eon isnotagainst public in shou! ganization is Fthe bus re the management of the DU wuld surely Univ iorent organizations that Wo erent orga on the ditte aa ithout just compensation. ic use f jus. erty shall not be taken for public use without j re ins to one of the inherent powers of th oi “omain he following elements shoul ain. aking is for private purpose ang, Section 9 of the Bill of Rights perta ; governmentwhichis the power of eminent dona be noted: (a) taking of a private property; (b) (c) there must be a just compensation. Section 10 i cobli contracts shall be passed. No lawo impairing the obligation of contract a (Law on obligation and contracts will be discussed further in Chapter 3) Citizenship Another constitutional provision that should be given emphasis related to hospitality industry is the citizenship. The latter is defined as the membership ina P Political community which is more or less permanent in nature (Albano, Political Law Reviewer, p. 350). Citizens of the Philippines The following are citizens of the of the 1987 Constitution: 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippine: ‘i . constitution; ‘PPines at the time of the adoption of this Philippines according to Article IV, Section 1 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are ci 3. Those born before Januar Philippine citizenship up 4. Those who 'izens of the Philippines; 'Y 17,1973, of Filipino mothers, why on reaching the age of maj ritysand. Nd elected are naturalized in accordance with law. Natural-born Citizens Defined it to perfor: itizens of the Philippines fy citizenship, m any act to acquire F om, San roche cet Pipe cienshp in ac art thee Philippine ‘of shall be deemed natural-born, citizens. ($2 ae wh Paragraph “Wection 2, ibid), 4Modes of Acquiring Citizenship ‘The following are the modes of acquiring citizenship: 1, Jus Sanguinis. It means that the citizenship of a person is acquired by blood relationship, as when a child is born by Filipino parents, wherever he may born. 2. Jus Soli. The citizenship of a person is determined by the place of birth. 3. Naturalization. It is a process whether judicial or administrative by which a state places the imprint of a native citizen when he adopts an alien and gives him the imprint and endowment of a citizen of that country. National Economy and Patrimony The national economy and patrimony provision of the 1987 Constitution plays a significant role in boosting the conservation of resources that we have as a tropical country. Such would be necessary for the development of Philippine tourism industry. The constitution provides the following goals of the national economy which could directly affect the present situation of the cases involving tourism. 1. A more equitable distribution of opportunities, income and wealth; 2. Sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the people; and 3, An expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged (Section 1, Article I, 1987 Constitution). To attain the goals of the national economy, the State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against foreign competition and trade practices (Section 1, Articles XII, 1987 Constitution). Nationalized Industries through Capital Restriction 1. Certain areas of investment shall be reserved by Congress to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least 60% of whose capital, or higher, is owned by Filipinos (Sec.10, Art XII, 1987 Constitution), 2. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. 3. In the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, preference shall be given to qualified Filipinos. 2354. The cise authority over foreign inve5n It State shall regulate and exer Diistce with Wetations ; Pal, jurisdicti in acc within its national jurisdiction and in a and priorities. ae P rm ofauthorization for the operat 0 No franchise, certificate, or any other fo! Au ‘theo ofa public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations organized under the au of aos Phili ines least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens (Se, ction i Article XII, 1987 Constitution). .. The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the general public. The participation of the foreign investor in the govern; body of any public utility enterprise shall be limited to their Proportionay share in its capital, and all the executive and managing officers of g corporation or association must be citizens of the Philippines. a - The State shall promote the pref i ilipi: t preferential use of Filipino labor, i materials and locally produced goods, and adopt iccures thi ae them competitive. athelp mak