Colasito, Vernon Craig M.
Balancing of interests and the judicial question: testing the reasonableness of drunk and drugged driving searches and seizures / - Cebu City : University of Cebu, 2017. - iv, 107 leaves :
Thesis (Degree of Juris Doctor) -- University of Cebu- Banilad, 2017.
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 99-105).
Summary: Every person has the right against unreasonable search and seizure. However, there are kinds of warrantless searches and seizures that are deemed not unreasonable by jurisprudence. Republic Act 10586, otherwise known as the Anti-drunk and Drugged Driving Law, was passed to curb drunk and drugged driving. It prescribes a warrantless search and seizure. Hence, the purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the search and seizure under the anti-drunk and drugged driving law is reasonable.
The study will use the qualitative method of research using a content and document analysis of different legal provisions, particularly section II of Article III of the 1987 Constitution and various jurisprudence interpreting the same. American jurisprudence will also be studied, being instructive although non seizure and the present tests to determine reasonableness. Next, the researcher will apply the test of reasonableness, i.e.., the balancing of interest test and the judicial question doctrine against the search and seizure under the Anti-drunk and drugged driving law.
In the study, the researcher found that there is no hard and fast rule or ready test for reasonableness however, the Supreme Court laid down the balancing of interest test and the judicial question doctrine. The balancing of interest test applies to statutory searches whereas the judicial question doctrine applies to searches with particularized facts. Applying the balancing of interest test to the search and seizure under the Anti-drunk and Driving law, the law passes the test because a compelling state interest exists, i.e., the need for road safety by curbing drink and drunk driving. However, the law fails under the judicial question doctrine because it prescribes an absurd basis for flagging down and an unduly intrusive procedure.
English
[hardbound]
Balancing of interests and the judicial question: testing the reasonableness of drunk and drugged driving searches and seizures / - Cebu City : University of Cebu, 2017. - iv, 107 leaves :
Thesis (Degree of Juris Doctor) -- University of Cebu- Banilad, 2017.
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 99-105).
Summary: Every person has the right against unreasonable search and seizure. However, there are kinds of warrantless searches and seizures that are deemed not unreasonable by jurisprudence. Republic Act 10586, otherwise known as the Anti-drunk and Drugged Driving Law, was passed to curb drunk and drugged driving. It prescribes a warrantless search and seizure. Hence, the purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the search and seizure under the anti-drunk and drugged driving law is reasonable.
The study will use the qualitative method of research using a content and document analysis of different legal provisions, particularly section II of Article III of the 1987 Constitution and various jurisprudence interpreting the same. American jurisprudence will also be studied, being instructive although non seizure and the present tests to determine reasonableness. Next, the researcher will apply the test of reasonableness, i.e.., the balancing of interest test and the judicial question doctrine against the search and seizure under the Anti-drunk and drugged driving law.
In the study, the researcher found that there is no hard and fast rule or ready test for reasonableness however, the Supreme Court laid down the balancing of interest test and the judicial question doctrine. The balancing of interest test applies to statutory searches whereas the judicial question doctrine applies to searches with particularized facts. Applying the balancing of interest test to the search and seizure under the Anti-drunk and Driving law, the law passes the test because a compelling state interest exists, i.e., the need for road safety by curbing drink and drunk driving. However, the law fails under the judicial question doctrine because it prescribes an absurd basis for flagging down and an unduly intrusive procedure.
English
[hardbound]