The following are the fundamental/inherent powers of the state:

1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation

Police Power
Police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, the least
limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State.

The state, in order to promote general welfare, may interfere with personal
liberty, with property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected
to all kinds of restraint 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, December 14, 1979).

What are the basic purposes/aspects of police power:

1. to promote the general welfare, comfort and convenience of the people;
(ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY, 175 SCRA 343; US VS. TORIBIO, 15
Phil. 85)

2. to promote and preserve public health; (VILLANUEVA VS. CASTANEDA, September 21,
1987; DECS VS. SAN DIEGO, 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]; LORENZO VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH, 50
Phil. 595 - apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium

3. to promote and protect public safety; (AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195; TAXICAB
OPERATORS VS. JUINIO, 119 SCRA 897)

Requisites for a valid exercise of police power

1. Lawful subject - The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from

those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power; and

2. Lawful means - The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Zabal v. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019

NO, the assailed governmental measure in this case is within the scope of police
power cannot be disputed.
Verily, the statues from which the said measure draws authority and the
constitutional provisions which serve as its framework are primarily concerned with
the environment and health, safety, and well-being of the people, the promotion and
securing of which are clearly legitimate objectives of governmental efforts and
regulation.

Ermita-Malate Hotel v City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 19967

The mantle of protection associated with the due process guaranty does not cover
the hotel and motel operators. This particular manifestation of a police power
measure being specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is immune from such
imputation of nullity resting purely on conjecture and unsupported by anything of
substance. To hold otherwise would be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of
police power which 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."

White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009
A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the measure and the means
employed for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public
interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private property will not be
permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. It must also be evident that no other
alternative for the accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of private rights
can work. In the present case, there is less intrusive measures which can be
employed such as curbing the proliferation of prostitutes and drug dealers through
active police work would be more effective in easing the situation.

OSG v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 SCRA 617, September 18, 2009

Mall owners and operators cannot be validly compelled to provide free parking to
their customers because requiring them to provide free parking space to their
customers is beyond the scope of police poewrs. It unreasonably restrics the right
to use property for business purposes and amounts to confiscation of property.

Requisites for the valid exercise of police power by the delegate

1. Express grant by law;

2. Must not be contrary to law; and
3. GR: Within territorial limits of LGUs.
XPN: When exercised to protect water supply. (Wilson v. City of Mountain Lake
Terraces, 417 P.2d 632, August 18, 1966)

MMDA v. Trackworks, G.R. No. 179554, December 16, 2009

The MMDA cannot exercise police powers since its powers are limited to the
formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, preparation, management,
monitoring, setting of policies, installing a system, and administration. Nothing
in RA No. 7924 granted the MMDA police power, let alone legislative power.

EMINENT DOMAIN

The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private
property to public use upon payment of just compensation.

The power of the nation or the sovereign state to take, or to authorize the taking
of private proerty for public use without the owner's consent, conditioned upon
payment of just compensation. (Brgy. Sindala, San Fernando, Pampanga v. CA, G.R.
No. 150640, March 22, 2007)

Conditions for the exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain

1. Taking of private property;

2. For public use;
3. Just compensation; and
4. Observance of due process.

There is no Eminent Domain to speak of when there is a Sale of Private property.

Requisites for a valid taking

1. The expropriator must enter a private property;

2. Entry must be for more than
3. Entry must be under warrant
4. Property must be devoted to
injuriously affected; and
5. Utilization of the property
a momentary period;
or color of legal authority;
public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
for public use must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Nature of property taken

GR: All private property capable of ownership, including services, can be taken.
XPNs:
a. Money; and
b. Choses in action - personal right not reduced in possession but recoverable by a
suit at law such as right to receive, demand or recover debt, demand or damanges on
a cause of action ex contracty or for a tort or omission of duty.

Requisites before an LGU can exercise Eminent Domain

1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local

chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the power of eminent domain or
pursue expropriation proceedings over a particular private property;
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or
for the benefit of the poor and the landless;
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9, Article III
of the Constitution, and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the ownder of the
property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.

Expansive concept of "Public Use"

Public use does not necessarily mean "use by the public at large." Whatever may be
beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement. Moreover,
that only few people benefit from the exproporiation does not diminish its public-
use character because the notion of public use now includes the broader notion of
indirect public benefit or advantage. (Manosca v. CA, G.R. 166440, January 29,
1996)

Concept of Vicarious Benefit

Abandons the traditional concept (number of actual beneficiaries determines public

purpose). Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect public advantage,
i.e. conversion of aslum area into a model housing community, urban land reform and
housing. There is a vicarious advantage to the society. (Filstream International
Incorporated v. CA, 284 SCRA 716, January 23, 1998)

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, instituted a complaint

for expropriation of a piece of land in Taguig, alleging that the National
Historical Institute declared said land as a national historical landmark, because
it was the site of the birth of Felix Manalo, the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. The
Republic filed an action to expropriate the land. Petitioners argued that the
expropriation was not for a public purpose. Is this correct?

YES. Public use should not be restricted to the traditional uses. It has been held
that places invested with unusual historical interest is a public use for which the
power of eminient domain may be authorized. The purpose in setting up the marker is
essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution of the late Felix Manalo to
the culture of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding and
leadership of the Iglesia ni Cristo. The practical reality that greater benefit may
be derived by members of the Iglesia ni Cristo than by most others could well be
true but such a peculiar advantage still remains to be merely incidental and
secondary in nature. Indeed, that only a few (people) would actually benefit from
the expropriation of property does not necessarily diminish the essence and
character of public use.
Just Compensation

It is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner
(owner's loss) by the expropriator. It is usually the fair market value (FMV) of
the property and must include consequential damages (damages to the other interest
of the owner attributed to the expropiration) minus consequential benefits
(increase in the value of other interests attributed to new use of the former
property).

Fair Market Value

The price that may be agreed upon by parties who are willing but are not compelled
to enter into a contract of sale. (City of Manila v. Estrada, G.R. No. 7749,
September 9, 1913)

Period to determine just compensation

The value of the property must be determined either at the time of taking or filing
of the complaint, whichever comes first. (EPZA v. Dulay, G.R. No. 59603, April 29,
1987)

Spouses Salvador owns a land where a one-storey building is erected. The said land
is subject to expropriation wherein the DPWH shall construct the NLEX extension
exiting McArthur Highway. DPWH paid the spouses amounting to P685,000 which was the
fair market value of the land and building. RTC issued a Writ of Possession in
favor of the Republic but decided to pay an additional amount corresponding to the
capital gains tax paid by the spouses. The Republic, [?] whether the capital gains
tax on the transfer of the expropriated property can be considered as consequential
damages that may be awarded to respondents.

NO. Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
sought to be expropriated. The measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's
loss. The compensation, to be just, must be fair not only to the owner but also to
the taker. Consequential damages are only awarded if as a result of the
expropriation, the remaining property of the owner suffers from an impairment or
decrease in value. In this case, no evidence was submitted to prove any impairment
or decrease in value of the subject property as a result of the expropriation.

Form of payment

GR: Compensation has to be paid in money.

XPN: In cases involving CARP, compensation may be in bonds or stocks, for it has
been held as a non-traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is not
an ordinary expropiration where only a specific property of relatively limited area
is sought to be taken by the State from its ownder for a specific and perhaps local
purpose. It is rather a revolutionary kind of expropriation. (Association of Small
Landownders in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No.
78742, July 14, 1989)

Land Bank of the Phil. v. Hababag, G.R. No. 172352, September 16, 2015

The ownder is entitled to the payment of interest from the time of taking until
just compensation is actually paid to him. Taxes paid by him from the time of the
taking until the transfer of title (which can only be done after actual payment of
just compensation), during which he did not enjoy any beneficial use of the
property, are reimbursable by the expropriator.

Pursuant to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 700 series of 2013, from July
1, 2013
Effect of Delay

GR: Non-payment by the government does not entitle private owners to recover
possession of the property because expropriation is an in rem proceeding, not an
ordinary sale, but only entitle them to demand payment of the fair market value of
the property.

XPNs:
1. When there is deliberate refusal to pay just compensation; and
2. Government's failure to pay compensation within 5 years from the finality of the
judgment in the expropriation proceedings. This is in connection with the
principile that the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment.
(Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005)

Abandonment of intended use and right of repurchase

xxx, with respect to the element of public use, the expropriator should commit to
use the property pursuant to the purpose stated in the petition for expropriation
filed, failing which, it should file another petition for the new purpose. If not,
it is then incumbent upon the expropriator to return the said property to its
private owner, if the latter desires to reacquire the same. Otherwise, the judgment
of expropriation suffers an intrinsic flaw, as it would lack one indispensable
element for the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely, the
particular public purpose for which the porperty will be devoted. Accordingly, the
private property owner would be denied due process of law xxx

Republic v. Heirs of Borbon, G.R. No. 165354, January 12, 2015

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.

TAXATION

It is the process by which the government, through its legislative branch, imposes
and collects revenues to defray the necessary expenses of the government, and to be
able to carry out, in particular, any and all projects that are supposed to be for
the common good. Simply put, taxation is the method by which these contributions
are exacted.

Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the State.
Its concern is not the relation between private individuals. What it does is to
declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power
holder. (People v. Marty, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624 (1943)

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the
vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities
and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the
courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property ,to free speech, a free press,
freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted
to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private individuals. In the absence of
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be
invoked. The equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however
discriminatory or wrongful. (Yrasegui v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008)

Exception to the Rule:

However, where the husband invoked his right to privacy of communication and
correspondence against a private individual, his wife, who had forcibly taken from
his cabinet documents and private correspondence, and presented as evidence against
him, the Supreme Court held these papers are inadmissible in evidence, upholing the
husband's right to privacy. (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996)

RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPOERTY

Life
The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in
protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature
from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. It was so clear that even the Court
cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of the Framers was captured in the
record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commision. (Imbong vs Ochoa)

Liberty
It is not only the right of a citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint
of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of
a citizen to be free in the engagement of all his faculties; to be free to use them
in all lawful ways. (Allegeyer vs. Louisianna, 165 U.S. 578, January 6, 1897)

Property
It refers to things which are susceptible of appropriation and which are already
possessed and found in the possession of man.

Due process clause

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Due process means:

1. There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the
legislature;
2. It 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 citizens of the State or to all of a class.
(People v. Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939)

Purpose

1. Prevent undue encroachment against the life, liberty and property of

individuals.
2. Secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of powers of government,
unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributive
justice.
3. Protect property from confiscation by legislative enactments from seizure,
forfeiture, and destruction without a trial and conviction by the ordinary modes of
judicial procedures. (Suarez, 2016)

Kinds of due process

Substantive due process
It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
person to his life, liberty, or property.

e.g. Publication of a law

City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr. G.R. 118127, April 12, 2005

These lawful establishments may only be regulated. They cannot be prohibited from
carrying on their business. This is a sweeping exercise of police power, which
amounts to interference into personal and private rights which the court will not
countenance. There is a clear invasion of personal or property rights, personal in
the case of those individuals desiring of owning, operation and patronizing those
motels and property in terms of investments made and the salaries to be paid to
those who are employed.

Procedural due process

Is the 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 and manner
by which a law is enforced.

The fundamental elements of procedural due process

1. Notice (to be meaningful, must be as to time and place);

2. Opportunity to be heard; and
3. Court/tribunals must have jurisdiction.

A complaint was filed against respondent Camille Gonzales, then Chief Librarian,
Catalog Division, of the National Library for dishonesty, grave misconduct and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The DECS investigating
committee was created to inquire into the charges against Gonzales. Is she entitled
to be informed of the findings and recommendations of the investigating committee?

Pefianco v. Moral, GR. No. 132248, January 19, 2000

No. It must be stressed that the disputed investigation report is an internal

communication between the DECS Secretary and the Investigation Committee, and it is
not generally intended for the perusal of respondent or any other person for that
matter, except the DECS Secretary. She is entitled only to the administrative
decision based on substantial evidence made of record, and a reasonable opportunity
to meet the charges and the evidence presented against her during the hearings of
the investigation committee.

DISCIPLINARY CASES INVOLVING STUDENTS

Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings
and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of
justice; that the proceedings may be summary; that cross-examination is not an
essential part of the investigation or hearing; and that the required proof in a
student disciplinary action, which is an administrative case, is neither proof
beyond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence but only substantial evidence
or "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support
a conclusion."

What is crucial is that the official action must meet minimum standards of fairness
to the individual, which generally encompass the right of adequate notice and a
meaningful opportunity to be heard.
It is not required that procedural due process be afforded at every stage of
developing disciplinary action. What is required is that an adequate hearing be
held before the final act of dismissal. (Cudia v. Superintendent of the PMA, GR.
No. 211362, February 24, 2015)

Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004

CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS

Protects the individual from the government and assures him of ohis rights in
criminal, civil or administrative proceedings.

STATUTORY DUE PROCESS

While found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules, it protects employees from
being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing.

Effect when due process is not observed

The cardinal precept is that where there is a violation of basic constitutional

rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction.

The violation of aparty's right to odue process raises a serious jurisdictional

issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the
fundamental right to due process is apparent, a decision rendered in disregard of
that right is void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally true in quasi-
judicial and administrative proceedings, for the constitutional guarantee that no
man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is
unqualified by the type of proceedings (whether judicial or administrative) where
he stands to lose the same.

In a dispute involving mining claims, Apo Cement Corporation wished to take over
mining claims of certain areas that overlapped with the portions of the claims of
Mingson Mining Industries Corporation. The case was eventually brought to the Panel
of Arbitrators (POA) and they uphold a resolution in favor of Apo Cement without
requiring the parties to file pleadings. Mingson brought the case to the DENR
Mining Arbitration Board (MAB) stating that...

Yes. The Implementing Rules of theh Philippine Mining Act of 1995 clearly require
that the parties involved in a mining dispute be given the opportunity to be heard.
In this case, it has been established that the POA proceeded to resolve the present
mining dispute without affording either party any fair and reasonable opportunity
to be heard, in violation of some of the provisions of DENR. Hence, Mingson's due
process rights were violated, thereby rendering the POA's Decision null and void.
(Apo Cement v. Mingson, G.R. No. 206728, November 12, 2014)

Effect of Waiver or Estoppel

Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and rasonable
opportunity to explain their respoective sides of the controversy. Thus, when the
party seeking due process was in fact given several opportunities to be heard and
air his side, but it is by his own fault or choice he squanders these chances, then
his cry for due process must fail.

Relativity of due process

Relativity of due process arises when the definition of due process has been left
to the best judgment of our judiciary considering the peculiarity and the
circumstances of each case. In a litany of cases that have been decided in this
jurisdiction, the common requirement to be able to conform to due process is fair
play, respect for justice and respect for the better rights of others. In
accordance with the standards of due process, any court at any particular time,
will be well guided, instead of being merely...

Due process in judicial proceedings

Whether in civil or criminal judicial proceedings, due process requires that there
be:

1. An impartial and disinterested court clothed by law with authority to hear and
determine the matter before it; NOTE: The test of impartiality is whether the
judge's intervention tends to prevent the proper presentation of the case or the
ascertainment of the truth.
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the defendant or the property which is the
subject matter of the proceedings.
3. The parties must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

Requisites of due process in administrative proceedings

1. Right to a hearing which includes the right to present one's case and submit
evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must be supported by evidence;
4. Such evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing
6. The body must act on his own independent consideration of the law and facts of
the controversy; and
7. The body should render its decision in such manner that the parties can know the
various issues involved and the reason for the decision rendered.

Due process in deportation proceedings

Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of acriminal

action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative
proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right
of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the
Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procoedure are
applicable to deportation proceedings. (Lao Gi v. CA, GR. No. 81789, December 29,
1989)

Instances when hearings are not necessary

1. When administrative agencies are exercising their quasi-legislative functions;

2. Abatement of nuisance per se;
3. Granting by courts of provisional remedies;
4. Cases of preventive suspension;
5. Removal of temporary employees in the government service;
6. Issuance of warrants of distraint and/or levy by the BIR Commissioner;
7. Cancellation of the passport of a person charged with a crime.

VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE

A law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men of common

intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its
application.

In such instance, the statute is repugnant ot the Constitution because:

1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and
2. It leaves law enforcerse and unbridled discretion in carrying out its
provisions. (People v. de la Piedra, G.R. No. 128777, January 24, 2001)

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS

There is a hirarchy of constitutional rights. While the Bill of Rights also

protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is
recognized.

Property and property rights can be lost through prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible.

In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and assembly
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality
of our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives these liberties
the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."

Judicial standards of review

Deferential review (or Rational Basis Test) - Laws are upheld if they rationally
further a legitimate governmental interest, without courts seriously inquiring into
the substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative means by which
the objectives could be achieved.

The rational basis test is the minimum level of scrutiny that all government
actions challenged under the equal protection clause must meet.

Strict scrutiny - The focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than

substantial governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for
achieving that interest.

The strict scrutiny test is used in discriminations based on race or those which
result in violations of fundamental rights. Under the strict scrutiny test, to be
valid the classification must promote a compelling state interest.

Intermediate review- The substantiality of the governmental interest is seriously

looked into and the availability of less restrictive alternatives is considered.

The intermediate scrutiny test is used in discriminations based on gender or

illegitimacy of children. Under the intermediate scrutiny test, the classification
must be substantially related to an important government objective.

Laws not subject to the strict or intermediate scrutiny test are evaluated under
the rational basis test, which is the easiest test to satisfy since the
classification must only show a rational relationship to a legitimate government
purpose.

Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana G.R. No. 189185, August 16, 2016

The City of Davao enacted an ordinance prohibiting aerial spraying in all

agricultural entities in that City and requiring affected parties to shift to other
modes of pesticide application within a three-month period under pain of penalty.

The required civil works for the conversion to truck-mounted boom spraying alone
will consume considerable time and financial resources given the topography and
geographical features of the plantations. As such, the completion could not be
completed within the short timeframe of three months. Requiring the respondents and
other affected individuals to comply with the consequences of the ban within the
three-month period under pain of penalty like fine, imprisonment and even
cancellation of business permits would definitely be oppressive as to constitute
abuse of police power.

The constitutional right to equal protection requires that all persons or things
similarly situated should betreated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat
similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. The guarantee of equal
protection secures every person within the State's jurisdiction against intentional
and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a statute
or by its improper execution through the State's duly constituted authorities.

The Government carries the burden to prove that the classification is necessary to
achieve a compelling state interest, and that it is the least restrictive means to
protect such interest. If the groupings are characterized by substantial
distinctions that make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated
differently from another. In other words, a valid classification must be:
1. based on substantial distinctions;
2. germane to the purpose of the law;
3. not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. equally applicable to all members of the class.

The reasonability of a distinction and sufficiency of the justification given by

the Government for its conduct is gauged by using the means-end test. This test
requires analysis of:
1. the interests of the public that generally requires its exercise, as
distinguished from those of a particular class; and
2. the means employed that are necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and
are not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Applying the rational basis test, the ordinance of Davao prohibiting aerial
spraying in all agricultural entities therein as the practice produces pesticide
drift causing inconvenience and harm to the residents and degrades the environment,
violates the equal protection clause, hence, should be declared unconstitutional.
The occurence of pesticide drift is not limited to aerial spraying but results from
the conduct of any mode of pesticide application. Even manual spraying or truck-
mounted boom spraying produces drift that may bring about the same inconvenience,
discomfort and alleged health risks to the community and to the environment.

Aside from its being underinclusive, the ordinance also tends to be "overinclusive"
because its impending implementation will affecet groups that have no relation to
the accomplishment of the legislative purpose. Its implementation will
unnecesesarily impose a burden on a wider range of individuals than those included
in the intended class based on the purpose of the law.

The imposition of the ban is too broad because the ordinance applies irrespective
of the substance to be aerially applied and irrespective of the agricultural
activity to be conducted. The respondents admit that they aerially treate their
plantations not only with pesticides but also vitamins and other substances. The
imposition of the ban against aerial spraying of substances other than fungicides
and regardless of the agricultural activity being performed. The imposition of the
ban is too broad because the ordinance applies irrespective of the substance to be
aerially applied and irrespective of the agricultural activity to be conducted.

Evidently, the ordinance discriminates against large farm holdings that are the
only ideal venues for the investment of machineries and equipment capable of aerial
spraying. It effectively denies the affected individuals the technology aimed at
efficient and cost-effective operations and cultivation not only of banana but of
other crops as well. The prohibition against aerial spraying will seriously hamper
the operations of the banana plantations that depend on aerial technology to arrest
the spread of the Black Sigatoka disease and other menaces that threaten their
production and harvest.

The discriminatory character of the ordinance makes it oppressive and unreasonable

in light of the existence and availability of more permissible and practical
alternatives that will not overburden the respondents and those dependent on their
operations as well as those who stand to be affected by the ordinance.

EQUAL PROTECTION

All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. It guarantees equality, not identity of
rights. It does not forbid discrimination as to persons and things that are
different. What it forbids are distinctions based on impermissible criteria
unrelated to a proper legislative purpose, or class or discriminatory legislation,
which discriminates against some and favors others when both are similarly
situated.

Requisites for Valid Classification

1. Rest on substantial distinctions;

2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4. Apply equally to all members of the same class. (People v. Cayat, GR. No. L-
45987, May 5, 1939)

Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 79267, June 25, 2013

R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinction. There is an unequal power relationship

between women and men and the fact that women are more likely than men to be
victims of violence and the widespread gender bias and prejudice against women all
make for real differences justifying the classification under the law. The
classification is germane to the purpose of the law. The distinction between men
and women is germane to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address violence
committed against women and children.

Sec. 5.23 of the Reproductive Health Law-IRR provides that skilled health
professional such as provincial, city or municipal health officers, chiefs or
hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives cannot be considered as conscientious
objectors. Is this provision unconstitutional?

(Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)

YES. This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The
conscientious objection clause should be equally protective of the religious belief
of public health officers. There is no perceptible distinction why they should not
be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The protection accorded to other
conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical practitioners without
distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector. After all, the
freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the protectiverobe that
guarantees its free exercise is not taken off even if one acquires employment in
the government.

Central Bank Employees Association, Inc., v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, G.R. No.
148208, December 15, 2004

In the field of equal protection, the guarantee that "no person shall be denied the
equal protection of the laws" includes the prohibition against enacting laws that
allow invidious discrimination, directly or indirectly. If a law has the effect of
denying the equal protection of the law, or permits such denial, it is
unconstitutional.

Searches and Seizures

Rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and persons of things to be
seized.

REQUISITES FOR A VALID SEARCH WARRANT

1. It must be issued upon determination of probable cause;

2. The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the
applicant or any other person;
3. In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons and things to be seized.

WARRANT OF ARREST

In connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest, however, the word

"personally" after the word determined does not necessarily mean that the judge
should examine the complainant and his witnesses personally or face to face before
issuing the warrant of arrest but the exclusive responsibility on the part of said
judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. As such, there in no
need to examine the complainant and his witnesses face to face. It is sufficient if
the judge is convinced of the...

WHEN WARRANT OF ARREST MAY ISSUE

Within 10 days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor. In conducting the resolution
of the prosecutor. In conducting the evaluation of the resolution, the judge shall
look into supporting evidence (Sec. 5, Rule 112).

General warrants

Warrants of broad and general characterizations or sweeping descriptions which will

authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate
any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense.

Purpose of particularity of description in search warrants

1. Readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent the peace officers
from seizing the wrong items; and
2. Leave peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and
thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA
SCRA 823, February 27, 1971)

Nature of search warrant proceedings

Neither a criminal action nor a commencement of a prosecution. It is solely for the

possession of personal property. (United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No.
163858, June 28, 2005)

Probable cause - Search Warrant

Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such

reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to
believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and
proper. It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with that offense are in the place to be searched. (HPS Software and
Communications Corp. and Hyman Yap v. PLDT, G.R. No. 170217, December 10, 2012)