1

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
SY 2024-2025

PRELIMS

First Week

I. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

Three Inherent Powers of the State

Similarities, Distinctions, Limitations

A. Police Power
Definition
Requisites of Valid Exercise
Scope and General Characteristics
Limitations
Test to determine the validity of
police power
Cases:
1. Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R
126102, December 4, 2000
2. Lucena Grand Central Terminal
vs. JAC Liner, G.R. 148339, February 23,
2005
3. City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio,
G.R. 118127, April 12, 2005
4. Carlos Superdrug Corporation
vs. DSWD, et al., G.R. 166494, June 29,
2007
5. Social Justice Society vs. Alfredo
Lim, G.R. 187836, November 25, 2014
6. City Government of Quezon City
vs. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24,
1983
7. PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No.
144681, June 21, 2004
8. MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No.
130230, April 15, 2005
9. Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana
Growers and Exporters, G.R. Nos. 189185
& 189305, August 16, 2016
10. Philippine Association of
Service Exporters vs. Drilon, G.R. No. L-
81958, June 30, 1988
 2

B. Power of Eminent Domain

Definition
Exercising Authority
Requisites for Valid Exercise
Cases:
11. Manila Memorial Park
vs.Secretary DSWD, G.R. 175356,
December 3, 2013
12. Spouses Cabahug vs. National
Power Corporation, G.R. 186069, January
30, 2013
13. Landbank of the Philippines vs.
Escarilla & Co., G.R. 178046, June 13,
2012
14. Reyes vs. National Housing
Authority, G.R. 147511, January 20, 2003
15. Republic vs. Lim, G.R. No.
161656, June 29, 2005
16. Republic vs. PLDT, Co., G.R.
No. L-18841, January 27, 1969
17. Republic vs. Vda. De Castellvi,
G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974
18. Municipality of Paranaque vs.
V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, July
20, 1998

C. Power of Taxation
Definition
Rationale of taxation
Nature of the power of taxation
Requisites of Valid Exercise
Exercising Authority
Limitation
Double Taxation
Tax Exemption
Principles Governing Tax
Exemptions
Tax Amnesty vs. Tax Exemption
Kinds of Exemptions
License Fee vs. Tax

Cases:
19. Gerochi vs. Department of
Energy, G.R. 159796, July 17, 2007
 3

20. City Government of Quezon

City, et al., vs. Bayan Tel., Inc., G.R.
162015, March 6, 2006
21. Abakada Guro Party List, et al.
vs. Ermita, et al., G.R. 168056,
September 1, 2005
22. Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corporation vs. BIR, G.R. No.
172087, March 15, 2011
23. Sison vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-
59431, July 25, 1984
24. Abra Valley College vs. Aquino.
G.R. No. L-390086, June 15, 1988
25. Pascual vs. Secretary of Public
Works, G.R. No. L-10405, December 29,
1960

Fundamental Powers of the State

Inherent Powers of the State:

a) Police Power
b) Power of Eminent Domain
c) Power of Taxation

Similarities, Distinctions, Limitations

Similarities:
a) inherent in the Senate
b) necessary and indispensable
c) method by which the State intervenes with private property
d) exercised by the legislature

Distinctions:
a) police power regulates both liberty and property; eminent
domain and taxation affect property rights only
b) police and taxation power can be exercised by the
government only; eminent domain may be exercised
private entities;
c) property taken in police power is usually noxious and may
be destroyed; eminent domain and taxation the property is
wholesome and devoted to public use or purpose;
d) compensation in police power is intangible, altruistic
feeling of contribution to public good; in eminent
domain the full and fair equivalent of property taken ; in
 4

taxation it is the protection given and/or public

improvements.
e) police and taxation power are directed against the whole
constituency; eminent domain against a particular
property.

Limitations:
The Bill of Rights, subject to exceptions.

A. POLICE POWER

It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining

and regulating the use and enjoyment of liberty and property;

- the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health,

morals, peace, education, good order or safety, and general
welfare of the people.

Requisites for the valid exercise of police power:

a) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished
from those of a particular class, should justify the
interference of the State; and
b) the means employed are reasonably necessary.

Scope and General Characteristics

The most pervasive, least limiting and most demanding.

Limitations on the valid exercise of police power

1. Lawful subject

The interests of the public in general, as distinguished from

those of a particular class, require the exercise of the power. The
activity or property sought to be regulated affects the general
welfare.

2. Lawful Means
The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on
individual.

Additional Limitations When Police Power is Delegated

a) express grant by law
b) within territorial limits
c) must not be contrary to law
 5

For municipal ordinances to be valid, they: a) must not

contravene the Constitution or any statute; b) must not be unfair or
oppressive; c) must not be partial or discriminatory; d) must not
prohibit, but may regulate trade; e) must not be unreasonable; and f)
must be general in application and consistent with public policy.

Cases:
1. Ortigas & Co. vs. CA, G.R 126102,
December 4, 2000
2. Lucena Grand Central Terminal
vs. JAC Liner, G.R. 148339, February 23,
2005
3. City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio,
G.R. 118127, April 12, 2005
4. Carlos Superdrug Corporation
vs. DSWD, et al., G.R. 166494, June 29,
2007
5. Social Justice Society vs. Alfredo
Lim, G.R. 187836, November 25, 2014
6. City Government of Quezon City
vs. Ericta, G.R. No. L-34915, June 24,
1983
7. PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No.
144681, June 21, 2004
8. MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No.
130230, April 15, 2005
9. Mosqueda vs. Pilipino Banana
Growers and Exporters, G.R. Nos. 189185
& 189305, August 16, 2016
10. Philippine Association of
Service Exporters vs. Drilon, G.R. No. L-
81958, June 30, 1988

B. POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN OR POWER OF

EXPROPRIATION

It is the right of a government to take and appropriate private

property to public use, whenever the public exigency requires it,
which can be done only on condition of providing a reasonable
compensation.

It is the inherent right of the Sate to condemn private

property to public use upon payment of just compensation.
 6

Distinction between police power and power of eminent

domain
1. Property condemned under police power is usually noxious or
intended for a noxious purpose, hence no compensation is
paid.
2. In the exercise of police power, property rights of individuals
are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure
the general comfort, health and prosperity of the State;
3. Property interest in police power is merely restricted because
the continued use thereof would be injurious to public interest,
hence there is no compensable taking; in eminent domain,
property interest is appropriated and applied to some public
purpose, there is need to pay just compensation.
4. In police power, the State restricts the use of private
property but none of the property interests in the bundle of
rights which constitute ownership is appropriated for use by or
for the benefit of the public;

Who may exercise power of eminent domain

Congress and by delegation the President, administrative
bodies, local government units and even private enterprises
performing public services.

Requisites for a valid exercise of power of eminent domain:

(a) Necessity
(b) Private property
(c) Taking in the constitutional sense
(d) Public use
(e) Just compensation

Necessity

There must be a genuine necessity that must be of public

character. The government may not capriciously or arbitrarily
choose which private property should be expropriated.

Private property
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be
expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under a
general grant of authority [City of Manila vs. Chinese Community,
40 Phil 349]

All private property capable of ownership may be expropriated,

except money and choses in action (property right or right to
possession of something than can be enforced through legal action).
 7

Even services may be subject to eminent domain. [Republic vs.

PLDT, GR L-18841, January 27, 1969]

Taking in the constitutional sense

It may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner,

material impairment of the value of the property or prevention
of the ordinary uses for which the property was intended.

Public Use
The general concept of meeting public need or public exigency.
It is not confined to actual use by the public in its traditional
sense. The term public use has now been held to be synonymous
with public interest, public benefit, public welfare and public
convenience.

Just Compensation
The full and fair equivalent of the property taken; it is the fair
market value of the property.

For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of the

expropriated property is determined by its character and its
price at the time of actual taking.

Cases:
11. Manila Memorial Park vs.
Secretary DSWD, G.R. 175356,
December 3, 2013
12. Spouses Cabahug vs. National
Power Corporation, G.R. 186069, January
30, 2013
13. Landbank of the Philippines vs.
Escarilla & Co., G.R. 178046, June 13,
2012
14. Reyes vs. National Housing
Authority, G.R. 147511, January 20, 2003
15. Republic vs. Lim, G.R. No.
161656, June 29, 2005
16. Republic vs. PLDT, Co., G.R. No.
L-18841, January 27, 1969
17. Republic vs. Vda. De Castellvi,
G.R. No. L-20620, August 15, 1974
 8

18. Municipality of Paranaque vs.

V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, July
20, 1998

C. POWER OF TAXATION

Is the power by which the sovereign raises revenues to

defray the necessary expenses of government.

Requisites for a valid exercise of power of taxation:

a) must not violate due process;
b) must be uniform and equitable; and
c) must be for a public purpose.

Who may exercise

Primarily, the legislature; also local legislative bodies and
to a limited extent the President when granted tariff powers.

Limitations on the exercise

a) due process of law-tax should not be confiscatory
b) equal protection clause-taxes should be uniform and
equitable
c) public purpose

Double Taxation
Additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same
taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the
same purpose.

Tax Exemptions
Requisite: No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed
without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of
Congress.

Exempt from Taxation:

1. Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
lands, buildings and improvements, actually directly and
exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational
purposes
2. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational
institutions used actually, directly and exclusively for
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties;
 9

3. Subject to conditions prescribed by law, all grants,

endowments, donations or contributions used actually, directly
and exclusively for educational purposes.

Police Power vs. Taxation

If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and
regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if
regulation is the primary purpose, the fact that revenue is
incidentally raised, it does not make the imposition a tax as it
is an exaction that involves police power.

License fee vs. Tax

1. License fee is a police measure; tax is a revenue measure;
2. Amount collected for a license fee is limited to the cost of
permit and reasonable police regulation; amount of tax
may be unlimited provided it is not confiscatory.
3. License fee is paid for the privilege of doing something and
may be revoked when public interest so requires; tax is
imposed on persons or property for revenue.

Kinds of License Fee

1. for useful occupations or enterprises
2. for non-useful occupations or enterprises-the amount imposed
may be a bit exorbitant

Cases:
19. Gerochi vs. Department of Energy, G.R.
159796, July 17, 2007
20. City Government of Quezon City, et al., vs.
Bayan Tel., Inc., G.R. 162015, March 6, 2006
21. Abakada Guro Party List, et al. vs. Ermita,
et al., G.R. 168056, September 1, 2005
22. Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation vs. BIR, G.R. No. 172087, March 15,
2011
23. Sison vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. L-59431, July
25, 1984
24. Abra Valley College vs. Aquino. G.R. No. L-
390086, June 15, 1988
25. Pascual vs. Secretary of Public Works, G.R.
No. L-10405, December 29, 1960