CASE 1: JAMISON V.

TEXAS

Jamison v. State of Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the
United States held that a Dallas city ordinance, which prohibited distribution of handbills on the
streets, violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because the material being
distributed is religious in its nature.

Facts of the case

Jamison, a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was charged with distributing handbills on the
streets of Dallas, Texas, in violation of an ordinance of that city which prohibits their
distribution. She was convicted in the Corporation Court of Dallas, and appealed to the County
Criminal Court where, after a new trial, she was again convicted and a fine of $5.00 and costs
was imposed.

Decision of the Court

Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court.

"The state can prohibit the use of the street for the distribution of purely commercial leaflets,
even though such leaflets may have 'a civic appeal, or a moral platitude' appended. They may not
prohibit the distribution of handbills in the pursuit of a clearly religious activity merely because
the handbills invite the purchase of books for the improved understanding of the religion or
because the handbills seek in a lawful fashion to promote the raising of funds for religious
purposes."

CASE 2: CALALANG V. WILLIAMS [G.R. NO. 47800. DECEMBER 2, 1940.]

The case of Calalang vs Williams is known for the elegant exposition of the definition of social
justice. In this case, Justice Laurel defined social justice as “neither communism, nor despotism,
nor atomism, nor anarchy” but humanization of laws and equalization of social and economic
forces by the State so that justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated.

As I browse through the entire case, I found out that there is more to this case than the definition
of social justice. In fact, another important issue raised here is whether there was a valid
delegation of power by the National Assembly to the Director of Public Works. Let us begin
with the facts of the case.

Facts:

In pursuance of Commonwealth Act 548 which mandates the Director of Public Works, with the
approval of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, shall promulgate the necessary
rules and regulations to regulate and control the use of and traffic on such roads and streets to
promote safe transit upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets designated as national
roads, the Director of Public Works adopted the resolution of the National Traffic Commission,
prohibiting the passing of animal drawn vehicles in certain streets in Manila.

Petitioner questioned this as it constitutes an undue delegation of legislative power.

Issues:

Whether or not there is an undue delegation of legislative power?

Ruling:

There is no undue deleagation of legislative power. Commonwealth Act 548 does not confer
legislative powers to the Director of Public Works. The authority conferred upon them and under
which they promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not to determine what
public policy demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down by the National
Assembly in said Act, to wit, “to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and
streets designated as national roads by acts of the National Assembly or by executive orders of
the President of the Philippines” and to close them temporarily to any or all classes of traffic
“whenever the condition of the road or the traffic makes such action necessary or advisable in the
public convenience and interest.”

The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the determination of what the law shall be, but
merely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon which the application of said law
is to be predicated.

To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of national roads and to determine when and how
long a national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the condition of the road or the traffic
thereon and the requirements of public convenience and interest, is an administrative function
which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly.

It must depend on the discretion of some other government official to whom is confided the duty
of determining whether the proper occasion exists for executing the law. But it cannot be said
that the exercise of such discretion is the making of the law.

CASE 3: US VS. SALAVERIA(G.R. NO. L-13678, NOVEMBER 12, 1918)

FACTS:
The municipal council of Orion, Bataan, enacted, on February 28, 1917, an ordinance which,
among other things, prohibited the playing of panguingue on days not Sundays or legal holidays,
and penalized the violation thereof by a casero [housekeeper] by a fine of not less than P10 nor
more than P200, and by jugadores [gamblers] by a fine of not less than P5 nor more than P200.
The justice of the peace of Orion, when this ordinance went into effect, was Prudencio Salaveria,
now the defendant and appellant. Notwithstanding his official station, on the evening of March 8,
1917, not a Sunday or legal holiday, seven persons including the justice of the peace an his wife
were surprised by the police while indulging in a game of panguingue in the house of the justice
of the peace. The chief of police took possession of the cards, the counters (sigayes), a tray, an
P2.07 in money, used in the game.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Ordinance No. 3 of Orion, Bataan, is found to be valid.
HELD:
Wherefore, although panguingue is not entirely a game of chance, since it is a proper subject for
regulation by municipal authorities acting under their delegated police power, whose laudable
intention is to improve the public morals and promote the prosperity of their people, their action
should be upheld by the courts. Ordinance No. 3 of Orion, Bataan, is found to be valid.

Ordinance No. 3
xxx xxx xxx

Third. — The games known as "Panguingue" "Manilla," "Jung-kiang," "Paris-Paris,"

"Poker," "Tute," "Burro," and "Treinta-y-uno" shall be allowed only on Sundays an official
holidays.

xxx xxx xxx

The following penalties shall be imposed upon those who play the above games on days
other than Sundays and official holidays:

For the owner of the house: A fine of from Ten to Two hundred pesos, or subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one peso a day.

For the gamblers: A fine of from Five to Two hundred pesos each or subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency at the rate of one peso a day.

General Welfare Clause(sec. 2238, Adm. Code of 1917):

The municipal council shall enact such ordinances and make such regulations, not repugnant to
law, as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers an duties conferred upon
it by law an such as shall seem necessary and proper to provide for the health and safety,
promote the prosperity, improve the morals, peace, good order, comfort, and convenience of
the municipality and the inhabitants thereof, and for the protection of property therein.

CASE 4: BUCK VS BELL(274 US 200)

In the Buck vs. Bell decision of May 2, 1927, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Virginia
statute that provided for the eugenic sterilization for people considered genetically unfit. The
Court's decision, delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., included the infamous phrase "Three
generations of imbeciles are enough." Upholding Virginia's sterilization statute provided the
green light for similar laws in 30 states, under which an estimated 65,000 Americans were
sterilized without their own consent or that of a family member.

Although Indiana passed the first eugenic sterilization statute in 1907, this and other early laws
were legally flawed and did not meet the challenge of state court tests. To remedy this situation,
Harry Laughlin of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor designed a model
eugenic law that was reviewed by legal experts. The Virginia statute of 1924 was closely based
on this model.

The plaintiff of the case, Carrie Buck, and her mother Emma, had been committed to the
Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded in Lynchburg, Virginia. Carrie and Emma
were both judged to be "feebleminded" and promiscuous, primarily because they had both had
borne children out of wedlock. Carrie's child, Vivian, was judged to be "feebleminded" at seven
months of age. Hence, three generations of "imbeciles" became the "perfect" family for Virginia
officials to use as a test case in favor of the eugenic sterilization law enacted in 1924.

On the eve of the Virginia legal contest, the ERO dispatched its field worker, Dr. Arthur
Estabrook, to provide expert testimony. After some cursory examination, Estabrook testified that
the seven month old Vivian "showed backwardness." The Superintendent of the Virginia Colony,
Dr. Albert Priddy, testified that members of the Buck family "belong to the shiftless, ignorant,
and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South." Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme
Court concurred "that Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate
offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general
health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization"

Buck vs. Bell was flawed in many ways. "Feeblemindeness" is no longer used in medical
terminology; it was clearly a catch-all term that had virtually no clinical meaning. It is
impossible to judge whether or not Carrie was "feebleminded" by the standards of her time, but
she was not patently promiscuous. According to Carrie, Vivian's conception was the result of
Carrie's rape by the nephew of her foster parents. She, probably like many unwed mothers of that
time, was institutionalized to prevent further shame to the family. Just as clearly, Vivian was no
imbecile. Vivian's first grade report card from the Venable School in Charlottesville showed that
this daughter of a supposed social degenerate got straight "As" in deportment (conduct) and even
made the honor role in April, 1931. She died a year later of complications following a bout of the
measles.

Although in 1942 the Supreme Court struck down a law allowing the involuntary sterilization of
criminals, it never reversed the general concept of eugenic sterilization. In 2001, the Virginia
General Assembly acknowledged that the sterilization law was based on faulty science and
expressed its "profound regret over the Commonwealth's role in the eugenics movement in this
country and over the damage done in the name of eugenics." On May 2, 2002 a marker was
erected to honor Carrie Buck in her hometown of Charlottesville.