CONSTI 2 DOCTRINES / RULINGS (MIDTERMS COVERAGE)

AMENDMENT OR REVISION

AMENDMENT- refers to a change that adds, reduces or deletes without altering the basic principle
involved; affects only specific provision being amended.

REVISION- implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution like altering the principle
of separation of powers; as when the change affects substantial entirety of the constitution.

1. SANTIAGO VS COMELEC

Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and
Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective
officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987
Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication
of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing,
Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco filed a motion to
dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. The
petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the
several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend
the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The
Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.

Issue:

Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.

Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such
initiative.

Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the
Constitution.

Held:

Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing legislation the same
cannot operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot
exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.

The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what has been
delegated cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). The delegation of the power to
the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right to people’s initiative.

The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the
Constitution such as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access to
opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by

1|KKV-1Q SBU LAW

initiative. However, considering the Court’s decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the
petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.

2. LAMBINO VS COMELEC

Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the
1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative
petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals
fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by
modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will
shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC
denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs.
Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.

Issue:

Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative.

Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals
to amend the Constitution.

Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Group’s petition.

Held:

According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a
people’s initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing
the Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the
signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the
initiative void.

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and “revision, it is
intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only
amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change,
therefore a constitutes a revision.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution before complying
with RA 6735

2|KKV-1Q SBU LAW

INHERENT POWERS: GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Fundamental powers of the State are considered inherent because they are incidents of sovereignty
and do not depend on any law or the Constitution to be recognized or enforced. They are supposed
to co-exist with the State.

1. Similarities: (INICE) 2. Distinctions: (REPC)

Inherent in the State, exercised even without a) Police power regulates both liberty and
need of express constitutional grant. property; eminent domain
and taxation affect only property Rights.
Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be
effective without them. b) Police power and taxation are Exercised only
by government; eminent domain may be
Interferes with private rights, the methods used exercised by private entities.
by the State
c) Property taken in police power is usually
Compensable; presuppose an equivalent noxious or intended for a
compensation for private rights interfered with noxious purpose and may thus be destroyed;
while in eminent domain and
Exercised primarily by the Legislature. taxation, the property is wholesome and
devoted to public use or purpose.

d) Compensation in police power is the

intangible, altruistic feeling that
the individual has contributed to the public good;
in eminent domain, it is the full
and fair equivalent of the property taken; while in
taxation, it is the protection given
and/or public improvements instituted by
government for the taxes paid.

POLICE POWER

-Power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare.

CHARACTERISTICS 3. LUTZ VS ARANETA

1. Most pervasive Taxing power may be used as an implement of police power

2. Least limitable The law is thus a primarily an exercise of the police power of the state and
3. Most demanding of taxation was merely used to implement the state’s power.
the three powers The tax levied under the Sugar Adjustment Act (ca 567) is constitutional. The tax
4. Most essential under said Act is levied with a regulatory purpose, to provide means for the
Insistent rehabilitation and stabilization of the threatened sugar industry. Since sugar
5. Extending as it production is one of the great industries of our nation, its promotion, protection,
does to all the great
and advancement, therefore redounds greatly to the general welfare.
public needs

The justification is 4. ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ

found in SALUS
POPULI EST Police power cannot be bargained away through the medium of a contract.
SUPREMA LEX (The The impairment clause must yield to the police power whenever the
welfare of the people contract deals with a subject affecting the public welfare.
is the supreme law) RA 1180 “An Act to Regulate the Retail Business” is a valid exercise of police
and SIC UTERE TUO power. It was also then provided that police power cannot be bargained away
3|KKV-1Q SBU LAW
UT ALIENUM NON through the medium of a treaty or a contract. The Court also provided that RA
LAEDAS (So use 1180 was enacted to remedy a real and actual danger to national economy
your property as not posed by alien dominance and control. If ever the law infringes upon the said
to injure the property treaty, the latter is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent
of others) law and the same may never curtain or restrict the scope of the police power of
the state.

5. TIO VS VIDEOGRAM REGULATORY BOARD

Taxing power may be used as an implement of police power

Taxation has been made the implement of the state's police power. The levy of
the 30% tax is for a public purpose. It was imposed primarily to answer the need
for regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy,
the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the proliferation of
pornographic video tapes. And while it was also an objective of the DECREE to
protect the movie industry, the tax remains a valid imposition.

6. ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS SEC OF DAR

Eminent domain may be used as an implement of the police power

The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police
power and eminent domain.

The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229
was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent
Domain.

RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP
becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in
excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power
of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is
required is the surrender of the title and the physical possession of said excess
and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer.

A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of
the lawful subject and the method.

Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to be
determined is the method employed to achieve it.

TESTS OF POLICE 7. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION

POWER
An administrative regulation phasing out taxicabs more than six years old was
A. LAWFUL held a valid police measure to protect the riding public and promote their comfort
SUBJECT and convenience from the dangers posed by old and dilapidated taxis.

- The interests of the 8. VELASCO VS VILLEGAS

public in general, as
distinguished from SC sustained the validity of Ordinance No. 4964 prohibiting barber shop
those of a particular operators from rendering massage services in a separate room to prevent
class, require the immorality and enable authorities to properly assess license fees.
exercise of this
power. This means
that the activity or
4|KKV-1Q SBU LAW
property sought to 9. BAUTISTA VS JUNIO
be regulated affects
the general welfare; Police power was sustained in LOI No. 869 which prohibits heavy and extra-
if it does, then the heavy vehicles from using public streets on weekends and legal holidays, the
enjoyment of the object of the ban being energy conservation.
rights flowing
therefrom may have 10. LOZANO VS MARTINEZ
to yield to the
interests of the The enactment of BP 22 or Bouncing Check Law is a valid exercise of police
greater number. power and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment
for debt. What the law punishes is the act of making and issuing a worthless
check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment, which is
deemed a public nuisance. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the
law punishes. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property
but an offense against public order.

11. SANGALANG VS IAC

SC sustained the act of the mayor of Makati in opening two erstwhile private
roads in Bel Air Village on the basis of stipulations in the deeds of the donation
covering the said streets that they would be available to the general public under
certain conditions. The rationale was “the demands of the common good, in
terms of traffic decongestion and public convenience.”

12. DECS VS SAN DIEGO

The petitioner issued a regulation disqualifying any person who has failed the
NMAT three times from taking it again. Proper exercise of police power requires
the concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful means.
TESTS OF VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER:
(a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a
particular class, require the interference of the State, and
(b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the attainment of the
object sought to be accomplished and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of the police
power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State to insure that
the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients
may unwarily entrust their lives and health.

The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the

purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is
intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical profession
from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors.

13. DEL ROSARIO VS BENGZON

To protect and promote the right to health.

SC sustained the Generics Act which requires doctors to prescribe generic drug
products rather than specific brand medicines, some of which may cost more
than others because of the advertising cost that is added to their price.

The purpose of the Generics Act (RA 6675) is to carry out the policy of the State
to “promote and require the use of generic drug products that are therapeutically
equivalent to their brand name counterparts” for the therapeutic effect of a drug
does not depend on its “brand” but on the “active ingredients” which it contains.
The medicine that cures is the “active ingredient” of the drug, not the brand
5|KKV-1Q SBU LAW
 name by which it has been baptized by manufacturer.

14. LIM VS PACQUING

It was held that PD No 771 which expressly revoked all existing franchises and
permits to operate all forms of gambling facilities like jai-alai issued by local
governments was a valid exercise of police power. Gambling is a vice and a
social ill which the government must minimize or eradicate in pursuit of social
and economic development. It is to protect public morals and promote the
general welfare of the people.

15. TELEBAP VS COMELEC

The validity of Sec 92 of BP Blg 881 requiring radio and television stations to
give free air time to the respondent to be used as the COMELEC hour for
broadcasting information regarding the candidates in the 1998 elections was
being argued by the petitioner. It was argued that the requirement constituted a
taking without due process of law and payment of just compensation, besides
violating the equal protection clause and the provisions of their franchise.

The challenge was rejected by the SC which held that the law was a proper
regulation by the State of the use of the airwaves. Radio and television
broadcasting companies, which are given franchises, do not own the
airwaves and frequencies through which they transmit broadcast signals
and images. They are merely given the temporary privilege to use them.
Thus, such exercise of the privilege may reasonably be burdened with the
performance by the grantee of some form of public service.

As radio and television broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private
property is taken by the requirement that they provide air time to the COMELEC.

16. CHAVEZ VS ROMULO

The right to bear arms is merely a statutory privilege. The license to carry a
firearm is neither a property nor a property right. It does not create a vested right.
A permit to carry a firearm outside one’s residence may be revoked at any time.
Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute as to be
beyond the reach of police power.

The basis for the issuance of the assailed guidelines (guidelines in the
implementation of the ban on the carrying of firearms outside of residence) was
the need for peace and order in the society.

It is a valid exercise of police power with the promotion of public peace as its
objective and the revocation of all permit to carry firearm outside of
residence as the means.

17. MMDA VS GARIN

A license to operate a motor vehicle is not a property right but a privilege granted
by the State which may be suspended or revoked by the State in the exercise of
its police power, in the interest of public safety and welfare, subject to the
procedural due process requirements.

MMDA is not vested with police power; it is not an LGU of a public corporation
endowed with legislative power and it has no power to enact ordinances for the
welfare of the inhabitants of Metro Manila.
6|KKV-1Q SBU LAW
 18. CARLOS SUPERDRUG VS DSWD

RA 9257 or Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003 is a legitimate exercise of

police power. Administrative order No 177 issued by the DOH, providing that the
20% discount privilege of senior citizens shall not be limited to the purchase of
unbranded generic medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-
prescription medicine, whether branded or generic is valid. When conditions so
demand as determined by the Legislature, property rights must bow to the
primacy of police power because property rights, though sheltered by the due
process clause, must yield to the general welfare.

B. LAWFUL 19. QUEZON CITY VS ERICTA

MEANS
Section 9 of the City Ordinance No 6118 which requires memorial park operators
-The means to set aside at least 6% of their cemetery for charity burial of deceased persons
employed are is not a valid exercise of police power.
reasonably
necessary for the The ordinance is actually taking of private property for public use without
accomplishment of payment of just compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to
the purpose and not benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of building
unduly oppressive or maintaining a public cemetery for this purpose, the city passes the burden to
on individuals. private cemeteries.

20. YNOT VS. IAC

Lawful means as a test of validity of exercise

The challenged measure (EO No. 626-A) is an invalid exercise of police power,
because it is not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the law and is
unduly oppressive. It is difficult to see how prohibiting the transfer of carabaos
from one province to another can prevent their indiscriminate killing. Retaining
the carabaos in one province will not prevent their slaughter there. Prohibiting
the transfer of carabeef, after the slaughter of the carabaos, will not prevent the
slaughter either.

21. PHILIPPINE PRESS INSTITUTE VS COMELEC

The Supreme Court declared the COMELEC Resolution No. 2772 as

unconstitutional. It held that to compel print media companies to donate
“COMELEC space” amounts to “taking” of private personal property without
payment of the just compensation required in expropriation cases. Moreover, the
element of necessity for the taking has not been established by respondent
COMELEC, considering that the newspapers were not unwilling to sell
advertising space. The taking of private property for public use is authorized
by the constitution, but not without payment of just compensation. Also
Resolution No. 2772 does not constitute a valid exercise of the police power of
the state. In the case at bench, there is no showing of existence of a national
emergency to take private property of newspaper or magazine publishers.

7|KKV-1Q SBU LAW

EMINENT DOMAIN

- Power of the State to forcibly acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation
for some intended public use

REQUISITES FOR
THE EXERCISE: 22. RP VS LA ORDEN
(NPTPJ)
When exercised by a delegate, the determination of whether there is
genuine necessity for the exercise is a justiciable question.
I. NECESSITY Condemnation of private property is justified only if it is for the public good
and there is a genuine necessity therefore of a public character. The courts
There is a genuine have the power to inquire onto the legality of the exercise of the right of
necessity in the eminent domain and to determine whether or not there is a genuine necessity
exercise of eminent therefor.
domain, public in
character; 23. LAGCAO VS LABRA
Questions of
necessity or No arbitrariness in choice of property.
wisdom are Expropriation proceedings may be resorted to only after the other modes of
essentially political acquisition are exhausted. In this case, there was no showing at all why
when decided by petitioner’s property was singled out for expropriation by the City Ordinance
the national no 1843 (authorizing the Mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation
legislature and proceedings for the acquisition of petitioner’s lot) or what necessity impelled
usually not subject the choice.
to judicial review. According to Sec 9 of RA 7279 acquisition of lands must be in ff order:
a.) government own lands
b.) alienable lands of public domain
c.) unregistered lands
d.) declared areas or priority development, land improvement
e.) bagong lipunan improvement of sites
f.) privately owned lands

II. PRIVATE 24. CITY OF MANILA VS. CHINESE COMMUNITY

PROPERTY
Property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by
- All private delegate pursuant to general grant of authority.
property capable of The courts have the power of restricting the exercise of eminent domain to the
ownership may be actual reasonable necessities of the case and for the purposes designated by
expropriated, the law. The necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal
except money and corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the
choses in action. power of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity
is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the
general authority is a question that the courts have the right to inquire to.

25. REPUBLIC VS PLDT

Even services are enforced in property

The state, may, in the interest of national welfare transfer utilities to public
ownership upon payment of just compensation, there is no reason why the
state may not require a public utility to render services in the general interest
provided just compensation is paid.

8|KKV-1Q SBU LAW

III.TAKING 26. AYALA DE ROXAS VS CITY OF MANILA

-Imports a physical Trespass without actual eviction of owner

dispossession of May include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment
the property and of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary cases for which the
thus deprived of all property was intended. The imposition of an easement of a 3-meter strip on
beneficial use and the plaintiff’s property was considered taking.
enjoyment of his
property 27. PEOPLE VS FAJARDO

Prevention of ordinary uses for the property

The State may not permanently divest owners of the beneficial use of their
property and confiscate them solely to preserve the aesthetic appearance of
the community. An ordinance which permanently so restricts the use of
property that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond
regulation and must be recognized as a taking of property.

28. REPUBLIC VS CASTELLVI

Value of the property is determined either as of the date of taking or

filing of complaint (whichever come first)
The Supreme Court ruled that the “taking” should not be reckoned as of 1947,
and that just compensation should not be determined on the basis of the
value of the property as of that year.

The requisites for taking are: (EECPU)

1) the expropriator must enter a private property
2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period
3) it must be under warrant or color of authorities
4) the property must be devoted for public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected
5) the utilization of the property for public use must be such a way as to oust
the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the Republic was placed in

possession of the Castellvi property, by authority of court, on August 10,
1959. The “taking” of the Castellvi property for the purposes of determining
the just compensation to be paid must, therefore be reckoned as of June 26,
1959 when the complaint for eminent domain was filed. There is no basis to
the contention of the Republic that a lease on a year-to-year basis can give
rise to permanent right to occupy since by express provision a lease made for
a determinate time, as was the lease of Castellvi land in the instant case,
ceases upon the day fixed, without need of a demand. (Art. 1669, New Civil
Code).

29. NPC VS AGUIRRE-PADERANGA

Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a

corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement
resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land traversed
by transmission lines, as in the present case, also falls within the ambit of the
term "expropriation."

The easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under the power of eminent

domain. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the 230 KV
Mexico-Limay transmission lines, the limitation imposed by NPC against
9|KKV-1Q SBU LAW
 the use of the land for an indefinite period deprives private respondents
of its ordinary use.

It cannot be gainsaid that NPC's complaint merely involves a simple case of

mere passage of transmission lines over Dilao et al.'s property. Aside from the
actual damage done to the property traversed by the transmission lines, the
agricultural and economic activity normally undertaken on the entire property
is unquestionably restricted and perpetually hampered as the environment is
made dangerous to the occupant's life and limb.

IV. PUBLIC USE 30. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR VS CA

-Use directly Resolution 129, which authorizes the province to expropriate property in order
available to the to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-agricultural crops and housing
general public as a project for the government employees, is valid and the expropriation is for
matter of right and public use.
not merely of
forbearance There has been a shift from the literal to a broader interpretation of “public
purpose” or “public use” for which the power of eminent domain may be
exercised. Under the new concept, “public use” means public advantage,
convenience or benefit, which tends to contribute to the general welfare and
the prosperity of the whole community, like a resort complex for tourists or
housing project.

The expropriation of the property authorized by the questioned resolution is

for a public purpose. The establishment of a pilot development center
would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of the people of the
Province of Camarines Sur. Once operational, the center would make
available to the community invaluable information and technology on
agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of the
farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would be enhanced. The housing project
also satisfies the public purpose requirement of the Constitution.

31. REYES VS NHA

The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA. Accordingly,

petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of the eminent domain provision
of the Constitution by contending that the contract for low cost housing is a
deviation from the stated public use. It is now settled doctrine that the concept
of public use is no longer limited to traditional purposes.

The term "public use" has now been held to be synonymous with "public
interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and "public convenience." Thus,
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies
the requirement of public use.

Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to undertake, for the
common good and in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing
program of urban land reform and housing which will make at affordable cost
decent housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens
in urban centers and resettlement areas.

The expropriation of private property for the purpose of socialized

housing for the marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice.

10 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
V. JUST 32. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS VS. BURGOS
COMPENSATION
The provision of Article 1250 of the New Civil Code regarding extra-
-full and fair ordinary inflation is not applicable in determining the just compensation
equivalent of Amigable.
(monetary value) of
the property taken Article 1250 provides that, “In case extra-ordinary inflation or deflation of the
from the private currency stipulated should supervene, the value of the currency at the time of
owner by the the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment, unless there
expropriator is an agreement to the contrary.”

The Court held that based on the import of the law, it is clear that the said
provision applies only to cases where a contract or agreement is involved. It
does not apply where the obligation to pay arises from law, independent of
contract. The taking of private property by the Government in the exercise of
its power of eminent domain does not give rise to a contractual obligation.

The basis in the determination of the price of the land taken as just
compensation for its expropriation should be the value of the land at the time
of the taking, in 1924.

Moreover, the law clearly provides that the value of the currency at the time of
the establishment of the obligation shall be the basis of payment which, in
cases of expropriation, would be the value of the peso at the time of the taking
of the property when the obligation of the Government to pay arises.

33. EPZA VS DULAY

The ascertainment of what constitutes just compensation for property

taken in eminent domain cases is a judicial prerogative.
The Supreme Court ruled that the mode of determination of just compensation
in PD 1533, which fixes payment on the basis of the assessment by the
assessor or the declared valuation by the owner, is unconstitutional.

The method of ascertaining just compensation constitutes impermissible

encroachment to judicial prerogatives. It tends to render the courts inutile in a
matter in which under the Constitution is reserved to it for financial
determination. The valuation in the decree may only serve as guiding principle
or one of the factors in determining just compensation, but it may not
substitute the court’s own judgment as to what amount should be awarded
and how to arrive at such amount.

The determination of just compensation is a judicial function. The executive

department or the legislature may make the initial determination but when a
party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of Rights that the private
party may not be taken for public use without just compensation, no statute,
decree, or executive order can mandate that its own determination shall
prevail over the court’s findings. Much less can the courts be precluded from
looking into the justness of the decreed compensation.

11 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 34. ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS SEC OF DAR

Compensation is to be paid in money and no other but it was held that in

agrarian reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds, because
under the CARP, “we do not deal with the traditional exercise of the power of
eminent domain; we deal with a revolutionary kind of expropriation.”

35. ESLABAN VS ONORIO

Just compensation means not only in the correct amount to be paid to

the owner of the land but also payment within a reasonable time from its
taking.

Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered “just” for then

the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately
deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before
actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss. In this case,
just compensation is defined as not only the correct amount to be paid
but the reasonable time for the Government to pay the owner.

In the case at bar, the irrigation canal was constructed on Oct 1981 after the
property had been registered in May of 1976. In this case, prior expropriation
proceedings must be filed and just compensation shall be paid to the owner
before the land could be taken for public use.

The CA erred in this point by stating that the market value (just compensation)
of the land is determined in the filing of the complaint in 1991.The
determination of such value should be from the time of its taking by the NIA in
1981.

TAXATION

-Power of the State to demand from the members of society their proportionate share or contribution
in the maintenance of the government

Police power vs Taxation 36. GEROCHI VS DOE

The distinction rests in the Universal Charge is not a tax but an exaction in the exercise of
purpose for which the the State’s police power. The Universal Charge is imposed to
charge is made. If ensure the viability of the country’s electric power industry. It is well
generation of revenue is established doctrine that taxing power may be used as an implement
the primary purpose and of police power.
regulation is merely
incidental, the imposition is
a tax; but if regulation is the
primary purpose, the fact
that revenue is incidentally
raised does not make the
imposition a tax.

12 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
SITUS OF TAXATION 37. WELLS FARGO BANK VS COLLECTOR

Originally, the settled rule in the US is that intangibles have only one
situs for the purpose of inheritance tax and that such situs is in the
domicile of the decedent at the time of his death; which rule has been
relaxed lately.

The owner of the shares, who is residing in California, has

extended her activities with respect to her intangibles so as to
avail herself of the protection and benefit of the PH laws; the
actual situs of the shares of stock is in the Philippines. Jurisdiction of
PH government to tax must be upheld.

38. PASCUAL VS SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS

The ruling case law rules that the legislature is without power to
appropriate public revenue for anything but public purpose. The taxing
power must be exercised for public purposes only and the money
raised by taxation can be expended only for public purposes and not
for the advantage of private individuals.

In the case at bar, the legality of the appropriation of the feeder roads
depend upon whether the said roads were public or private property
when the bill was passed by congress or when it became effective.
The land which was owned by Zulueta, the appropriation sought a
private purpose and hence, null and void. The donation did not cure
the nullity of the appropriation; therefore a judicial nullification of a said
donation need not precede the declaration of unconstitutionality of the
said appropriation.

DOUBLE TAXATION 39. PUNZALAN VS MUNICIPAL BOARD OF MANILA

When additional taxes are There is no double taxation where one tax is imposed by the
laid on: national government and the other by the City government.
1. The same subject
2. By the same taxing SC held that there was a substantial distinction between the
jurisdiction petitioners and the other professionals as practitioners in Manila could
3. During the same taxing expect a more lucrative income than those in other parts of the
period country.
4. And for the same
purpose

EXEMPTION FROM 40. LLADOC VS COMMISIONER

TAXATION
Constitutional exemption for religious purposes refers only to
Taxation is the rule and property taxes.
exemption is the exception SC held that what the BIR assessed was a donee’s gift tax and it was
not a property tax but an excise tax imposed on the transfer of
Requisite: No law granting property by way of gift inter vivos.
any tax exemption shall be
passed without the 41. PROVINCE OF ABRA VS. HERNANDO
concurrence of a majority of
all the Members of The use of the property and not the ownership is the controlling

13 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
Congress [Sec. factor in determining exemption. There must be proof that the
28 (4), Art. VI, Constitution]. ACTUAL, DIRECT AND EXCLUSIVE use of the lands, buildings and
improvements are for religious purposes.
a) Sec. 28 (3) Art. VI:
Charitable institutions, 42. ABRA VALLEY COLLEGE VS AQUINO
churches and
parsonages or convents Exemption extends to uses which are incidental to the main
appurtenant thereto, purposes.
mosques, non-profit SC held that while the use of the second floor of the main building in
cemeteries, and the case at bar for residential purposes of the Director and his family,
all lands, buildings and may find justification under the concept of incidental use, which is
improvements, actually, complimentary to the main or primary purpose — educational, the
directly and exclusively lease of the first floor thereof to the Northern Marketing Corporation
used for cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered incidental to
religious, charitable or the purpose of education.
educational purposes shall
be exempt from taxation. 43. MCIAA VS. MARCOS

b) Sec. 4 (3) Art. XIV: All MCIAA is a “taxable person” under its Charter (RA 6958), and was
revenues and assets of only exempted from the payment of real property taxes. The grant of
non-stock, non-profit the privilege only in respect of this tax is conclusive proof of the
educational institutions legislative intent to make it a taxable person subject to all taxes,
used actually, directly and except real property tax.
exclusively for educational
purposes shall be exempt MCIAA is not exempt from realty tax by the City of Cebu. First, its tax
from taxes and duties, x x x exemption under its charter has already been withdrawn by the local
Proprietary educational government code. Second, while it is true that LGUs cannot levy tax
institutions, including those on property of the Republic of the Philippines or the National
co-operatively owned, may Government (outside Metro Manila), the beneficial use of property
likewise be entitled to such should not be given to a taxable person. Here, MCIAA is already the
exemptions subject to the owner of the parcels of land in question.
limitations provided by law
including restrictions on 44. LUNG CENTER VS. QUEZON CITY
dividends and provisions
for reinvestment. The portions occupied by the hospital used for its patients are exempt
from real property taxes while those leased to private entities are not
c) Sec. 4 (41 Art. XIV: exempt. In order to be entitled to the exemption, petitioner must be
Subject to conditions able to prove that: (1) it is a charitable institution (2) its real properties
prescribed by law, ail are actually, directly and exclusively used for charitable purpose.
grants,
endowments, donations, or
contributions used actually, 45. MIAA VS. COURT OF APPEALS
directly and exclusively for
educational purposes shall Laws granting exemption from tax are construed strictissimi juris
be exempt from tax. against the taxpayer and liberally of the taxing power.

d) Where tax exemption is Supremacy of the national government over local governments in
granted gratuitously, it may taxation.
be revoked at
will; but not if granted for a In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that airports, lands and
valuable consideration. buildings of MIAA are exempt from real estate tax for the following
reasons: (a) MIAA is not a government-owned or –controlled
corporation but an instrumentality of the National Government; and (b)
the real properties of MIAA are owned by the Republic of the
Philippines, and thus, exempt from local taxation.

When local governments invoke the power to tax on national

14 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 government instrumentalities, the exercise of the power is construed
strictly against local governments. The rule is that a tax is never
presumed and there must be clear language in the law imposing the
tax.

DUE PROCESS

MEANING OF DUE 1.DARTMOUTH COLLEGE VS WOODWARD

PROCESS Daniel Webster: “a law which hears before it condemns which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.”

Supreme Court ruled that the state of New Hampshire had violated the contract
clause in its attempt to install a new board of trustees for Dartmouth College.
Dartmouth’s charter constituted a contract and that New Hampshire had
violated this contract in attempting to replace the original trustees. The
court held that the obligation of the contract could not be impaired without
violating the Constitution.

2. ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATORS ASSOC. VS. CITY

OF MANILA
There is a presumption that the laws enacted by Congress are valid. Without
showing of strong foundation of invalidity, the presumption stays. As in this case,
there was only a stipulation of facts and such cannot prevail over the
presumption. Nothing in the petition is sufficient to prove the ordinance’s nullity
for an alleged failure to meet the due process requirement. The Ordinance No.
4760 (regulating hotels) is not violative of due process because it was enacted
to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals.

ASPECTS OF DUE 3. KWONG SING VS. CITY OF MANILA

PROCESS: Objective: to prevent fraud & protect customers
Manner: require receipts in English and Spanish
I. SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS The Court held that Ordinance 532 (which requires receipts in duplicate in
English and Spanish) is not oppressive or unjust. The purpose of the ordinance
This serves as a was to protect the customer of laundries who are not able to decode Chinese
restriction on characters from being defrauded. The rights of Chinese laundrymen are not less
government's law- because they may be aliens; they are entitled to the equal protection of the laws
and rulemaking without regard to their race.
powers.
4. YU CONG ENG VS. TRINIDAD
Objective: to prevent tax evasion
Manner: prohibit bookkeeping in any language other than English, Spanish and
any local dialect

The Court held that Act No 2972(Chinese Bookkeeping Law) is invalid because it
deprives Chinese merchants of their liberty and property without due process of
law. The PH government may make every reasonable requirement of its
taxpayers to keep proper records of their business transactions in English or
Spanish or Filipino dialect. However, it is not within the police power of the
Philippine Legislature, because it would be oppressive and arbitrary, to prohibit
all Chinese merchants from maintaining a set of books in the Chinese
language and thus prevent them from keeping advised of the status of
their business.

15 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
II. PROCEDURAL 5. GALMAN VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
DUE PROCESS
Impartial court is the very essence of due process of law. This criminal collusion
This serves as a as to the handling and treatment of the cases by public respondents at the secret
restriction on Malacañang conference (and revealed only after fifteen months by Justice
actions of judicial Manuel Herrera) completely disqualified respondent Sandiganbayan and voided
and quasi-judicial ab initio its verdict. The courts would have no reason to exist if they were allowed
agencies of to be used as mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and
government suppress the truth. More so, in the case at bar where the people and the world
are entitled to know the truth, and the integrity of our judicial system is at stake.

6. JAVIER VS. COMELEC

There was denial of due process when Commissioner Opinion, who was
formerly a law partner of respondent Pacificador, obstinately insisted in
participating in the case, thus denying the petitioner “the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge”.

This Court has repeatedly and consistently demanded "the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge" as the indispensable imperative of due process. To bolster that
requirement, we have held that the judge must not only be impartial but must
also appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his
decision will be just. Due process is intended to insure that confidence by
requiring compliance with what Justice Frankfurter calls the rudiments of fair
play. Fair play calls for equal justice. There cannot be equal justice where a
suitor approaches a court already committed to the other party and with a
judgment already made and waiting only to be formalized after the litigants shall
have undergone the charade of a formal hearing.

REQUISITES OF 7. SMITH, BELL & CO. VS NATIVIDAD

SUBSTANTIVE
DUE PROCESS: There can exist no measure of doubt as to the power of PH Legislature to enact
Act No 2761 to regulate the transportation of merchandise and passengers
1. LAWFUL between ports or places therein. The purpose of Legislature is to encourage PH
SUBJECT ship building.

a. Who are 8. VILLEGAS VS. HIU CHIONG

protected?
While it is true that Philippines is not obliged to admit aliens, within its territory
since an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process.
This guarantee includes the means of livelihood, protection of due process and
equal protection is given to all persons, both aliens and citizens.

b. Meaning of 9. BUCK VS. BELL

life
A statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally
retarded, “for the protection and health of the state,” did not violate due process
clause of the 14th Amendment of US constitution.

Life includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness,

free from dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which
make life enjoyable. (Justice Malcolm)

16 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 c. Meaning of 10. RUBI VS PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO
liberty
Mangyans living together in Tigbao does not make them slaves. They do not
work for anybody but for themselves. Therefore, there is no involuntary
servitude.

Liberty includes “the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary
personal restraint or servitude, x x x (It) includes the right of the citizen to be free
to use his faculties in all lawful ways x x x”

d. Meaning of a. One’s employment, profession, trade or calling is a “property right”

property
11. CRESPO VS. PROV. BOARD

It is a principle in American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, well-recognized

in this jurisdiction that one’s employment, profession is a “property right” and the
wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to
be property within the protection of due process.

b. Public office is not the property envisioned by the Constitution

12. LIBANAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN

The mandatory suspension from office of a public official pending criminal

prosecution for violation of RA 3019 cannot amount to a deprivation of property
without due process of law. Public office is a “public agency or trust” and is not
the property envisioned by the Constitutional provision which Libanan invokes.

c. Employee who retires and meets eligibility requirements, acquires

vested right to benefits that is protected by due process clause.

13. GSIS VS. MONTESCLAROS

No law can deprive such persons of his pension rights without due process of
law, that is, without notice and opportunity to be heard.

d. License authorizing operation of cockpit is not a property

14. PEDRO VS. PROV. BOARD OF RIZAL

A license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of

which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law but a mere
privilege which may be revoked when the public interests so require.

2. LAWFUL 15. LORENZANA VS CAYATANO

MEANS
It cannot be said that the constitutional requirements of due process were
A. Procedural Due sufficiently complied with because the respondent had been duly heard. Indeed,
Process in respondent was heard but simply hearing her did not fulfill the basic conditions of
Judicial procedural due process in courts. When respondent appeared before the court
Proceedings to protect and preserve her property, the Court had not lawfully acquired
jurisdiction over the property of the respondent because the premises of the
respondent was not included in the ejectment cases and the judgment in said
cases could not affect her property, much less demolish the same.

17 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 16. ZAMBALES CHROMITE VS CA

The palpably flagrant anomaly of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources

reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a mockery of administrative
justice. The Mining Law provides that conflicts arising out of mining location shall
be submitted to the Director of Mines for a decison provided that it may be
appealed to the Secretary.

Undoubtedly, the law contemplates that the Secretary should be a person

different from the Director. In order that the review of the decision of a
subordinate might not turn out to be a sham, the reviewing officer must
necessarily be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise,
there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case.

Petitioners were deprived of due process when Gozon reviewed his own
decision.

17. DAVID VS AQUILIZAN

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner. It is well-settled rule that "no one shall
be personally bound until he has had a day in court", by which is meant, until he
has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be
heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a
judicial determination; it is a judicial usurpation and oppression, and can never
be upheld where justice is justly administered.

And it has been held that a final and executory judgment may be set aside with a
view to the renewal of the litigation when the judgment is void for lack of due
process of law. It may be attacked directly or collaterally, and the action therefor
may be brought even after the time for appeal or review has lapsed. The
judgment is vulnerable to attack even when no appeal has. Hence, such
judgment does not become final in sense of depriving a party of his right to
question its validity.

18. ANZALDO VS CLAVE

Decision of respondent set aside and Anzaldo’s appointment declared valid. Due
process of law means fundamental fairness. It is not fair to Anzaldo that
Presidential Executive Assistant Clave should decide whether his own
recommendation as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as to which
doctor should be appointed for the position, should be adopted by the President
of the Philippines. Common sense and propriety dictate that the commissioner in
the Civil Service Commission, who should be consulted by the Office of the
President, should be a person different from the person in the Office of the
President who would decide the appeal of the protestant in a contested
appointment.

In this case, the person who acted for the Office of the President is the same
person in the Civil Service Commission who was consulted by the Office of the
President: Jacobo C. Clave. We hold that respondent Clave committed a grave
abuse of discretion in deciding the appeal in favor of Doctor Venzon. The
appointing authority, Doctor Afable, acted in accordance with law and properly
exercised his discretion in appointing Doctor Anzaldo to the contested position.

19. GALMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN

18 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 The Court held that the people were denied due process which requires an
impartial tribunal and an unbiased prosecution.

20. JAVIER VS COMELEC

An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine
the matter before it.

There was denial of due process when Commissioner Opinion, who was
formerly a law partner of respondent Pacificador, obstinately insisted in
participating in the case, thus denying the petitioner “the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge”.

21. LIM VS CA

Mayor Alfredo Lim has no authority to close down Bistro’s business or any
business establishment in Manila without due process of law. Lim cannot take
refuge under the Revised Charter of the City of Manila and the Local
Government Code.

There is no provision in these laws expressly or impliedly granting the mayor

authority to close down private commercial establishments without notice and
hearing, and even if there is, such provision would be void. The due process
clause of the Constitution requires that Lim should have given Bistro an
opportunity to rebut the allegations that it violated the conditions of its licenses
and permits. The regulatory powers granted to municipal corporations must
always be exercised in accordance with law, with utmost observance of the
rights of the people to due process and equal protection of the law.

22. MARIVELES SHIPYARD VS CA

Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. Due process in labor cases before a
Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit
their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting
documents or documentary evidence that would support their respective claims.

EQUAL PROTECTION

EQUAL PROTECTION Requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
19 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed

GENERAL RULE: similar subjects should not be treated differently so as to

give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others.

EXCEPTION: Valid Classification- grouping of persons or things similar to

each other in certain particulars and different from all others in these same
particulars.

VALID CLASSIFICATION
1. Must be based upon PASEI vs DRILON
substantial distinctions Female labor force abroad, especially domestic servants, suffer exploitation,
physical abuse, maltreatment even rape and torture. The same, cannot be
said of our male workers.

2. Must be germane to PASEI vs DRILON

the purpose of the law
Purpose of the law: “enhance the protection for Filipino female overseas
workers.”
Classification: ban on deployment of Filipino female domestics will be for
their own good and welfare.
3. Must not be limited to PASEI vs DRILON
existing conditions only Department Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions but
intended to apply indefinitely so long as those conditions exist (pending
review of administrative and legal measures)

4. Must apply equally to PASEI vs DRILON

all members of the same Applicable to all female domestic overseas workers. That it does not apply
class to “all Filipino workers”

I. SUBSTANTIVE YICK WO vs HOPKINS

EQUALITY Statute was not discriminatory on its face; reduce the risk of fire; however
only Chinese laundries were affected by the statute. Statute was intended to
reduce Chinese laundries rather than risk of fire. The kind of biased
enforcement experienced by petitioner amounted as denial of equal
protection of law.

II. ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE vs VERA

EQUALITY A law may appear to be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet if it
permits of unjust and illegal discrimination, it is within the constitutional
prohibitions.

SCOPE OF EQUALITY

ICHONG vs HERNANDEZ
ECONOMIC RIGHTS Essence of real and actual, positive and fundamental differences between
an alien and a national which fully justify the legislative classification
adopted in the retail trade measure.

VILLEGAS vs HIU CHIONG

P50.00 fee is unreasonable not only because it is excessive but because it
fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual
aliens who are required to pay it

TATAD vs SEC OF ENERGY

20 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W
 RA 8180 discriminates against new players who are placed at a
competitive disadvantage compared to established oil companies by
requiring them to meet certain conditions already being observed by the
latter.

POLITICAL RIGHTS CENIZA vs COMELEC

Law excluding residents of Mandaue City from voting for provincial officials
was justified as a matter of legislative discretion and that equal protection
would be violated only if groups within the city were allowed to vote while
others were not.

NUNEZ vs SANDIGANBAYAN
That a different procedure for the accused therein whether private citizen or
public official is not necessarily offensive to the equal protection clause.

SOCIAL RIGHTS PASEI vs DRILON

Filipino female domestics working abroad were in a class bythemselves
because of the special risks to which their class was exposed.
Classification is germane to the purpose behind the law: “to enforce the
protection for Filipino female overseas worker.”

ISAE vs QUISIMBING
Persons who work with substantially equal qualification, skill, effort and
responsibility under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. This
rule applies to the School, its “international character” notwithstanding.

Sources:

Political Law Reviewer by Nachura

Constitutional Law by Cruz

PPTs of Atty. Gallant

21 | K K V - 1 Q S B U L A W