Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Constitutional Law 2 - Fundamental Powers of The State With Cases
Constitutional Law 2 - Fundamental Powers of The State With Cases
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE CA: affirmed with modification; even on the assumption that LOI
No. 1465 was issued under the police power of the state, it is
Similarities and Differences still unconstitutional because it did not promote public
welfare; the levy was NOT for the benefit, as alleged, of
PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC. VS. FERTIPHIL CORPORATION Planters Foundation, Inc. (on the strength of the Letter of
(PONENTE: REYES) Understanding (LOU) issued by then Prime Minister Cesar
Doctrine/s: Virata on 18 April 1985 and affirmed by the Secretary of Justice
(1) If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, in an Opinion dated 12 October 1987.(PPI filed a M.R. -> denied)
one of the real and substantial purposes, then the exaction is
properly called a tax. Issue/s:
(2) The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence, implicit (1) Whether the imposition of the levy was an exercise by the State
in its power is the limitation that it should be used only for a of its taxation power.
public purpose. (2) Whether LOI 1465 constitutes a valid legislation pursuant to
the exercise of taxation.
Facts: (3) Whether LOI 1465 constitutes a valid legislation pursuant to
Petitioner PPI and private respondent Fertiphil are private the exercise of police power.
corporations incorporated under Philippine laws. They are both
engaged in the importation and distribution of fertilizers, pesticides and Held:
agricultural chemicals. (1) Yes;
The imposition of the levy was an exercise by the State of its taxation
On 3 June 1985, then President Ferdinand Marcos, exercising his power. While it is true that the power of taxation can be used as an
legislative powers, issued LOI No. 1465 which provided, among implement of police power,the primary purpose of the levy is revenue
others, for the imposition of a capital recovery component generation. If the purpose is primarily revenue, or if revenue is,
(CRC) on the domestic sale of all grades of fertilizers in the at least, one of the real and substantial purposes, then the
Philippines. The LOI provides: exaction is properly called a tax.
3. The Administrator of the Fertilizer Pesticide Authority to In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Edu, it was held that the imposition of a
include in its fertilizer pricing formula a capital vehicle registration fee is not an exercise by the State of its police power,
contribution component of not less than P10 per bag. but of its taxation power, thus:
This capital contribution shall be collected until adequate
capital is raised to make PPI viable. Such capital It is clear from the provisions of Section 73 of Commonwealth
contribution shall be applied by FPA to all domestic sales Act 123 and Section 61 of the Land Transportation and Traffic
of fertilizers in the Philippines. (Underscoring supplied) Code that the legislative intent and purpose behind the law
requiring owners of vehicles to pay for their registration
Pursuant to the LOI, Fertiphil paid P10 for every bag of fertilizer it is mainly to raise funds for the construction and maintenance
sold in the domestic market to the Fertilizer and Pesticide of highways and to a much lesser degree, pay for the
Authority (FPA). FPA then remitted the amount collected to the operating expenses of the administering agency. x xx Fees
Far East Bank and Trust Company, the depositary bank of may be properly regarded as taxes even though they
PPI.Fertiphil paid P6,689,144 to FPA from July 8, 1985 to January 24, also serve as an instrument of regulation.
1986
Taxation may be made the implement of the state's police
After the 1986 Edsa Revolution, FPA voluntarily stopped the power (Lutz v. Araneta, 98 Phil. 148). If the purpose is
imposition of the P10 levy. With the return of democracy, Fertiphil primarily revenue, or if revenue is, at least, one of the real and
demanded from PPI a refund of the amounts it paid under LOI substantial purposes, then the exaction is properly called a
No. 1465, but PPI refused to accede to the demand. tax. Such is the case of motor vehicle registration fees. The
same provision appears as Section 59(b) in the Land
Fertiphil filed a complaint for collection and damagesagainst Transportation Code. It is patent therefrom that the
FPA and PPI with the RTC in Makati. It questioned the legislators had in mind a regulatory tax as the law refers to
constitutionality of LOI No. 1465 for being unjust, unreasonable, the imposition on the registration, operation or ownership of a
oppressive, invalid and an unlawful imposition that amounted to a denial motor vehicle as a "tax or fee." x xx Simply put, if the exaction
of due process of law.Fertiphil alleged that the LOI solely favored under Rep. Act 4136 were merely a regulatory fee, the
PPI, a privately owned corporation, which used the proceeds to imposition in Rep. Act 5448 need not be an "additional" tax.
maintain its monopoly of the fertilizer industry. Rep. Act 4136 also speaks of other "fees" such as the special
permit fees for certain types of motor vehicles (Sec. 10) and
In its Answer, FPA, through the Solicitor General, countered that additional fees for change of registration (Sec. 11). These are
the issuance of LOI No. 1465 was a valid exercise of the police not to be understood as taxes because such fees are
power of the State in ensuring the stability of the fertilizer very minimal to be revenue-raising. Thus, they are not
industry in the country. It also averred that Fertiphil did not sustain mentioned by Sec. 59(b) of the Code as taxes like the motor
any damage from the LOI because the burden imposed by the levy fell on vehicle registration fee and chauffeurs’ license fee. Such fees
the ultimate consumer, not the seller. are to go into the expenditures of the Land Transportation
Commission as provided for in the last proviso of Sec. 61.
RTC: the imposition of the P10 CRC was an exercise of the (Underscoring supplied)
State’s inherent power of taxation; invalidated the levy for
violating the basic principle that taxes can only be levied for The P10 levy under LOI No. 1465 is too excessive to serve a
public purpose. (PPI filed a M.R. -> denied; In a separate but related mere regulatory purpose. The levy, no doubt, was a big burden on the
proceeding, SC allowed appeal but remanded to CA) seller or the ultimate consumer. It increased the price of a bag of fertilizer
by as much as five percent. A plain reading of the LOI also supports
the conclusion that the levy was for revenue generation. The
While the categories of what may constitute a public purpose are HELD: In the light of the foregoing, the petition must be dismissed.
continually expanding in light of the expansion of government functions,
the inherent requirement that taxes can only be exacted for a As a general rule, official acts enjoy a presumed validity. In the absence of
public purpose still stands. Public purpose is the heart of a tax law. clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the presumption logically
When a tax law is only a mask to exact funds from the public stands.
when its true intent is to give undue benefit and advantage to a
private enterprise, that law will not satisfy the requirement of The petitioner has shown no satisfactory reason why the contested
"public purpose." measure should be nullified. There is no question that Department Order
No. 1 applies only to "female contract workers," but it does not thereby
Indications that it is not for the public purpose make an undue discrimination between the sexes. It is well-settled that
1. The LOI expressly provided that the levy be imposed to benefit "equality before the law" under the Constitution does not import a perfect
PPI, a private company. Identity of rights among all men and women. It admits of classifications,
2. The LOI provides that the imposition of the P10 levy was provided that (1) such classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2)
conditional and dependent upon PPI becoming financially they are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are not confined to
"viable." existing conditions; and (4) they apply equally to all members of the same
3. The levies paid under the LOI were directly remitted and class.
deposited by FPA to Far East Bank and Trust Company, the
depositary bank of PPI which proves that PPI benefitted from The Court is well aware of the unhappy plight that has befallen our female
the LOI labor force abroad, especially domestic servants, amid exploitative
4. The levy was used to pay the corporate debts of PPI. working conditions marked by physical and personal abuse. As precisely
the caretaker of Constitutional rights, the Court is called upon to protect
(3) No; victims of exploitation. In fulfilling that duty, the Court sustains the
Even if We consider LOI No. 1695 enacted under the police power of the Government's efforts.
State, it would still be invalid for failing to comply with the test
of "lawful subjects" and "lawful means." Jurisprudence states the The same, however, cannot be said of our male workers. In the first place,
test as follows: (1) the interest of the public generally, as distinguished there is no evidence that, except perhaps for isolated instances, our men
from those of particular class, requires its exercise; and (2) the means abroad have been afflicted with an identical predicament. Suffice it to
employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the state, then, that insofar as classifications are concerned, this Court is
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. content that distinctions are borne by the evidence. Discrimination in this
case is justified.
For the same reasons as discussed, LOI No. 1695 is invalid because it
did not promote public interest. The law was enacted to give undue There is likewise no doubt that such a classification is germane to the
advantage to a private corporation. purpose behind the measure. Unquestionably, it is the avowed objective
of Department Order No. 1 to "enhance the protection for Filipino female
Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Court of overseas workers" this Court has no quarrel that in the midst of the
Appeals Decision dated November 28, 2003 is AFFIRMED. terrible mistreatment Filipina workers have suffered abroad, a ban on
deployment will be for their own good and welfare.
a. POLICE POWER
The Order does not narrowly apply to existing conditions. Rather, it is
PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS VS. intended to apply indefinitely so long as those conditions exist. This is
DRILON clear from the Order itself ("Pending review of the administrative and
G.R. NO. L-81958 legal measures, in the Philippines and in the host countries . . ."),
JUNE 30, 1988 meaning to say that should the authorities arrive at a means impressed
with a greater degree of permanency, the ban shall be lifted.
FACTS: This case was initiated in the Court of First Instance of Negros That the tax to be levied should burden the sugar producers themselves
Occidental to test the legality of the taxes imposed by Commonwealth Act can hardly be a ground of complaint; indeed, it appears rational that the
No. 567, otherwise known as the Sugar Adjustment Act. tax be obtained precisely from those who are to be benefited from the
expenditure of the funds derived from it. At any rate, it is inherent in the
Promulgated in 1940, the due to the threat to our industry by the power to tax that a state be free to select the subjects of taxation, and it
imminent imposition of export taxes upon sugar as provided in the has been repeatedly held that "inequalities which result from a singling
Tydings-McDuffe Act, and the "eventual loss of its preferential position in out of one particular class for taxation, or exemption infringe no
the United States market"; wherefore, the national policy was expressed constitutional limitation".
"to obtain a readjustment of the benefits derived from the sugar industry
by the component elements thereof" and "to stabilize the sugar industry From the point of view we have taken it appears of no moment that the
so as to prepare it for the eventuality of the loss of its preferential position funds raised under the Sugar Stabilization Act, now in question, should be
in the United States market and the imposition of the export taxes." exclusively spent in aid of the sugar industry, since it is that very
enterprise that is being protected. It may be that other industries are also
In section 2, Commonwealth Act 567 provides for an increase of the in need of similar protection; that the legislature is not required by the
existing tax on the manufacture of sugar, on a graduated basis, on each Constitution to adhere to a policy of "all or none." As ruled in Minnesota
picul of sugar manufactured; while section 3 levies on owners or persons ex rel. Pearson vs. Probate Court, 309 U. S. 270, 84 L. Ed. 744, "if the law
in control of lands devoted to the cultivation of sugar cane and ceded to presumably hits the evil where it is most felt, it is not to be overthrown
others for a consideration, on lease or otherwise a tax equivalent to the because there are other instances to which it might have been applied;"
difference between the money value of the rental or consideration and that "the legislative authority, exerted within its proper field, need
collected and the amount representing 12 per centum of the assessed not embrace all the evils within its reach".
value of such land.
Plaintiff, Walter Lutz, in his capacity as Judicial Administrator of the ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECREATARY
Intestate Estate of Antonio Jayme Ledesma, seeks to recover from the OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Collector of Internal Revenue the sum of P14,666.40 paid by the estate as G.R. NO. L-78742
taxes, under section 3 of the Act, for the crop years 1948-1949 and 1949- JULY 14, 1989
1950; alleging that such tax is unconstitutional and void, being levied for
the aid and support of the sugar industry exclusively, which in plaintiff's FACTS: This is a consolidation of cases which involve constitutional
opinion is not a public purpose for which a tax may be constitutionally questions as to the validity of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
levied. The action having been dismissed by the Court of First Instance, 1988, which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988.
the plaintiffs appealed the case directly to this Court (Judiciary Act,
section 17). "Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance
in the distribution of this precious resource among our people. But it is
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA No. 567 or Sugar Adjustment Act is more than a slogan. Through the brooding centuries, it has become a
constitutional and for public purpose.
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE Page 3 of 11
battle-cry dramatizing the increasingly urgent demand of the landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of
dispossessed among us for a plot of earth as their place in the sun. private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry
out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of
Recognizing this need, the Constitution in 1935 mandated the policy of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed,
social justice to "insure the well-being and economic security of all the there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which
people," especially the less privileged. In 1973, the new Constitution payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is
affirmed this goal adding specifically that "the State shall regulate the not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the
acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment and disposition of private surrender of the title to and the physical possession of the said excess and
property and equitably diffuse property ownership and profits." all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer-
Significantly, there was also the specific injunction to "formulate and beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the
implement an agrarian reform program aimed at emancipating the tenant power of eminent domain.
from the bondage of the soil."
Whether as an exercise of the police power or of the power of eminent
The Constitution of 1987 was not to be outdone. Besides echoing these domain, the several measures before us are challenged as violative of the
sentiments, it also adopted one whole and separate Article XIII on Social due process and equal protection clauses.
Justice and Human Rights, containing grandiose but undoubtedly sincere
provisions for the uplift of the common people. These include a call in the The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal
following words for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform protection because of the absence of retention limits has also become
program: academic under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. Significantly, they too have
not questioned the area of such limits. There is also the complaint that
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of to a particular class with particular interests of their own. However, no
other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this evidence has been submitted to the Court that the requisites of a valid
end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all classification have been violated.
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention
limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things
developmental, or equity considerations and subject to the payment of similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect in these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following
the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must
for voluntary land-sharing. be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not be limited to
existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members
Earlier, in fact, R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land of the class. The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the
Reform Code, had already been enacted by the Congress of the measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory.
Philippines on August 8, 1963, in line with the above-stated principles.
This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by P.D. No. 27, Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly
which was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the
provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution liabilities imposed. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a
among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for different class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument that
landowners. not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to
share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There is
On July 17, 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is
declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 clearly visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to
and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the elaborate on this matter. In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide
decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on July leeway in providing for a valid classification. Its decision is accorded
22, 1987 by Presidential Proclamation No. 131, instituting a recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its
comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229, discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.
providing the mechanics for its implementation.
It is worth remarking at this juncture that a statute may be sustained
Subsequently, with its formal organization, the revived Congress of the under the police power only if there is a concurrence of the lawful subject
Philippines took over legislative power from the President and started its and the lawful method. Put otherwise, the interests of the public generally
own deliberations, including extensive public hearings, on the as distinguished from those of a particular class require the interference
improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, after almost a year of of the State and, no less important, the means employed are reasonably
spirited debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as necessary for the attainment of the purpose sought to be achieved and not
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which President unduly oppressive upon individuals. As the subject and purpose of
Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably changing agrarian reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself, we may
the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory say that the first requirement has been satisfied. What remains to be
effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. examined is the validity of the method employed to achieve the
constitutional goal.
ISSUE: Whether or not Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 is
unconstitutional and violates individual rights to equal protection clause This brings us now to the power of eminent domain.
and due process.
Eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that enables it to
HELD: The court in upholding the constitutionality of the forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 discussed the issues. just compensation to the owner. Obviously, there is no need to
expropriate where the owner is willing to sell under terms also acceptable
The cases before us present no knotty complication insofar as the to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary deed of sale may be agreed
question of compensable taking is concerned. To the extent that the upon by the parties. It is only where the owner is unwilling to sell, or
measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for cannot accept the price or other conditions offered by the vendee, that the
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE Page 4 of 11
power of eminent domain will come into play to assert the paramount b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria’s Mill Negros
authority of the State over the interests of the property owner. Private Occidental against Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Proclamation 131 is
rights must then yield to the irresistible demands of the public interest on the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with initial fund of P50Billion.
the time-honored justification, as in the case of the police power, that the c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the
welfare of the people is the supreme law. coverage of Operation Land Transfer.
d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice
But for all its primacy and urgency, the power of expropriation is by no and corn lands not exceeding seven hectares.
means absolute (as indeed no power is absolute). The limitation is found
in the constitutional injunction that "private property shall not be taken
for public use without just compensation" and in the abundant Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s, PD, and RA were
jurisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation of this principle. constitutional.
Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are: (1)
public use and (2) just compensation. Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in
exercise of Police power and eminent domain.
Let us dispose first of the argument raised by the petitioners in G.R. No.
79310 that the State should first distribute public agricultural lands in the The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and
pursuit of agrarian reform instead of immediately disturbing property 229 was authorized under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
rights by forcibly acquiring private agricultural lands. Parenthetically, it is Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of Police Power and Eminent
not correct to say that only public agricultural lands may be covered by Domain.
the CARP as the Constitution calls for "the just distribution of all
agricultural lands." In any event, the decision to redistribute private RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP
agricultural lands in the manner prescribed by the CARP was made by the becomes necessary to deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in
legislative and executive departments in the exercise of their discretion. excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the
We are not justified in reviewing that discretion in the absence of a clear power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is
showing that it has been abused. imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of
the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical
A becoming courtesy admonishes us to respect the decisions of the possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in
political departments when they decide what is known as the political favour of the farmer.
question.
A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is
The second requirement, i.e., the payment of just compensation, needs a concurrence of the lawful subject and the method.
longer and more thoughtful examination.
Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the to be determined is the method employed to achieve it.
property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly
stressed by this Court that the measure is not the taker's gain but the
owner's loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word FLORENTINA A. LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ
"compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for G.R. NO. L-63419 146 SCRA 323
the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, ample. DECEMBER 18, 1986
It bears repeating that the measures challenged in these petitions FACTS: The constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22 for
contemplate more than a mere regulation of the use of private lands short), popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law, which was approved
under the police power. We deal here with an actual taking of private on April 3, 1979, is the sole issue presented by these petitions for decision.
agricultural lands that has dispossessed the owners of their property and The question is definitely one of first impression in our jurisdiction.
deprived them of all its beneficial use and enjoyment, to entitle them to
the just compensation mandated by the Constitution. These petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under
the statute. The defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash
As held in Republic of the Philippines v. Castellvi, 42 there is the information on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an
compensable taking when the following conditions concur: (1) the offense, the statute being unconstitutional.
expropriator must enter a private property; (2) the entry must be for
more than a momentary period; (3) the entry must be under warrant or ISSUE: Whether or not the bouncing check law is unconstitutional?
color of legal authority; (4) the property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and (5) the HELD: BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or curbing the practice of
utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust issuing checks that are worthless, i.e. checks that end up being rejected or
the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property. All dishonored for payment. The practice, as discussed later, is proscribed by
these requisites are envisioned in the measures before us. the state because of the injury it causes to the public interests.
Asso. Of Small Landowners Vs. Sec. Of DAR Those who question the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that: (1) it
175 SCRA 343 G.R. No. L-78742 July 14, 1989 offends the constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt;
(2) it impairs freedom of contract; (3) it contravenes the equal protection
Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case: clause; and (4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive powers;
a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 Has BP 22 transgressed the constitutional inhibition against
and RA 6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare imprisonment for debt? To answer the question, it is necessary to
Riceland worked by four tenants. Tenants were declared full owners examine what the statute prohibits and punishes as an offense. Is it the
by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. The petitioners now failure of the maker of the check to pay a debt? Or is it the making and
contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature’s power. issuance of a worthless check in payment of a debt? What is the gravamen
of the offense? This question lies at the heart of the issue before us.
h) A student shall be allowed only three (3) chances to take the NMAT. FACTS: The petitioner had transported six carabaos in a pump boat
After three (3) successive failures, a student shall not be allowed to take from Masbate to Iloilo on January 13, 1984, when they were confiscated
the NMAT for the fourth time. by the police station commander of Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo, for violation of
Executive Order No. 626-A which provides that “the carabao or carabeef
The private respondent insists he can, on constitutional grounds. transported in violation of this Executive Order as amended shall be
subject to confiscation and forfeiture by the government, to be distributed
The private respondent is a graduate of the University of the East with a to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of
degree of Bachelor of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that he the National Meat Inspection Commission may ay see fit, in the case of
took the NMAT three times and flunked it as many times. 1 When he carabeef, and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of
applied to take it again, the petitioner rejected his application on the basis Animal Industry may see fit, in the case of carabaos”.
of the aforesaid rule. He then went to the Regional Trial Court of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila, to compel his admission to the test. The petitioner sued for recovery, and the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo
City issued a writ of replevin upon his filing of a supersedeas bond of
P12,000.00. After considering the merits of the case, the court sustained
In his original petition for mandamus, he first invoked his constitutional the confiscation of the carabaos and, since they could no longer be
rights to academic freedom and quality education. In an amended produced, ordered the confiscation of the bond. The court also declined to
petition filed with leave of court, he squarely challenged the rule on the constitutionality of the executive order, as raise by the
constitutionality of MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, containing the petitioner, for lack of authority and also for its presumed validity.
above-cited rule. The additional grounds raised were due process and
equal protection. The petitioner appealed the decision to the Intermediate Appellate
Court,* 3 which upheld the trial court, ** and he has now come before us
in this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972 is
unconstitutional and violative of the constitution rights to academic ISSUES: Whether or not executive order no. 626-A is unconstitutional
freedom and quality education, due process and equal protection? due misapplication of police power, violation of due process, and undue
delegation of legislative power?
HELD: In reversing the decision of the RTC Judge and affirming the
constitutionality of the MECS Order No. 12, the court cited that the power HELD: The protection of the general welfare is the particular function of
is validly exercised if (a) the interests of the public generally, as the police power which both restraints and is restrained by due process.
distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of The police power is simply defined as the power inherent in the State to
the State, and (b) the means employed are reasonably necessary to the regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare. It
attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly is this power that is now invoked by the government to justify Executive
oppressive upon individuals. Order No. 626-A, amending the basic rule in Executive Order No. 626,
prohibiting the slaughter of carabaos except under certain conditions. To
In other words, the proper exercise of the police power requires the justify the State in thus interposing its authority in behalf of the public, it
concurrence of a lawful subject and a lawful method. must appear, first, that the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require such interference;
The subject of the challenged regulation is certainly within the ambit of and second, that the means are reasonably necessary for the
the police power. It is the right and indeed the responsibility of the State accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly oppressive upon
to insure that the medical profession is not infiltrated by incompetents to individuals.
whom patients may unwarily entrust their lives and health.
In the light of the tests mentioned, we hold with the Toribio Case that
The method employed by the challenged regulation is not irrelevant to the there is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these animals except
purpose of the law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three-flunk rule is where they are at least seven years old if male and eleven years old if
female upon issuance of the necessary permit, the executive order will be
intended to insulate the medical schools and ultimately the medical
conserving those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their
profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be doctors. improvident depletion.
The State has the responsibility to harness its human resources and to see But while conceding that the amendatory measure has the same lawful
to it that they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used at all. These subject as the original executive order, we cannot say with equal certainty
resources must be applied in a manner that will best promote the that it complies with the second requirement, viz., that there be a lawful
method. We note that to strengthen the original measure, Executive
common good while also giving the individual a sense of satisfaction.
Order No. 626-A imposes an absolute ban not on the slaughter of the
carabaos but on their movement, providing that "no carabao regardless of
The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent is not age, sex, physical condition or purpose (sic) and no carabeef shall be
absolute. The Constitution also provides that "every citizen has the right transported from one province to another." The object of the prohibition
to choose a profession or course of study, subject to fair, reasonable and escapes us. The reasonable connection between the means employed and
equitable admission and academic requirements.” the purpose sought to be achieved by the questioned measure is missing.
→ A complaint based upon such a law, in order to be free from The present dominance of the alien retailer, especially in the big centers
of population, therefore, becomes a potential source of danger on
objection under a demurrer, must show that the person charged
occasions of war or other calamity. We do not have here in this country
belongs to the class of persons to which the law is applicable isolated groups of harmless aliens retailing goods among nationals; what
we have are well organized and powerful groups that dominate the
• Even admitting all of the facts in the complaint in the present case, distribution of goods and commodities in the communities and big
the court would be unable to impose the punishment provided for by centers of population. They owe no allegiance or loyalty to the State, and
law, because it does not show (a) that the defendant was a male citizen the State cannot rely upon them in times of crisis or emergency. While the
national holds his life, his person and his property subject to the needs of
of the municipality; (b) that he was an able-bodied citizen; (c) that he
his country, the alien may even become the potential enemy of the State.
was not under 18years of age nor over 55 [50]; nor (d) that conditions
existed which justified the president of the municipality in calling upon The law does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution
him for the services mentioned in the law because sufficient grounds exist for the distinction between alien and
citizen in the exercise of the occupation regulated. Aliens are under no
ICHONG VS HERNANDEZ special constitutional protection which forbids a classification otherwise
LAO H. ICHONG, in his own behalf and in behalf of other alien justified simply because the limitation of the class falls along the lines of
nationality. That would be requiring a higher degree of protection for
residents, corporations and partnerships adversely affected. by Republic aliens as a class than for similar classes than for similar classes of
Act No. 1180, petitioner, vs. JAIME HERNANDEZ, Secretary of American citizens. Broadly speaking, the difference in status between
Finance, and MARCELINO SARMIENTO, City Treasurer of Manila, citizens and aliens constitutes a basis for reasonable classification in the
respondents. exercise of police power.