PART 1: Quiz

1. What is police power?

- As defined in Gerochi v. Department of Energy , 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
justification is found in the Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (the
welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non
laedas (so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an
inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs,
police power grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State,
as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers. We have
held that the power to "regulate" means the power to protect, foster,
promote, preserve, and control, with due regard for the interests, first and
foremost, of the public, then of the utility and of its patrons.

2. May the power of eminent domain be used as an implement of police

power? Give example.

- Yes, the power of eminent domain may be used as an implement of police

power. As decided in the case of Association of Small Landowners vs. Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of
private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out
such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever
lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is
definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of
just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title
to and the physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights
accruing to the owner, in favor of the farmer-beneficiary.

3. What power is implemented in giving senior’s citizen’s discount of

20%?

- As decided in Carlos Superdrug Corp v. DSWD, the power implemented in

giving senior’s citizen’s discount of 20% is police power. Accordingly, it is a
legitimate exercise of police power which, similar to the power of eminent
domain, has general welfare for its object. While the Constitution protects
property rights, in the exercise of police power, the State can intervene in the
operations of a business which may result in an impairment of property rights
in the process.

Page 1 of 12
4. What are the two (2) tests to determine the validity of the exercise of
police power?

- The two tests to determine the validity of the exercise of police power, as
cited in NTC v. Philippine Veterans Bank , are the lawful subject and lawful
method tests. In lawful subject test, the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, should justify the interference
of the state. While in lawful method test, the means employed should be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals.

5. A LGU passed an ordinance levying a special assessment equivalent to

one-half percent (0.5%) of the assessed value of Land in excess of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) shall be collected by the
City Treasurer which shall accrue to the Socialized Housing Programs
of the Quezon City Government. The special assessment shall accrue to
the General Fund under a special account to be established for the
purpose. The fund will be used for the benefit of informal settlers.
Petitioners questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance on the
ground that people should not be required to pay for the services that
the government is mandated to do. Further, It is a form of class
legislation since it favors informal settlers who occupy property not
their own and pay no taxes, over law-abiding real property owners who
pay income and realty taxes.

Is the ordinance constitutional?

- Yes, the ordinance is valid. In a similar case, Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, the tax is
within the power of the City Government to impose. Local government units
(LGUs) may be considered as having properly exercised their police power
only if there is a lawful subject and a lawful method. Herein, the tax is not a
pure exercise of taxing power or merely to raise revenue; it is levied with a
regulatory purpose. The levy is primarily in the exercise of the police power
for the general welfare of the entire city. It is greatly imbued with public
interest. On the question of inequality, the disparities between a real property
owner and an informal settler as two distinct classes are too obvious and
need not be discussed at length. The differentiation conforms to the practical
dictates of justice and equity and is not discriminatory within the meaning of
the Constitution. Notably, the public purpose of a tax may legally exist even if
the motive which impelled the legislature to impose the tax was to favor one
over another.

6. A law is passed requiring to also publish information as to the name of

Page 2 of 12
 the person, candidate, party or organization who commissioned or paid
for the survey. Is the law valid?

- Yes, the law is valid. As decided in Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse
Asia, Inc. vs. COMELEC, the names of those who commission or pay for
election surveys, including subscribers of survey firms, must be disclosed
pursuant to Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act. This requirement is a valid
regulation in the exercise of police power and effects the constitutional policy
of "guarantee[ing] equal access to opportunities for public service[.]" Section
5.2(a)'s requirement of disclosing subscribers neither curtails petitioners' free
speech rights nor violates the constitutional proscription against the
impairment of contracts.

7. Is the SWS survey an election propaganda?

- As provided in Social Weather Stations, Inc. and Pulse Asia, Inc. vs.
COMELEC, the Social Weather Station survey is not election propaganda per
se. Election surveys, on their face, do not state or allude to preferred
candidates. As a means, election surveys are ambivalent. To an academician,
they are an aggrupation of data. To a journalist, they are matters for
reportage. To a historian, they form part of a chronicle. Election surveys thus
become unambiguous only when viewed in relation to the end for which they
are employed. To those whose end is to get a candidate elected, election
surveys, when limited to their own private consumption, are a means to
formulate strategy. When published, however, the tendency to shape voter
preferences comes into play. In this respect, published election surveys
partake of the nature of election propaganda. It is then declarative speech in
the context of an electoral campaign properly subject to regulation. Hence,
Section 5.2 of the Fair Election Act's regulation of published surveys.

8. What is the power of eminent domain?

- As stated in Brgy. Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga v. CA , eminent domain

is defined as "the power of the nation or a sovereign state to take, or to
authorize the taking of, private property for a public use without the owner's
consent, conditioned upon payment of just compensation." It is
acknowledged as "an inherent political right, founded on a common necessity
and interest of appropriating the property of individual members of the
community to the great necessities of the whole community.

9. What is the remedy of the land owner if the government refused to pay
the just compensation?

- As decided in Republic v. Lim, while the prevailing doctrine is that "the non-

Page 3 of 12
 payment of just compensation does not entitle the private landowner to
recover possession of the expropriated lots, however, in cases where the
government failed to pay just compensation within five (5) years from the
finality of the judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their property. After
all, it is the duty of the government, whenever it takes property from private
persons against their will, to facilitate the payment of just compensation. In
Cosculluela v. Court of Appeals, it was defined that just compensation is not
only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the property
owner but also the payment of the property within a reasonable time.
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just." Also,
when the Republic’s failure to pay just compensation is a deliberate refusal on
its part recovery of possession is in order.

10. The Congress passed a law proving for a formula by which the Court
can compute the amount of just compensation. Is the Court bound by
the formula?

- No, the Court is not bound to a formula to compute the amount of just
compensation under a law passed by the Congress. As stated in Export
Processing Zone Authority vs. Dulay, the Court has the power to determine
just compensation and to appoint commissioners for the purpose. The
determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicial
function. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial
determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill
of Rights that private property may not be taken for public use without just
compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its
own determination shall prevail over the court's findings.

11. Discuss the case of Imbong vs Ochoa on the issue of “when does life
begin?” Why is it important to know?

- As discussed in the case of Imbong vs. Ochoa, applying the plain meaning
rule, the traditional meaning of the word "conception" which, as described
and defined by all reliable and reputable sources, means that life begins at
fertilization. It is apparent that the Framers of the Constitution emphasized
that the State shall provide equal protection to both the mother and the
unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon fertilization or
upon the union of the male sperm and the female ovum. It is also apparent is
that the Framers of the Constitution intended that to prohibit Congress from
enacting measures that would allow it determine when life begins.

This issue on when life begins is important because contraceptives that kill or
destroy the fertilized ovum should be deemed an abortive and thus

Page 4 of 12
 prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives that actually prevent the union of the
male sperm and the female ovum, and those that similarly take action prior
to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally
permissible.

12. In a preliminary investigation, is the respondent entitled to be

furnished of copies of the counter-affidavit of their co-respondents?

- No, the respondent is not entitled to be furnished of copies of the counter-

affidavit of their co-respondents. As discussed in the case of Estrada v. Office
of the Ombudsman, et al., there is no law or rule which requires the
Ombudsman to furnish a respondent with copies of the counter-affidavits of
their co-respondents. Neither Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure nor Section 4(c), Rule II of the Rules of Procedure of the
Office of the Ombudsman supports such claim. What the Rules of Procedure
of the Office of the Ombudsman require is for the Ombudsman to furnish the
respondent with a copy of the complaint and the supporting affidavits and
documents at the time the order to submit the counter-affidavit is issued to
the respondent only.

13. Is administrative due process applicable in preliminary investigation?

- Yes, administrative due process is applicable in preliminary investigation. In

Garcia vs. Molina, it provides that administrative proceedings are not exempt
from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due
process in investigations and hearings. The Civil Service Commission Rules
does not specifically provide that a formal charge without the requisite
preliminary investigation is null and void. However, upon receipt of a
complaint which is sufficient in form and substance, the disciplining authority
shall require the person complained of to submit a Counter-
Affidavit/Comment under oath within three days from receipt. The use of the
word “shall” quite obviously indicates that it is mandatory for the disciplining
authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or at least respondent should
be given the opportunity to comment and explain his side.

14. What is equal protection clause?

- As jurisprudence elucidates, equal protection simply requires that all persons

or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. It requires public bodies and institutions to treat
similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. In other words, the concept
of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it
may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are
irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.

Page 5 of 12
15. What are the requirements of valid classification?

- As reiterated in People v. Cayat, it is an established principle of constitutional

law that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not equal
protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
classification. And the classification, to be reasonable, (1) must rest on
substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3)
must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must apply equally to
all members of the same class.

16. Section 47 of R.A. No. 8791 otherwise known as "The General Banking
Law of 2000" which took effect on June 13, 2000, amended Act No.
3135. The law provides: “Notwithstanding Act 3135, juridical persons
whose property is being sold pursuant to an extrajudicial foreclosure,
shall have the right to redeem the property in accordance with this
provision until, but not after, the registration of the certificate of
foreclosure sale with the applicable Register of Deeds which in no case
shall be more than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is
earlier. Owners of property that has been sold in a foreclosure sale
prior to the effectivity of this Act shall retain their redemption rights
until their expiration.” Is the law valid?

- Yes, the law is valid. In Goldenway Merchandising Corporation vs. Equitable

PCI Bank, it ruled that one class may be treated differently from another
where the groupings are based on reasonable and real distinctions. If
classification is germane to the purpose of the law, concerns all members of
the class, and applies equally to present and future conditions, the
classification does not violate the equal protection guarantee.

The difference in the treatment of juridical persons and natural persons was
based on the nature of the properties foreclosed―whether these are used as
residence, for which the more liberal one-year redemption period is retained,
or used for industrial or commercial purposes, in which case a shorter term is
deemed necessary to reduce the period of uncertainty in the ownership of
property and enable mortgagee-banks to dispose sooner of these acquired
assets. It must be underscored that the General Banking Law of 2000, crafted
in the aftermath of the 1997 Southeast Asian financial crisis, sought to reform
the General Banking Act of 1949 by fashioning a legal framework for
maintaining a safe and sound banking system. In this context, the
amendment introduced by Section 47 embodied one of such safe and sound
practices aimed at ensuring the solvency and liquidity of our banks. It cannot
therefore be disputed that the said provision amending the redemption period
in Act 3135 was based on a reasonable classification and germane to the

Page 6 of 12
 purpose of the law.

17. What are the three (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to determine the
reasonableness of a classification?

- As jurisprudence stated, the three (3) tests of judicial scrutiny to determine

the reasonableness of a classification are Rational Basis Scrutiny,
Intermediate Scrutiny and Strict Scrutiny.

The Rational Basis Scrutiny is a traditional test which requires "only that
government must not impose differences in treatment except upon some
reasonable differentiation fairly related to the object of regulation." Simply
put, it merely demands that the classification in the statute reasonably relates
to the legislative purpose. It applies to legislative classifications in general,
such as those pertaining to economic or social legislation, which do not affect
the fundamental rights of suspect classes or is not based on gender or
intimacy.

On the other hand, Intermediate Scrutiny requires that the classification

(means) must serve an important governmental objective (ends) and is
substantially related to the achievement of such objective. A classification
based on sex is the best-established example of an intermediate level of
review.

Lastly, the Strict Scrutiny requires that the classification serve a compelling
state interest and is necessary to achieve such interest. It applies to
legislative classifications affecting fundamental rights or suspect classes.

18. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the RH Law on the

argument that they bound to fund a program of the government which
is contrary to their religion. Is their contention correct?

- No, the contention is not correct. In Imbong vs. Ochoa, it held that the
petitioners are misguided in their supposition that the State cannot enhance
its population control program through the RH Law simply because the
promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to their religious beliefs. Indeed,
the State is not precluded to pursue its legitimate secular objectives without
being dictated upon by the policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse to
pay his taxes simply because it will cloud his conscience. The demarcation
line between Church and State demands that one render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. That the
State shall also provide funding support to promote modern natural methods
of family planning, especially the Billings Ovulation Method, consistent with

Page 7 of 12
 the needs of acceptors and their religious convictions is one of the provisions
in the RH Law respecting religious freedom

19. Is the duty to refer under the RH Law based on the case of Imbong vs
Ochoa, constitutional?

- No, the duty to refer under the RH Law based on the case of Imbong vs
Ochoa is unconstitutional. The Court is of the view that the obligation to refer
imposed by the RH Law violates the religious belief and conviction of a
conscientious objector. Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a
patient seeking information on modem reproductive health products, services,
procedures and methods, his conscience is immediately burdened as he has
been compelled to perform an act against his beliefs. As Commissioner
Joaquin A. Bernas (Commissioner Bernas) has written, "at the basis of the
free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the human
conscience.

Though it has been said that the act of referral is an opt-out clause, it is,
however, a false compromise because it makes pro-life health providers
complicit in the performance of an act that they find morally repugnant or
offensive. They cannot, in conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do
directly. One may not be the principal, but he is equally guilty if he abets the
offensive act by indirect participation. If one would be compelled to act
contrary to his religious belief and conviction, it would be violative of "the
principle of non-coercion" enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise
of religion.

20. What are the requisites of plain view?

- As discussed in United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip , the essential requirements

for the plain view doctrine to apply, are: (a) the executing law enforcement
officer has a prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in
a position from which he can view a particular order; (b) the officer must
discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be immediately
apparent to the police that the items they observe may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

21. Angela Tan, a high school student at St. Theresa’s College (STC),
uploaded on Facebook several pictures of her and her classmates
(Nenita Daluz and Julienne Suzara) wearing only their undergarments.
Thereafter, some of their classmates reported said photos to their
teacher, Mylene Escudero. Escudero, through her students, viewed and
downloaded said pictures. She showed the said pictures to STC’s
Discipline-in-Charge for appropriate action. Is the right of the children

Page 8 of 12
 to privacy violated?

- No, the right of the children to privacy is not violated. STC cannot be faulted
for being steadfast in its duty of teaching its students to be responsible in
their dealings and activities in cyberspace. It is, thus, incumbent upon
internet users to exercise due diligence in their online dealings and activities
and must not be negligent in protecting their rights. Equity serves the
vigilant. Protection to persons cannot be afforded if they themselves did
nothing to place the matter within the confines of their private zone.

22. Distinguish content based regulation and content neutral regulation?

- As discussed in Chavez v. Gonzales, a content-neutral regulation is merely

concerned with the incidents of the speech, or one that merely controls the
time, place or manner, and under well-defined standards while in content-
based restraint or censorship the restriction is based on the subject matter of
the utterance or speech, the cast of the restriction determines the test by
which the challenged act is assayed with.

When the speech restraints take the form of a content-neutral regulation,

only a substantial governmental interest is required for its validity. Because
regulations of this type are not designed to suppress any particular message,
they are not subject to the strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an
intermediate approach—somewhere between the mere rationality that is
required of any other law and the compelling interest standard applied to
content-based restrictions.

With respect to content-based restrictions, the government must also show

the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would bring about—
especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm – otherwise
the prior restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its
content cannot be justified by hypothetical fears, "but only by showing a
substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a reality already on
ground." As formulated, "the question in every case is whether the words
used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

23. Why is Section 4 (c) (3) of Cyber Crime Law – Unsolicited Commercial
Communications declared unconstitutional?

- As discussed in Disini v. Secretary of Justice , Section 4 (c) (3) of Cyber Crime

Law – Unsolicited Commercial Communications, prohibiting the transmission
of unsolicited ads, is declared unconstitutional because it would deny a

Page 9 of 12
 person the right to read his emails, even unsolicited commercial ads
addressed to him. Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which
is not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other
constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is nonetheless entitled to
protection. The State cannot rob a person of this right without violating the
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements
are legitimate forms of expression.

24. What is benevolent neutrality approach?

- Benevolent neutrality, as stated in Estrada v. Escritor, recognizes that

government must pursue its secular goals but at the same time uphold
religious liberty to the greatest extent possible within flexible constitutional
limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by laws is secular,
benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on
religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.

25. When is one considered under custodial investigation?

- As jurisprudence stated, custodial investigation commences when a person is

taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a
crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on
the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. As
further provided in People vs. Ting Lan Uy , custodial investigation refers to
the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular person
as a suspect.

26. Is police line-up part of custodial investigation?

- No, police line-up is not part of custodial investigation. In Gamboa vs. Judge
Cruz, it provides that Police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest.
Hence, petitioner was not yet entitled, at such stage, to counsel. When a
person is identified at the police line-up, he had not been held yet to answer
for a criminal offense. Thus, when the process had not yet shifted from the
investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation does not elicit a
confession the accused may not yet avail of the services of his lawyer.

27. Should the right to counsel be made available during preliminary

investigation?

- Yes, the right to counsel should be made available during preliminary

investigation, however, it is not mandatory. A preliminary investigation is a
summary proceeding and is merely inquisitorial in nature, hence, an accused

Page 10 of 12
 doesn’t have right to counsel unless a confession is being obtained from him.
In the case of Gamboa vs. Judge Cruz, it was emphasized that an accused
should be assisted by counsel the moment there is a move or even an urge of
said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information
which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time.

28. Is the person facing extradition proceedings allowed to post bail?

- Yes, a person facing extradition proceedings is allowed to post bail. In

Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Judge Olalia, it
provides that if bail can be granted in deportation cases, the Court see no
justification why it should not also be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise,
considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to
deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition
cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or
guilt of the person detained is not in issue. While our extradition law does not
provide for the grant of bail to an extradite; there is no provision prohibiting
him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the
Constitution. Also, while the Philippines extradition law does not provide for
the grant of bail to an extraditee, however, there is no provision prohibiting
him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the
Constitution. Nevertheless, the potential extraditee must prove by "clear and
convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the
orders and processes of the extradition court.

29. What are the requisites of double jeopardy?

- As provided in Saldariega v. Panganiban, as a general rule, the following

requisites must be present for double jeopardy to attach: (1) a valid
indictment, (2) before a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the arraignment
of the accused, (4) a valid plea entered by him, and (5) the acquittal or
conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the case against
him without his express consent. However, there are two exceptions to the
foregoing rule, and double jeopardy may attach even if the dismissal of the
case was with the consent of the accused: first, when there is insufficiency of
evidence to support the charge against him; and second, where there has
been an unreasonable delay in the proceedings, in violation of the accused’s
right to speedy trial.

30. Enumerate the Miranda Rights

- As enshrined in Article III, Section 12, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution and as

stated in Miranda vs. Arizona the Miranda Rights are as follows:

Page 11 of 12
(a) any person under custodial investigation has the right to remain silent;
(b) anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
(c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being questioned and to
have his counsel present when being questioned; and
(d) if he cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any
questioning if he so desires.

Page 12 of 12