ANTONIO ARANETA, ALEJANDRO ROCES, MANUEL CRUDO, ANTONIO U. 86-A, dated January 5, 1973, the following questions were posed before the Citizens Assemblies or Barangays: Do you approve of the New Constitution?
THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE , THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, THE SECRETARY OF LAND REFORM, THE SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, THE AUDITOR GENERAL, THE BUDGET COMMISSIONER, THE CHAIRMAN OF PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON REORGANIZATION, THE TREASURER OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE, respondents. 73, but also "any other similar decree, order, instruction, or proclamation in relation to the holding of a plebiscite on January 15, 1973 for the purpose of submitting to the Filipino people for their ratification or rejection the 1972 Draft or proposed Constitution approved by the Constitutional Convention on November 30, 1972"; and finally, [c] Petitioners prayed for such other relief which may be just and equitable. 73 and 86 beyond the reach and jurisdiction of this Honorable Court." On the same date January 15, 1973 the Court passed a resolution requiring the respondents in said case G. M., Tuesday, January 16, 1973," and setting the motion for hearing "on January 17, 1973, at a.m." While the case was being heard, on the date last mentioned, at noontime, the Secretary of Justice called on the writer of this opinion and said that, upon instructions of the President, he (the Secretary of Justice) was delivering to him (the writer) a copy of Proclamation No. Thereupon, the writer returned to the Session Hall and announced to the Court, the parties in G. 86, dated December 31, 1972, composed of all persons who are residents of the barrio, district or ward for at least six months, fifteen years of age or over, citizens of the Philippines and who are registered in the list of Citizen Assembly members kept by the barrio, district or ward secretary; "WHEREAS, the said Citizens Assemblies were established precisely to broaden the base of citizen participation in the democratic process and to afford ample opportunity for the citizenry to express their views on important national issues; "WHEREAS, responding to the clamor of the people and pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, striking down the husband notification provision but upholding the others. Moreover, the statute requires physicians to inform all of their patients of "[t]he probable gestational age of the unborn child." 3205(a)(1)(ii). Make no mistake, the joint opinion of Justices O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER is an act of personal courage and constitutional principle. 113 (1973), the authors of the joint opinion today join JUSTICE STEVENS and me in concluding that "the essential holding of Roe v. [T]he "critical elements" of countless constitutional doctrines nowhere appear in the Constitution's text. [ Footnote 1 ] As I shall explain, the joint opinion and I disagree on the appropriate standard of review for abortion regulations. [ Footnote 4 ] A growing number of commentators are recognizing this point. We would adopt the approach of the plurality in Webster v. In ruling on this litigation below, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit first observed that "this appeal does not directly implicate Roe; this case involves the regulation of abortions, rather than their outright prohibition." 947 F.2d 682, 687 (1991). In Roe, the Court observed that certain States recognized the right of the father to participate in the abortion decision in certain circumstances. S., at 830 (O'CONNOR, J., dissenting), and in addition furthers the State's interest in preserving unborn life. We think it beyond dispute that a State has a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of its young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely. It requires that, before a physician may perform an abortion on a married woman, the woman must sign a statement indicating that she has notified her husband of her planned abortion. We first emphasize that Pennsylvania has not imposed a spousal consent requirement of the type the Court struck down in Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. Such a law requiring only notice to the husband does not give any third party the legal right to make the [woman's] decision for her, or to prevent her from obtaining an abortion should she choose to have one performed. Minnesota, supra, at 496 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); see H. But reliance on such speculation is the necessary result of adopting the undue burden standard. A State's choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a "liberty" in the absolute sense. The right to abort, we are told, inheres in "liberty" because it is among "a person's most basic decisions," ante, at 849; it involves a "most intimate and personal choic[e]," ante, at 851; it is "central to personal dignity and autonomy," ibid.; it "originate[s] within the zone of conscience and belief," ante, at 852 it is "too intimate and personal" for state interference, ibid.;, it reflects "intimate views" of a "deep, personal character," ante, at 853; it involves "intimate relationships" and notions of "personal autonomy and bodily integrity," ante, at 857; and it concerns a particularly "`important decisio[n],'" ante, at 859 (citation omitted). 186 (1986)) has held are not entitled to constitutional protection - because, like abortion, they are forms of conduct that have long been criminalized in American society.
The findings of the District Court establish the severity of the burden that the 24-hour delay imposes on many pregnant women. Otherwise, the interest in liberty protected by the Due Process Clause would be a nullity. Roe identified two relevant state interests: "an interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman" and an interest in "protecting the potentiality of human life." 410 U. With respect to the State's interest in the health of the mother, "the `compelling' point . In order to fulfill the requirement of narrow tailoring, "the State is obligated to make a reasonable effort to limit the effect of its regulations to the period in the trimester during which its health interest will be furthered. The factual premises of the trimester framework have not been undermined, see Webster, 492 U. Gone are the contentions that the issue need not be (or has not been) considered. 11 Given THE CHIEF JUSTICE's exclusive reliance on tradition, people using contraceptives seem the next likely candidate for his list of outcasts. A woman's right to reproductive choice is one of those fundamental liberties. For example, does the Eighth Amendment impose any limits on the degree or kind of punishment a State can inflict upon physicians who perform, or women who undergo, abortions? But behind the facade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Section 3205(a)(1) requires a physician to disclose certain information about the abortion procedure and its risks and alternatives. An accurate description of the gestational age of the fetus and of the risks involved in carrying a child to term helps to further both those interests and the State's legitimate interest in unborn human life. 37 (required disclosure of gestational age of the fetus "certainly is not objectionable"). Petitioners contend that it should, however; they argue that the real effect of such a notice requirement is to give the power to husbands to veto a woman's abortion choice. Furthermore, because this is a facial challenge to the Act, it is insufficient for petitioners to show that the notification provision "might operate unconstitutionally under some conceivable set of circumstances." United States v. It bears emphasis that our conclusion in this regard does not carry with it any necessary approval of these regulations. There are certainly instances where a woman would prefer not to notify her husband, and yet does not qualify for an exception. Thus, whatever answer Roe came up with after conducting its "balancing" is bound to be wrong, unless it is correct that the human fetus is in some critical sense merely potentially human.
That the proceedings of the so-called Citizens' Assemblies are illegal, null and void particularly insofar as such proceedings are being made the basis of a supposed consensus for the ratification of the proposed Constitution because: [a] The elections contemplated in the Constitution, Article XV, at which the proposed constitutional amendments are to be submitted for ratification, are elections at which only qualified and duly registered voters are permitted to vote, whereas, the so called Citizens' Assemblies were participated in by persons 15 years of age and older, regardless of qualifications or lack thereof, as prescribed in the Election Code; [b] Elections or plebiscites for the ratification of constitutional amendments contemplated in Article XV of the Constitution have provisions for the secrecy of choice and of vote, which is one of the safeguards of freedom of action, but votes in the Citizens' Assemblies were open and were cast by raising hands; [c] The Election Code makes ample provisions for free, orderly and honest elections, and such provisions are a minimum requirement for elections or plebiscites for the ratification of constitutional amendments, but there were no similar provisions to guide and regulate proceedings of the so called Citizens' Assemblies; [d] It is seriously to be doubted that, for lack of material time, more than a handful of the so called Citizens' Assemblies have been actually formed, because the mechanics of their organization were still being discussed a day or so before the day they were supposed to begin functioning: "Provincial governors and city and municipal mayors had been meeting with barrio captains and community leaders since last Monday [January 8, 1973) to thresh out the mechanics in the formation of the Citizens Assemblies and the topics for discussion." [Bulletin Today, January 10, 1973] "It should be recalled that the Citizens' Assemblies were ordered formed only at the beginning of the year [Daily Express, January 1, 1973], and considering the lack of experience of the local organizers of said assemblies, as well as the absence of sufficient guidelines for organization, it is too much to believe that such assemblies could be organized at such a short notice. That for lack of material time, the appropriate amended petition to include the additional officials and government agencies mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Supplemental Urgent Motion could not be completed because, as noted in the Urgent Motion of January 12, 1973, the submission of the proposed Constitution to the Citizens' Assemblies was not made known to the public until January 11, 1973.
That with the withdrawal by the President of the limited freedom of discussion on the proposed Constitution which was given to the people pursuant to Sec. 73, the opposition of respondents to petitioners' prayer at the plebiscite be prohibited has now collapsed and that a free plebiscite can no longer be held." At about the same time, a similar prayer was made in a "manifestation" filed by the petitioners in L-35949, "Gerardo Roxas, et al. Commission on Elections, et al.," and L-35942, "Sedfrey A. That petitioners are now before this Honorable Court in order to ask further that this Honorable Court issue a restraining order enjoining herein respondents, particularly respondent Commission on Elections as well as the Department of Local Governments and its head, Secretary Jose Roño; the Department of Agrarian Reforms and its head, Secretary Conrado Estrella; the National Ratification Coordinating Committee and its Chairman, Guillermo de Vega; and their deputies, subordinates and/or substitutes, from collecting, certifying, announcing and reporting to the President the supposed Citizens' Assemblies referendum results allegedly obtained when they were supposed to have met during the period between January 10 and January 15, 1973, particularly on the two questions quoted in paragraph 1 of this Supplemental Urgent Motion; "4.
NOTE: This Verse by Verse Commentary page is part of an ongoing project to add notes to each verse of the Bible.
Therefore many verses do not yet have notes, but if the Lord tarries and gives me breath, additions will follow in the future.
James addressed the error of Antinomianism (anti = against nomos = law.See another short discussion or ) Wilkinson - The Epistle to the Galatians has been called “the charter of Christian liberty.” It is Paul’s manifesto of justification by faith and the liberty it produces.Paul directs this great charter of Christian freedom to a people who are willing to give up the priceless liberty they possess in Christ. 86, insofar at least as it attempts to submit the proposed Constitution to a plebiscite by the so-called Citizens' Assemblies, is properly in issue in this case, and those who enforce, implement, or carry out the said Presidential Decree No. and the instructions incidental thereto clearly fall within the scope of this petition; [b] In their petition, petitioners sought the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction restraining not only the respondents named in the petition but also their "agents" from implementing not only Presidential Decree No. "Therefore, viewing the case from all angles, the officials and government agencies mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Supplemental Urgent Motion, can lawfully be reached by the processes of this Honorable Court by reason of this petition, considering, furthermore, that the Commission on Elections has under our laws the power, among others, of: (a) Direct and immediate supervision and control over national, provincial, city, municipal and municipal district officials required by law to perform duties relative to the conduct of elections on matters pertaining to the enforcement of the provisions of this Code ..." [Election Code of 1971, Sec. 3, which shall also be deemed ratified pursuant to the Transitory Provisions of the proposed Constitution, has placed Presidential Decree Nos. L-35948 to file "file an answer to the said motion not later than 4 P. L-35948 inasmuch as the hearing in connection therewith was still going on and the public there present that the President had, according to information conveyed by the Secretary of Justice, signed said Proclamation No. "WHEREAS, the Constitution proposed by the nineteen hundred seventy-one Constitutional Convention is subject to ratification by the Filipino people; "WHEREAS, Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, in municipalities and in districts/wards in chartered cities pursuant to Presidential Decree No. But be that as it may, the said additional officials and agencies may be properly included in the petition at bar because: so that Presidential Decree No. That unless the petition at bar is decided immediately and the Commission on Elections, together with the officials and government agencies mentioned in paragraph 3 of this Supplemental Urgent Motion are restrained or enjoined from collecting, certifying, reporting or announcing to the President the results of the alleged voting of the so-called Citizens' Assemblies, irreparable damage will be caused to the Republic of the Philippines, the Filipino people, the cause of freedom an democracy, and the petitioners herein because: [a] After the result of the supposed voting on the questions mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof shall have been announced, a conflict will arise between those who maintain that the 1935 Constitution is still in force, on the one hand, and those who will maintain that it has been superseded by the proposed Constitution, on the other, thereby creating confusion, if not chaos; [b] Even the jurisdiction of this Court will be subject to serious attack because the advocates of the theory that the proposed Constitution has been ratified by reason of the announcement of the results of the proceedings of the so-called Citizens' Assemblies will argue that, General Order No. 1102 which is of the following tenor: "ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.