Local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain; they can

exercise the power only when expressly authorized by the Legislature. Sec. 19 of the
Local Government Code confers such power to local governments, but the power is
not absolute; it is subject to statutory requirements [Masikip v. City of Pasig, G.R.
No. 136349, January 23, 2006; Lagcao v. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 3,
2004]. The grant of the power of eminent domain to local government units under
R.A. 7160 cannot be understood as equal to the pervasive and all-encompassing
power vested in the legislative branch of government. The power of eminent domain
must, by enabling law, be delegated to local governments by the national legislature,
and thus, can only be as broad or confined as the real authority would want it to be.

Expropriation under Sec. 18, Art. XII: “The State may, in the interest of national
welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to
be operated by the Government”.

Distinguish this from Sec. 17, Art. XII: “In times of national emergency, when the
public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under
reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of
any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest”.

With the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature, object,
extent, coverage and situs of taxation. But where a tax measure becomes so
unconscionable and unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will not
hesitate to strike it down, for despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot
override constitutional prescriptions. This postulate, however, has not been
demonstrated in the challenge to the constitutionality of the Simplified Net Income
Taxation Scheme.

Separation of powers.
i) Purpose: To prevent concentration of authority in one person or group of persons
that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of
republican institutions. “To secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent
despotism and to obtain efficiency”

Principle of Blending of Powers. Instances when powers are not confined exclusively
within one department but are assigned to or shared by several departments, e.g.,
enactment of general appropriations law.
Principle of Checks and Balances. This allows one department to resist
encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed
by the other departments, e.g., veto power of the President as check on improvident
legislation, etc..

Role of the Judiciary. The judicial power, as defined in Sec. 1, Art. VIII, “includes the
duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
been a grave abuse, of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government”.

Political and justiciable questions. “A purely justiciable question implies a given right,
legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a
remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right” [Casibang v. Aquino,
92 SCRA 642]. In Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, supra., the Supreme Court ruled that
what the petitioners raised were justiciable questions, considering that the
“statement of facts and definition of issues clearly show that the petitioners are
assailing R.A. 8180 because its provisions infringe the Constitution and not because
the law lacks wisdom”. In Tanada v. Angara, supra., the petition seeking the
nullification of the Senate concurrence of the President’s ratification of the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO), was held to present a
justiciable controversy, because where an action is alleged to infringe the
Constitution, it becomes not only the right but the duty of the judiciary to settle the
dispute.

“The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the
framework of the national development program of the Government’.

Emergency Powers to the President, as provided in Sec. 23(2), Art. VI: “In times of
war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President,
for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise
powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner
withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
adjournment thereof’.

A distinction has to be made between the President’s authority to declare a “state of

emergency” and to exercise emergency powers. To the first, since Sec. 18, Art. VII,
grants the President such power, no legitimate constitutional objection can be raised.
To the second, manifold constitutional issues arise. The exercise of emergency
powers, such as the taking over of privately-owned public utilities or businesses
aqffected with public interest, requires a delegation from Congress. Sec. 17, Art. XII,
must be understood as an aspect of the emergency powers clause. The taking over
of private businesses affected with public interest is just another facet of the
emergency powers generally reposed in Congress. Thus, when Sec. 17, Art. XII,
provides that “the State may, during the emergency aqnd under reasonable terms
prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned
public utility or business affected with public interest”, “the State” refers to Congress,
not the President. Whether the President may exercise such power is dependent on
whether Congress delegates it to the former pursuant to a law prescribing the
reasonable terms thereof

Completeness Test. The law must be complete in all its essential terms and
conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the
delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it.

Sufficient standard test. A sufficient standard is intended to map out the boundaries
of the delegate’s authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the
circumstances under which it is to be pursued and effected. This is intended to
prevent a total transference of legislative power from the legislature to the delegate.
The standard is usually indicated in the law delegating legislative power.

The Incorporation Clause [Sec. 2. Art. II: “The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land, and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations"

Civil Rights. Those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a
wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or
administration of government. They include the rights to property, marriage, equal
protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc.. They are rights appertaining to a
person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer,
in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action.
'

Political Rights. They refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of government, e.g., the right of suffrage, the right to
hold public office, the right to petition and, in general the rights appurtenant to
citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government
Life includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable

Liberty includes “the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal
restraint or servitude, x x x (It) includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways

Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the subject
of contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to
secure, use and dispose of them

a) Substantive. This serves as a restriction on government's law- and rulemaking

powers. The requisites are:
i) The interests of the public, in general, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the intervention of the State.
ii) The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.

Procedural. This serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasijudicial

agencies of government. Requisites:
An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it.
Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the
property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard. Due process is satisfied as
long as the party is accorded the opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is
deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.
The right of a party to cross-examine the witness against him in a civil case is an
indispensable part of due process.
Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.

Publication as part of due process. In Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, the Court
held that publication is imperative to the validity of laws, presidential decrees and
executive orders, administrative rules and regulations, and is an indispensable part
of due process. Thus, in Republic {National Telecommunications Commission) v.
Express Telecommunications, G.R. No. 147096, January 15, 2002, the National
Telecommunciations Commission, in granting Bayantel the provisional authority to
operate, applied the 1978 Rules of Practice and Procedure, and not the 1993
Revised Rules, because the latter had not yet been published (although the same
had already been filed with the National Administrative Register).

A preliminary investigation is essentially an inquiry to determine whether (1) a crime

has been committed, and (2) whether there is probable cause that the accused is
guilty thereof.

Administrative due process. In Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil 635, the Court enumerated
the requisites of administrative due process, as follows: (a) The right to a hearing,
which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support
thereof; (b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented; (c) The decision
must have something to support itself; (d) The evidence must be substantial; (e) The
decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties; (f) The tribunal or any of its
judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the facts and the law
of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision; and (g) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding will know the various
issues involved, and the reasons for the decision.

Searches and seizures. fSec. 2. Art. Ill: “The right 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 a judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place to be searched,
or the persons or things to the seized.

Warrant Probable Cause. Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance
of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on
them and act in pursuance thereof [People v. Syjuco, 64 Phil 667; Alvarez v. CFI, 64
Phil 33], For a search: “such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that
the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be
searched”

Issuance of a Warrant of Arrest. It is sufficient that the judge “personally determine”

the existence of probable cause. It is not necessary that he should personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses the Supreme Court said that a hearing is
not necessary for the determination of the existence of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The judge should evaluate the report and supporting
prosecutor or require the submission of the supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid
him in determining whether probable cause exists.

Warrant of Arrest. A warrant of arrest is said to particularly describe the person to be

seized if it contains the name/s of the person/s to be arrested. If the name of the
person to be arrested is not known, then a “John Doe” warrant may be issued. A
“John Doe" warrant will satisfy the constitutional requirement of particularity of
description if there is some descriptio persona which will enable the officer to identify
the accused.

A “buy-bust” operation is a valid in flagrante arrest. The subsequent search of the

person arrested and of the premises within his immediate control is valid as an
incident to a lawful arrest.