Case Digest (G.R. No. 68828) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
On October 2, 1984 at about 5:00 P.M., petitioners Reli German, Ramon Pedrosa, Tirso Santillan Jr., Ma. Luisa Andal and some fifty (50) other businessmen, students and office employees converged at J.P. Laurel Street in Manila to hear Mass and pray at St. Jude Chapel, which adjoins the Malacañang security perimeter. Clad in yellow T-shirts, they marched with raised fists and chanted anti-government slogans until respondent Major Isabelo Lariosa, acting on orders from respondent General Santiago Barangan, barred their further entry on the ground that the chapel lay within a restricted zone. After petitioners’ pleas went unheeded and they were warned that any future attempt would be equally prevented, they left the area and filed an original petition before the Supreme Court seeking (1) a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to allow them to enter and pray inside St. Jude Chapel, and (2) a writ of injunction to enjoin respondents from preventing their access in the future.Issu
Case Digest (G.R. No. 68828) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Petitioners’ actions and objectives
- On October 2, 1984 at about 5:00 PM, some fifty businessmen, students, and office employees wearing yellow T-shirts and raising clenched fists marched along J.P. Laurel Street, Manila.
- They professed to converge at St. Jude Chapel (adjoining Malacañang), to pray and hear Mass, while chanting antigovernment slogans.
- Security response and subsequent petition
- Major Isabelo Lariosa, under orders from Gen. Santiago Barangan, barred petitioners from proceeding further, citing the chapel’s location within the Malacañang security perimeter.
- After being warned against future attempts to enter the chapel, petitioners sought:
- A writ of mandamus to compel access for worship; and
- A writ of injunction to enjoin any further obstruction.
Issues:
- Did respondents’ refusal to allow entry into St. Jude Chapel violate the petitioners’ constitutional guarantee of freedom of religious worship (Section 8, Article IV, 1973 Constitution)?
- Did the security restriction on J.P. Laurel Street unconstitutionally impair petitioners’ liberty of travel (Section 5, Article IV, 1973 Constitution)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)