1

Constitutional Law 2 Notes

Due process
1. Substantive – very provisions of the law
2. Procedural – techniques, if you were deprived of your substantive Lawful of order of court bank deposits/secrecy
rights
a. Right to notice/informed Section 5
b. Right to be heard - Non-establishment clause
Equal protection clause Freedom of religion
e.g. Senior Citizen’s act 1. Freedom to believe or not to believe
1) Distinction must be substantial 2. Freedom to practice one’s belief
2) Germane to the purpose of the law Tax exemption (A D E C R E)
3) Apply not only to present condition but also to the future Actual;
4) Applicable to all members of the same class Direct;
Exclusive for
Section 2 Charity;
- Houses not literal ( vessels, aircrafts, etc.) Religions; and
- Papers (contracts, checks, etc.) Education
- Effects ( objects in commission of crimes)
Search (eyes) + Seizures (hand) objects
Arrest  person The bill of rights  Article III can only be invoked by the government
Judges no need to compel presence but must be the one to inquire Purpose of Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to liberty, property
General warrant section in PNP and other freedoms (Section 1, Art III, Constitution)
Search warrant specific address then objects needs to be seized
“The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the
Section 3 state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private
Privilege individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare
- Spouses except annulment some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power
- Priest and penitent holder.”
- Atty-client
- Doctor-patient People vs. Marti
- State secret Subject matter: validity of the conviction of Martin based on illegally
seized evidence and wrongful restraint of his liberty

dmlng

*Marti; conviction  guilty of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
Prosecutor’s side: Mr. Reyes (owner of courier services) search and
seizures
Arguments:
1. NBI did not effect the seizure. Therefore, there is not
participation on the part of the government.
2. Private party conducted the search. Therefore, Marti cannot
invoked constitutional right
3. Law imposes on a private courier the responsibility to conduct
inspection of cargo (marti  package contained books and
cigarettes)
4. Reyes brought the package to NBI for laboratory Test
NBI – established marijuana leaves (basis on restraint of
Marti’s Liberty)
Government (through NBI): to authenticate the package that it
was Marijuana leaves
there was no violation of the Constitutional rights of Marti
(because of the Marijuana leaves found in the package named
to Mr. Marti)
Supreme Court:
Government did not participate the seizure and search “mere observation
is NOT a search”
Restraint on Liberty  no violation, because he has to answer his criminal
liability.
Article III is self-executing
Heirs of Gamboa vs. Hon. Teves
o Essence of property rights over shares of stock in PLDT
o Concept of preferential rights extended to Filipinos, under the
constitution (Art. XII, Section 12(
o Government: members of shares held by stockholders does not
determine “voting rights” of a company
2
o To determine if rights of Filipino stockholders are impair, it is
impossible to establish the voting rights accorded to foreign
stockholders
o Only stocks entitled to vote
o Purpose of Judicial review
o Legitimizing – validity of law
o Checking – determine the abuse of discretion
o Symbolic/instructional – expanded power of judicial
review
Subject matter: exercise of property rights over shares of stocks on PLDT.
Concept of preferential rights to extended to the Filipino under the
constitution
Contention of the heirs of Gamboa:
-violation of property rights over shares of stock on PLDT
“Manila prince hotel vs GSIS”  Filipino are given
preferential treatment (Filipino first policy)
-allowing foreign stock holders; that Filipino stock holders’ rights are
being diluted
-unfair to Filipino Stock holders; there is impairment of the property rights
*Gamboa-owners of shares of stock
Government’s contention: the member of shares held by stock holders will
not determine the voting right in a company
In determine if the rights of the Filipino Stockholders are impaired, it is
important to establish the voting rights accorded to foreign stockholders
Supreme Court: Partly grant the petition
-only shares of stock entitled to vote
-clarify the definition of Capital
Section 11 of article XII – self-executing.
It also imposes safeguards against violations by the government, by
individuals, or by groups of individuals
Art III of the Constitution protexts the following person;s fundamental civil
and political rights:
dmlng

(1) Civil rights– rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his
citizenship in a state or community.
(2) Political rights– rights that pertain to an individual’s citizenship vis-à-vis
the management of the government.
(3) Social and economic rights – rights which are intended to insure the well-
being and economic security of the individual.
(4) Rights of the accused – civil rights intended for the protection of a person
accused of any crime.
Human rights have a primacy over property rights. The rights of free
expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential
to the preservation and vitality of civil institutions. The Bill of Rights is
designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the
assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of
small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no
patience with general principles.”
Phil. Blooming mills employees org. vs. Phil. Blooming mills Co., Inc
 decided before the proclamation of martial law
Subject matter: rights of PBMEO (petitioners) to stage a mass action to
express its dismay nor the alleged abuses of pasig police force.
PBMEO’s position: company cannot impose any restriction of acts of the
employees when such act are not work-related nor will they impair work
schedule of the company employees
PBM’s Contention:
-participation in mass action should not impair the operations of the
company
-the company may impose restrictions activities of the employees to
comply with the collective bargaining agreement between the company
and the employees
Supreme Court: reversed the decision of Trial court; petition granted.
3
In the hierarchy of rights, constitutional rights are preferred over
contractual rights or obligations (right express grievances over CBA).
The Bill of Rights serves -
(1) To preserve democratic ideals.
(2) To safeguard fundamental rights.
(3) To promote the happiness of an individual.
General Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private
individuals. The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct,
however discriminatory or wrongful.
Yrasuegui vs. PAL
Yrasuegui  illegal dismissal because of failure to meet the required
weight in PAL (flight crew)
 invoked “Bill of Rights” (equal protection clause)
PAL contends that it provides utmost leniency to yrasuegui where they
have suspended him for 6 months, Yrasuegui failed to check his weight
Subject matter: validity of dismissal of employees based on weight
requirement
Yrasuegui’s contention: these was wrongful dismissal because he who
denied the equal protection clause
PAL’s contention: there was a valid ground to dismiss the petitioner, the
relationship governed by a contract of employment which was agreed by
the parties
Supreme Court:
Petitioner’s dismissal is valid because the contract governs their
relationship. The contract is between two private parties and there is no
government participation in the execution of the contract
Exception to the Rule: The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the
Court against a private party.
dmlng

Zulueta vs. CAdon Quixote complex: desires of man to be with another
women
*husband: the pictures of the husband with the mistress procured by the
wife , violates right to privacy
Wrong: it is vague, therefore void
Right: void for vagueness doctrine
Both private partners, yet SC allowed bringing back evidence
because evidence came from the husband. Spouses cannot testify against
each other (rules of evidence)
Judicial Standards of Review under the Bill of Rights
1. RATIONAL BASIS TEST: This test is applicable for economic, property,
commercial legislation.
2. STRICT SCRUTINY TEST: This requires the government to show an
overriding or compelling government interest so great that it justifies the
limitation of fundamental constitutional rights. The courts make the decision
of whether or not the purpose of the law makes the classification necessary.
3. INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST: A third standard, denominated as
heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme
Court for evaluating classifications based on gender and legitimacy. While
the test may have first been articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in
the United States since been applied in all substantive due process cases as
well.
Whitelight corporation vs. City of Manila
~
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
VOID FOR VAGUENESS: An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
common meaning and differ as to its application.
4
On the question of the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the
creation of the Anti-Terrorism Council: A statute establishing a criminal
offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of
ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited by the
statute. A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ in its application. The statute is repugnant to
the Constitution in two respects:
(1) It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid;
(2) It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
Southern hemisphere vs. Anti-terrorism council
Subject matter: validity of the Human Securities Act
Petitioners’ contention: the law violates their constitutional rights. The
provisions are vague and give a “chilling effect” because there appears to
be grant of broad powers
Government’s contention (anti-terrorism council): the law is a valid
exercise police power and meets the obligations of the Philippine
government under international conventions. The two doctrines do not
apply to penal statues but can only be invoked on matters involving
freedom of expression
Supreme Court: petition was denied.
the court used 2 doctrines: VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE;
OVERBREADTHE DOCTRINE
On the question of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law: “[This
doctrine] can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is
utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving
clause or by construction. The test in determining whether a criminal statute
is void for uncertainty is whether the lanuage conveys a sufficiently definite
warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that the
dmlng
 5

vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the
statute to be upheld – not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude.”
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan
Subject matter: validity of Plunder Act (prohibition of ex-post facto law
*bill of attainder); Plunder law is valid (legitimizing power of Judiciary);
plunder law is a special penal law to curve axarice, mist be penalized for
such greed
OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade
the area of protected freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra]
General Rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are
inapplicable to penal statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a
general in terrorem effect which are intended to discourage citizens from
committing the prohibited acts.
Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes when
(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech. (Rationale: Statute may be facially
challenged in order to counter the “chilling effect” of the same.) [on the
constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law]
Disini v. Sec. of Justice
Disini’s contention: 1) news article on the internet, libellous
2) constitutionality of Cibercrime Law
Supreme Court: only person liable in libel will be the person who posted it
*no facial challenge in penal laws
Constitutional law; libel is not a protected speech. The majority of the
movants believe that the Court’s decision upholding the constitutionality
of Section 4(c)(4), which penalizes online libel, effectively tramples upon
the right to free expression. But libel is not a protected speech. There is no
freedom to unjustly destroy the reputation of a decent woman by publicly
claiming that she is a paid prostitute.
Criminal law; online libel; not a new crime. The movants argue that
Section 4(c)(4) is both vague and overbroad. But, again, online libel is not
a new crime. It is essentially the old crime of libel found in the 1930
Revised Penal Code and transposed to operate in the cyberspace.
Consequently, the mass of jurisprudence that secures the freedom of
expression from its reach applies to online libel. Any apprehended
vagueness in its provisions has long been settled by precedents.
Other cases:
1. Hermano oil manufacturing & sugar corporation v. Toll Regulatory
Board
~
2. Mirasol vs. Department of Public Works and Highways
Subject matter: declaratory relief from AO of DPWH
Administrative law
- Branch of political law
- Creation of administration agency by congress, supervision and
control by the executive department
Administration agencies:
1. Enforces laws
2. Quasi-judicial power
3. Quasi-legislative power
Supreme Court: partial (ultra vires)
- Nature of DPWH has changed
- DPWH erred in AO in engines that can access highways because
DOTC =TRB & LTO

dmlng

3. Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and
Development
Eminent Domain  police power
 Tax
Equal Protection – senior citizens – for tax discount
*Tax Laws are Progressive
SENIOR CITIZEN’S ACT (SUPREME COURT)
valid & constitutional
proper exercise of police power
 private rights must bow to the valid exercise of police power
The law is a social legislation measure to guide due recognition to the
services rendered by the senior citizens during the prime years of their
lives
* Senior Citizen’s Act: The law was enacted primarily to maximize the
contribution of senior citizens to nation-building, and to grant benefits and
privileges to them for their improvement and well-being as the State
considers them an integral part of our society. Pursuant to the Article XIII,
Sec. 11, the State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach
to health development and make essential goods available to all the people
at affordable cost. There shall be priority for the needs of the elderly,
disabled, etc. To implement this policy, the law grants a 20% discount to
senior citizens. Hence, the RA is a legitimate exercise of police power,
which has general welfare for its object
4. Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College  exercise of police power
Police power vs. eminent domain
Subject matter: regulation of the ordinance imposing fence in St.
Scholastica’s college to be 1 meter in height -80% see-thru. The
respondents, asserted that the implementation of the ordinance on their
property would be tantamount to an appropriation of property without
due process of law; and that the petitioners could only appropriate a
portion of their property through eminent domain. The petitioners, on the
other hand, countered that the ordinance was valid exercise of police
power, by virtue of which, they could restrain property rights for the
6
protection of public safety, health, morals or the promotion of public
convenience and general prosperity
Supreme Court
It is tantamount to the power of Eminent Domain under the guise of police
power, to avoid the just compensation in exercising the power of eminent
domain.
The appropriation of private property under the guise of exercising the
police power cannot be countenanced.
5. Aquino vs. Municipality of Malay, Aklan(Principle of sustainable
development)
Exercise of Police Power
1. Classification of land there a zoning ordinance
2. Issuance of business permit
3. Order of demolition as exercise of quasi-judicial power of Mayor
Principle or Concept
1. Harmonization of Laws: DENR issuance of Municipal ordinance
2. Autonomy of Local Government under Article X
3. Nature of Nuisance per se can be summarily removed or
dismissed
Nature of Nuisance per accidens must be heard by the RTC to
determine the danger posed by the object or structure
Par. 2 Sec 1 Art VIII (constitution): Judicial Review
“…Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.”
dmlng

Declaratory Relief – there is a Law that will affect your Rights.
Valid if the Law/contract is enforceable to comply with the General
Welfare Clause
*Supreme Court : valid under Article X of the Constitution; mayor can
exercise quasi-judicial powers if Declaratory relief is issued to comply with
equal protection clause
6. Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista
Subject matter: socialized housing – invalid exercise of social justice
principle; socialized housing tax – social justice power; police power +
equal protection clause – for the poor, to help them
Supreme Court: ruled that valid; collected only for limited period of time
for housing lot in QC for the poor; collection of garbage is a public service,
thus cannot put into the ordinance
7. Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue
*liability of DST of VAT
*Distinction between insurance contract and services covered of
franchise tax
8. National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan
~
9. Nursery Care Corporation vs. Avecedo
~ ~
The Three Great Powers of Government: Police Power, Power to Tax,
Power to Expropriate as limitations to enjoyment of rights
1. Police Power: Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state
which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and
welfare of society. “Police power […] has been properly characterized as the
most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of powers, extending as it
does to all the great public needs.”
7
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of
Manila
~
“Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely
veiled general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all
exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as
the conditions warrant.” [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
Scope and Limitations: “The police power of the State […] is a power
coextensive with self-protection, and is [aptly] termed the 'law of
overruling necessity.'”
Rubi v. Provincial Board
~
The state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with
personal liberty, with property, and with business and occupations.
Persons may be subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in
order to secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state
and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the
individual are subordinated.”
Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank and Trust Co.
Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power
(1) Lawful Subject
(2) Lawful Means
History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting
Opinion in this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without
limit. He said that while it is the “prerogative of the State to promote the
dmlng

general welfare of the people thru the use of police power; on the opposite
end is the right of an entity to have its property protected against
unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude
in the exercise of its police power to bring about the greatest good of the
greatest number. But when its purpose is putrefied by private interest, the
use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck down just as every
arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.”
Lim v. Pacquing
Police power elements:
1. Lawful purpose (general welfare clause)
2. Lawful means (manner which objective or purpose is achieved)
Subject matter:
Validity of ordinance which granted ADC to operate jai alai game
City government: refused to issue business permit to ADC
Principle:
1. Harmonization of Laws
The supremacy of the constitution: Constitution prevails over a
natural law
2. Remedies
Petitioner Lim: action to take in view of an erroneous order of the
trial court
ADC corporation: enforcement of a right under an Ordinance
When exercise of police power may be questioned
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit
grant of power, a government agency cannot exercise police power. The
Court said: “Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The
power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to
promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of
the MMDA’s functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances
and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the
metropolis.”
8
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn.
Subject matter: validity of the order of MMDA to open a private road to
help relieve traffic congestion during rush hours
Supreme Court: MMDA us not a political subdivision and law-making
powers and cannot exercise police power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
Definition: The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to
condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation.
Scope and Limitations: It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent
power of the State that need not be granted even by the fundamental law.
Section 9 of Article III of the Constitution merely imposes a limit on the
government’s exercise of this power.
Republic v.Tagle
[Eminent domain: (1) taking of private property (2) for public use and (3)
just compensation)
Subject matter: validity of the subsequent sale of property in Dasmarinas
Village which at the time of the sale was under lease.
Objective of ejectment proceedings for unlawful detainer: to determine
who has the legal right to possess and not the question of ownership
Supreme Court: The sale not having been perfected, the government an
exercised the right of eminent domain which includes not only the right to
possess but all rights included in the right to own
The repository of eminent domain powers is lodged in the legislature which
is exercised through the enactment of laws.
Delegation of power to expropriate: Delegation of the power may be
done through legislation. Thus under R.A. 7160 (The Local Government
Code), the power has been be delegated to LGUs. Other government entities
through the charters creating them also enjoy the right to expropriate.
Manapat v. CA
dmlng

Subject matter: validity of exercise of powers of eminent Domain by WHA
by filing 16 separate expropriation proceedings
Supreme Court: eminent domain is inherent in the government. The
burden is on the government to establish that all requisites must be meet.
Requisites for exercise of the power of eminent domain
(1) Private property
(2) Genuine necessity
(3) For public purpose
(4) Payment of just compensation
(5) Due process Manapat v. CA
Circumstances which may warrant “taking”-
When the owner is deprived of his proprietary rights, there is taking of
private property. It may include
(1) Diminution in value;
(2) Prevention of ordinary use; and
(3) Deprivation of beneficial use.
NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the
state has against a private party because it deprives the party of perpetual
use of his property; requisites, how just compensation is determined;
relate to the Bill of Rights.
Cases:
1. Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council,
[award of land under tenancy can be done through a natural person or
collectively through a juridical person; a resolution of an administrative
agency has the effect of a law and can be governed by the operative fact
doctrine.]
Subject Matter: validity of exercise of eminent domain by NLI by filing
separate expropriation proceedings
Supreme Court: Eminent domain is inherent in the state. The burden is on
the government to establish all the requisites
2. Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson
and Resolution
9
[where a private property is not entitled to “just compensation”]
Subject matter: Just compensation
1. Can Sps Tecson institute action against the government? ~yes
2. Can DPWH set up the defence of state immunity? Under the
principle of Unjust enrichment, No. There is unjust enrichment
"when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or
when a person retains money orproperty of another against the
fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."
3. Can DPWH invoke LACHES on the part of Sps Tecson for filing the
case? ~ No, on grounds that they deserve to be compensated
4. What is the basis of compensation?
On grounds of equity, 6% interest
3. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr.,
[limitation on the exercise of power; right of the private property owner]
Subject matter: taking over of private lots for expansion of Labug Airport
Take-over was done thus COMPROMISE AGREEMENT with a condition
that private owners shall not ask for re-conveyance of their respective lots
of the Labug Airport expansion will not materialize
Issues:
Is a property owner entitled to re-conveyance of property? ~yes
Can Compromise agreement be a remedy in expropriation cases?
Supreme court:
In light of these premises, we now expressly hold that the taking of private
property, consequent to the Government’s exercise of its power of eminent
domain, is always subject to the condition that the property be devoted to
the specific public purpose for which it was taken. Corollarily, if this
particular purpose or intent is not initiated or not at all pursued, and is
peremptorily abandoned, then the former owners, if they so desire, may
seek the reversion of the property, subject to the return of the amount of
just compensation received. In such a case, the exercise of the power of
eminent domain has become improper for lack of the required factual
justification.
4. Republic v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon,
[Considering that the Court has consistently upheld the primordial
importance of public use in expropriation proceedings, NAPOCOR’s reliance
on Metropolitan Water District v. De los Reyes]
dmlng

1. can NAPOCOR institute expropriation proceedings for RIGHT OF
WAY fo installation of power lines?~The court will be the one to
declare the amount of the just compensation
2. can NAPOCOR ask for entry to the property? ~ yes; court will fix an
amount to allow the government to gain entry. What value must
3. NAPOCOR pay a deposit gain entry to Borbon’s property? ~ Value
must be declared and in fair market value. As long as it is valid,
with genuine necessity and for public purpose.
4. Can NAPOCOR withdraw expropriation case?
Role of Panel of commissioners in expropriation cases – usually a group of
3; they will be the one to check the land or in the site for investigation
purposes
Metropolitan Water District v. De los Angeles,
[was apt and correct. Verily, the retirement of the transmission lines
necessarily stripped the expropriation proceedings of the element of public
use. To continue with the expropriation proceedings despite the definite
cessation of the public purpose of the project would result in the rendition of
an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the absence of the
essential element of public use. (Bersamin, J.)]
Supreme Court: the property should be returned to de los angeles and case
is remanded to the trial court to determine the amount to be paid to the
property owner for injury sustained
5. Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Suntay,
[The enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to be paid to the
landowner as just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken only
from the Agrarian Reform Fund. As such, the liability is not the personal
liability of Land Bank, but its liability only as the administrator of the ARF. In
fact, Section 10, Rule 19 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, reiterates
that the satisfaction of a judgment for just compensation by writ of
execution should be from the ARF in the custody of Land Bank. (Bersamin,
J.]
Just compensation under land reform program is sourced from Agrarian
Reform Fund
10
ARF is administered by Land Bank
ARF consists of government bonds
ARF does not form part of the assets of Land Bank
Implementation of CARL
Role of DARAB: preliminary determination of just compensation
Validity of levy of Meralco Shares – owned by LBP to satisfy just
compensation as prayed for by Suntay
DAR – especial agency; regional offices; preliminary negotiation of value
CARP –
CARL – (Land Bank~ administer agrarian reform funds)
DARAB – at what price can the government distribute lands to the tenats
ARF – depository of Land bank
*DARAB ~sheriff levied Meralco Shares.  No, sheriff doesn’t have the
power to do that
*ARF – general appropriatopns act from DAR based on DATA
*CARP and CARL – social legislation; social justice  the government
address the necessity of the poor (Calalang vs Williams)
Supreme Court: Agrarian Reform; initial valuation and just compensation. It
is the initial valuation made by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
and the Land Bank of the Philippines that must be released to the
landowner in order for DAR to take possession of the property. Otherwise
stated, Sec. 16 of RA 6657 does not authorize the release of the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator’s determination of just compensation for the
land which has not yet become final and executory.
6. National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay,
[nature of public use; when is a party entitled to just compensation despite
no apparent physical taking]
Issue: is there taking of the property through the power of eminent
Domain?
- NAPOCOR invokes prescription (5years) on the right of action over
an easement invokes immunity from suit
- Hears of macabangkit sangkay
dmlng

1. Government cannot invoke immunity form suit, it is an
exercise of eminent domain
2. Prescription cannot be invoke since he found out of the
intrusion of his property because of the effects of the
property
Supreme court:
Power of Eminent Domain; meaning of taking There was a full taking on the
part of NPC, notwithstanding that the owners were not completely and
actually dispossessed. It is settled that the taking of private property for
public use, to be compensable, need not be an actual physical taking or
appropriation. Indeed, the expropriator’s action may be short of
acquisition of title, physical possession, or occupancy but may still amount
to a taking. Compensable taking includes destruction, restriction,
diminution, or interruption of the rights of ownership or of the common
and necessary use and enjoyment of the property in a lawful manner,
lessening or destroying its value. It is neither necessary that the owner be
wholly deprived of the use of his property, nor material whether the
property is removed from the possession of the owner, or in any respect
changes hands. In this case, NPC constructed a tunnel underneath the land
of the Heirs of Macabangkit without going through formal expropriation
proceedings and without procuring their consent or at least informing
them beforehand of the construction. NPC’s construction adversely
affected the owners’ rights and interests because the subterranean
intervention prevented them from introducing any developments on the
surface, and from disposing of the land or any portion of it, either by sale
or mortgage. This was considered by the SC as compensable taking. NPC
should pay just compensation for the entire land.
NPC Charter; prescription. The SC ruled that the prescriptive period
provided under Section 3(i) of Republic Act No. 6395 (the NPC Charter) is
applicable only to an action for damages, and does not extend to an action
to recover just compensation like this case. Consequently, NPC cannot
thereby bar the right of the Heirs of Macabangkit to recover just
compensation for their land. The action to recover just compensation
from the State or its expropriating agency differs from the action for
damages. It would very well be contrary to the clear language of the
Constitution to bar the recovery of just compensation for private property
taken for a public use solely on the basis of statutory prescription.
11
7. Export Processing Zone Authority (now Philippine Export Zone Authority)
vs. Pulido,
[Compensation cannot be just to the owner in the case of property that is
immediately taken unless there is prompt payment, considering that the
owner thereby immediately suffers not only the loss of his property but also
the loss of its fruits or income. Thus, in addition, the owner is entitled to legal
interest from the time of the taking of the property until the actual payment
in order to place the owner in a position as good as, but not better than, the
position he was in before the taking occurred. (Bersamin, J.)]
Expropriation case  parties can enter into compromise agreement
Compromise agreement: settle the conflicts between two parties. Signed
by the government and ask the judge to appropriate it
Subject matter: expropriation case; compromise agreementswap of
property instead of paying just compensation
EPZA FAILED TO FULFILL THE AGREEMENT, as a defence, EPZA said that
the property supposed to be swap is already leased
Supreme Court: equity; just compensation at the time of the compromise
agreement was signed by the parties
Why SC impose interest? – because there is no prompt of payment
A pending expropriation case can be a subject of compromise agreement.
A compromise agreement must be approved by the court
A property owner is entitles to interest which includes unrealized income
in the computation of just compensation
In case of a compromise agreement, just compensations is based on the
date of agreement was signed.
8. Apo Fruits Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
[The taking of property under CARL is an exercise by the State of the power
of eminent domain. A basic limitation on the State’s power of eminent
domain is the constitutional directive that private property shall not be
taken for public use without just compensation. Just compensation refers to
the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to
be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary
course of legal action and competition, or the fair value of the property as
between one who receives and one who desires to sell. It is fixed at the time
of the actual taking by the State. Thus, if property is taken for public use
before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the
dmlng

case, the final compensation must include interests on its just value, to be
computed from the time the property is taken up to the time when
compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court.]
Supreme Court
 the court must fix just compensation when parties cannot agree on
the amount due on the property
 just compensation is based at the time of taking of the property by
the government
 the government may take possession of the property upon deposit
of the amount which may initially allowed by the trial court
 the court impose interest until such time the just compensation is
fully settled
9. vda De Quano vs. Republic
[In expropriation, the private owner is deprived of property against his will;
due process ought to be strictly followed. Public use as an eminent domain
concept, has now acquired an expansive meaning to include any use that is
of “usefulness, utility or advantage or what is productive of general benefit
(of the public). (Velasco, J.)]
Subrogation: MICAA now stands in the shoes of its predecessor
Verbal agreement vs. written agreement: an oral agreement when
confirmed and presented as evidence can have the effect of an amendment
of the written agreement
Abandonment of public purpose will entitle property owner subject to
return of just compensation
3. Power of Taxation
Definition: Taxation is the power by which the State raises to defray the
necessary expenses of the Government. It is the enforced proportional
contributions from persons and property, levied by the State by virtue of
its sovereignty, for the support of the government and for all public needs.
Under the lifeblood theory, taxes are imposed -
12
(1) To raise revenue
(2) As a tool for regulation
(3) To serve as protection of state’s interest/power to keep alive
Scope and Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a
public purpose.
(2) Imposition might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate
beneficiaries are private individuals.
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as
to amount to confiscation of property, the Court will invalidate it. But
invalidating a tax measure must be exercised with utmost caution,
otherwise, the State’s power to legislate for the public welfare might be
seriously curtailed.
(4) Uniformity of taxation
General Rule: The power to tax operates with the same force and effect in
every place where the subject of it is found. This is known as geographical
uniformity.
Exception: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for
purposes of taxation, provided the requisites for valid classification are
met.
Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of Ormoc (1968)
Uniformity in imposition of taxes requires valid classification
Valid classification requires:
1. classification must
(5) Taxes must be equitable
As a general rule, taxes should be apportioned among the people
according to their ability to pay.
Claim for Tax Exemptions
General Rule: Tax exemptions are frowned upon. Therefore, no law
granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
There is no vested right in a tax exemption [.] Being a mere statutory
privilege, a tax exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the
granting authority.
dmlng

Republic v. Caguioa (2009)
~ under the RP-US Treaty is paid under similar circumstances as the tax on
Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory.
Constitutional exemptions [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI]
Requisites: Actual, Direct and Exclusive Use by the following:
(a) Educational institutions
(b)Charitable institutions
(c) Religious organizations
If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of
Congress. [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI]
Case:
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. [In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the
Philippines will give up a part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given
up for this particular investment is not taxed by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several
methods. First, it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of
source or situs and of the state of residence with regard to certain
classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever
the state of source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the
state of residence. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the state
of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation.]
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Liability for tax on royalty paid to S.C. Johnson & son Inc. (USA)
BIR: liable at the tax rate of 25% under RP-US tax treaty
S.C Johnson & Son Inc. (PH): liable at tax rate of 10% under RP-West
Germany Tax treaty based on the most favoured nation clause
Supreme Court: respondent is liable at 25% tax rate because most
favoured nation clause under RP-West Germany tax treaty cannot apply to
S.C. Johnson & Son Inc.
13
There is nothing on record to support a claim that the tax on royalties
royalties under the RP-West Germany Tax Treaty.
Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and
naturalized citizens; aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines;
both natural and juridical persons
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution
Board of Medicine v. Ota, 558 SCRA 234(2008) [See Art. XII. Sec. 14, par. 2:
reciprocity]
Subject matter: authority to practice medical profession by a Japanese
National who is Maried to a Filipino
Basis of claim: reciprocity between Philippines and Japan
Section 14, Article XII: The sustained development of a reservoir of national
talents consisting of Filipino scientists, entrepreneurs, professionals,
managers, high-level technical manpower and skilled workers and craftsmen
in all fields shall be promoted by the State. The State shall encourage
appropriate technology and regulate its transfer for the national benefit.
The practice of all professions in the Philippines shall be limited to Filipino
citizens, save in cases prescribed by law.
Claim of reciprocity must be established by clear evidence
Poe-Llmanzares v. COMELEC(2016)[ a foundling is a natural-born citizen]
Subject matter: claim of citizenship to qualify as a candidate to the past
president election
Definition of a natural-born citizen: Section 2. Article IV. Natural-born
citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.
Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Presumption of citizenship for foundling
Statistics: Law on probability
dmlng

Adoption create a legal fiction
presumption of good faith
Legal bases for claim of citizenship of foundling
1. born under 1935 constitution, there was a presumption
2. international convention on Human Right
3. convention on the Rights of the Child
sui sanguine  by blood
jus soli based on place of Birth
Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed
rights:
”Void for Vagueness “doctrine
“Overbreadth” doctrine
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Citizenship
A. People
1. Different meanings of words “people”:
1. “People” as inhabitants, Art.XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the
right to exclude aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is
given the discretion to deport aliens who are considered “undesirable.”
2. “People” as citizens, Preamble, Art.II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
3. “People” as source of sovereignty, Art. VII, Sec. 4
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board
Can the bureau of immigration issue a warrant of Arrest?
Subject matter: validity of a warrant of arrest by the board of Deportation
Foreign Policy is vested in the President
Power to include and exclude aliens
14
Power to restrain Liberty claims
Legal Basis to Deport
Citizenship under Art. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V
Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2 [Poe- Llamanzares v. COMELEC]
Section 2. Article IV. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or
perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-
born citizens.
Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to
memory.)
President and Vice President, Art. VII, Sec. 2
Members of Congress, Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art.
VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1);
C, Sec. (1); and D, Sec. 1(1)
Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, Sec. 17 (2)
Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII,
Sec. 8
Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
Procedure, Sections 7-8
When decision is executed, Sec. 1
dmlng

Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
Denaturalization, Sec. 18
Citizenship by legislative act
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 – The Administrative Naturalization Law
of 2000
R.A. No. 9225 – Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
Right of Suffrage, Article V
R. A. No. 9189 – Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to
vote under the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one –year actual physical
residence in the Philippines to exercise their right of suffrage.
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC
Supreme Court: Citizenship as a pre-requisite to exercise the right to vote
under section 2, Article V commanding the congress to enact a law to allow
overseas Filipinos to vote in their present place of residence outside the
Philippines without having to establish residence in the Philippine for 1
year
RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: SAFEGUARDS OF DUE
PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSES
A. Right to Life
Republic v. Cagandahan
Two petition: Cagandahan wants to change gender. From female to male
Name: form jenifer to jeff
Right to realize one’s potential guaranteed under the Universal declaration
of Human Rights
Application of principle covered by public international law
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court held that where the person is
biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender
classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having
15
reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Sexual
development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification
at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like
respondent, is fixed. The Court will not consider respondent as having
erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain
as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment
and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society
commonly currently knows this gender of the human species. Respondent
is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the
human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should
belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the
path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence
that respondent is an “incompetent” and in the absence of evidence to
show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of
society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Supreme
Court affirmed as valid and justified the respondent’s position and his
personal judgment of being a male.
Gamboa v. P/S Supt. Chan, et al.
Relief sought: Issuance of Writ of Habeas Data
Precedent event: News report which included Mayor Gamboa as a person
who has a private army
Gamboa’s allegation: The Newspaper put danger to her life and threatened
her security
Supreme Court: found no sufficient ground for request of Habeas Data
Legal basis: A.O 275 and Section 24 Article XVIII
Article XVIII Section 24: Private armies and other armed groups not
recognized by duly constituted authority shall be dismantled. All
paramilitary forces including Civilian Home Defense Forces not consistent
with the citizen armed force established in this Constitution, shall be
dissolved or, where appropriate, converted into the regular force.
Imbong v. Ochoa (Right to Life)
Subject matter: Constitutionality of the provision which allows the use of
“contraceptive” pills that will abort the fertilized ovum
Supreme Court: The Right to life upon conception which the egg is
fertilized. The court upheld the provision as constitutional because none of
dmlng

the petitioners showed proof that there was injury suffered with the use of
alleged “contraceptive”
B. Due Process Clause (Section1, Article III)
Definition: Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental
action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in
each appropriate case, be valid. x x x It is responsiveness to the supremacy of
reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively pit, arbitrariness is
ruled out and unfairness avoided. x x x Correctly it has been identified as
freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea of fair
play.
Ichong v. Hernandez
Subject matter: equal protection clause covered both citizens and aliens
found within Philippine jurisdiction
Preferential treatment of Filipinos  Philippines at the time of the petition
had no particular agreement upon which violation can be invoked
Due Process: Retail trade law had a prospective effect
MNL Prince Hotel vs GSIS
Filipino First policy as Constitutional right
Rules on Business/bidding as statutory Rights
Supreme Court: ruled that Philippine Congress may enact Law to protect
the Businessmen of the Philippines
Valid exercise of police power to overcome the contention of petitioners
that they were deprived of the equal protection clause
No denial of Due process: the law must have prospective effect
A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial.
Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518
(non-impairment clause: the State cannot intrude into the rights already
enjoyed by private citizens under contracts or under Law already in effect)
16
Subject matter: The School existed by grant of the British crown with the
dependence of the Union, now Hampshire passed a restriction and took
over certain properties of Darthmouth always have been a private college
Supreme Court: Darthmouth cannot be impaired because of the
constitutional guarantee
REQUISITES OF DUE PROCESS
Due process of law means simply that -
(1) There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of
the legislative department of the Government;
(2) This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
(3) It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and
(4) It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a
class.
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro
SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS
Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which serves as a
restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the
government. It refers to the method or manner by which a law is enforced.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process, asks whether the government has an adequate
reason for taking away a person’s life, liberty, or property.
City of Manila v. Laguio(Right to property)
Subject matter: ordinance prohibited the employment of women to
promote business of entertainment entitles Manila; operator of Victoria
Court challenge the inclusion of its facilities within the provision of the
ordinance
Opposition based on:
1. Right to due process
dmlng
 17

2. Right to property  No person can be deprived of property without Negotiation

just compensation Execution of the agreement
3. Violation of the Non-impairment clause  rights were already Ratification (Philippine law  senate)
vested Exchange of Instruments (effectivity)
4. Exercise of Eminent domain into just compensation Deposit of instrument (DFA and Concerned agency)

Supreme Court: Ordinance is discriminatory for not giving legal ground on Treaty as part of the law of the Land
why women had to be singled out in the law Constitutional Right to the due process

Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. It is a rule of law that RTC: Request for extradition
before a person may be bound by law, he must be officially and specifically Judge will not determine probable cause
informed of its contents. For the publication requirement, “laws” refer to all
statutes, including those of local application and private laws. This does not Extradition Proceeding:
cover internal regulations issued by administrative agencies, which are Sui generis
governed by the Local Government Code. Publication must be full, or there is Class of its own
none at all. *No determination of probable cause
Judgedetermines the correctness of Request(procedure); Obligation of
Tañada v. Tuvera the Philippine government in the treaty
General Rule: The publication of Laws and other issuances which affect the
rights of individuals must be published Mark Jimenez: (petitions) for the letter of request of extradition
*alleges his petition using his: Right to Know (constitutional right)
Effectivity: 15 days after publication unless the law provide otherwise *Constitution should prevail over treaties

Exception to the general rule: internal rules on matter affecting the

operations of a government entity
RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of
procedure. This requires a reasonable degree of flexibility in the applying
procedural due process. This does not apply to substantive due process.
Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000)
*exception to the general rule on the rights to Due process
Nature of extradition treaty: obligation to surrender a person to the
regulating parts
Stage in Treaty-making:
A determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as
well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action
must be considered in determining the application of the rules of procedure.
Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy
To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean that judges
are at large to apply it to any and all relationships. Its flexibility is in its
scope once it has been determined that some process is due; it is a
recognition that not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for
the same kind of procedure.
Morrissey v. Brewer
dmlng
 18

1. Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party

Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution) Instances when no notice and hearing are required

Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc.

2. Procedural Due Process

Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT
a. Due process in administrative proceedings Community Bank v. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC

Requisites: Effect when due process is not observed

Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al. [Pay attention to the cardinal Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco
rules of due process in administrative proceedings].
Right to Counsel:
SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB
Lumiqued v. Exevea
Dr, Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the
Philippines v. Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et al.
Instances when no notice and hearing are required

Effect of waiver/estoppel: Anillo v. Commission on the Settlement of Land Problems

The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission

Right to Counsel: 3. Substantive Due Process

a. Due Process and Property Rights
Carbonel v. CSC
Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the Philippines, et al.

b. Due process in judicial proceedings: b. Due Process and Police Power

Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. v. City of
Manila
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings:
Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila
Spouses Go and Minor Chester Go v. Colegio de San de Letran

dmlng
 19

c. Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article III and

Article 18, Article XII)
Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for
public purpose and just compensation

Procedural Requirement: Answer required in eminent domain

proceedings

City of Manila v. Melba Tan Te

d. Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy

Concept of the Right (Section 3, Article III, Constitution)

Spouses Hing v. Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan Choachuy

When may right be invoked

Anti-Wire-Tapping Act (R.A. 4200)
Privileged Communication

Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, Hon. Zamora

Navarro v. CA and the People of the Philippines

Alejano v. Cabuhay

Ople v. Torres

dmlng