CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II MIDTERMS REVIEWER
Economical Rights
I. KINDS OF HIERARCHY RIGHTS
A. Natural, Constitutional, Statutory Rights
Natural Rights
The Inherent rights. These are the rights inherent to
man and given to him by God as a human being.
Simple because you are a human being, you are
born with it. These are God given rights. It is the
sovereign power that gives the rights . Other
examples are the right to talk, walk etc. With or
without the constitution we have these rights.
E.x. the right to live, love, be happy, human Rights.
Constitutional Rights
These are the rights found in the constitution. It is to
guarantee rights against abuse, arbitrary intrusion by
the government. (to protect us against the
government.) Example is the right to vote. But natural
rights can also be found in the constitution. This right
guarantees from abuse and limits the power of the
state.
Ex: right to live
Statutory Rights
These are rights drafted by the legislative, to enable
the provisions of the constitution. These are the rights
provided by the law-making bodies that are not found
in the constitution. Ex. Rights to overtime pay, Right
of Suffrage, discount of pwd, etc.
B. Civil, Political, Economic, Social, Cultural
Rights
Civil Rights
Rights that belong to an individual by virtue of their
citizenship in a state or in a community. These are
the rights that belong to every citizen of the state or
country, and are not connected with the
administration of the government. Civil rights define
the relations of individuals amongst themselves.
These rights are enforced by law at the instance of
the citizen in order to secure their means of
enjoyment of happiness. Ex: Rights to enter into a
contract, the right to express your sentiments,
freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
Political Rights
Rights that pertain to an individual's citizenship
vis-a-vis the management of the government for
redress, right to hold public office. These are the
Rights an individual enjoys as a consequence of
being a member of a body politic. They refer to the
rights of an individual to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of
government.
Ex. Right to assemble, right to vote, freedom of
speech.
Rights needed to survive, economically speaking.
Rights to practice one's profession, right to make a
living, right to own property whether intellectual or
real. These are rights intended to secure the well
being of individuals.
Ex: Right to work, education
Social Rights
These are rights associated with other rights, these
are the rights which are intended for the well being
and economic security of the individual. Rights
arising from our natural rights in order to become part
of a group or association, to mingle or to interact with
others
Ex. Right to association
Cultural Rights
Includes customs, or religion. Rights to practice their
beliefs, tradition, way of life, language, culture etc.
Ex. Right to choose a religion
C. 3 Generations of Rights
Refers to the order in time when a particular set of
rights began to develop and gain recognition by
states. Generation refers to the succession of periods
when societies and governments began recognizing
set of rights, though not necessarily in the order of
man’s priority, for man’s first priority was more
economic than political, such as the right to food,
etc., a right recognized by humans long before
governments and rulers came into being.
First Generation Rights
Refers mostly to political rights and civil liberties
found in the International Covenant on Civil and
Political RIghts (ICCPR), such as the prohibition
against searches and seizures, interruption of
peaceful meetings, or undue intervention to the
freedom of expression. These are “negative rights in
the sense that they prohibit the doing of something.
They are the “no one shall” rights.
Second Generation Rights
Positive rights that enjoin states to perform an act or
do something for the enjoyment of these rights by the
people. These are mostly economic, social and
cultural rights found in the International Convention
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
such as the right to work, to education and to food.
They are the “state shall” rights.
Third Generation Rights
Newly emerging rights, such as the right to
development, the right of people to live in a clean
environment, right to live in peace, etc. These are
also known as solidarity rights or collective rights.
These are the rights of the entire human race.
D. Life, Liberty (Pursuit of happiness), Property
Rights
Persons
Can be natural persons or artificial persons
(corporations, created as persons by legal fiction,
referred to as juridical persons, included foreigners if
they are within our jurisdiction.)
Life
Guarantees the right to be alive (Art. III, Sec 1), and
to be secured from physical harm. It talks about the
rights to a good life, there is an emphasis on the
quality of living that can be found in Art 2 where it
commands the state to promote a life of dignity, and
guarantees a rising standard of living and improved
quality of life for all.
It includes the right of an individual to his body and its
completeness, free from dismemberment, and
extends to the use of God-given faculties which
makes life enjoyable. (Justice Malcolm, Philippine
Constitutional Law, pp. 320- 321) Includes the right to
use different faculties of your bodies and right to have
a good life.
Liberty
It includes the rights to exist and the right to be free
from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude, and the
right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all
lawful ways. (Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39
Phil 660)
Life and Liberty includes the following rights:
a. Right to Health
b. Right to Privacy
c. Right to Security - not a life of fear that his
person or property may be violated
i. Includes right to dignity, freedom of
expression and speech, freedom of
assembly, etc.
Property
Representation of what a person owns, as well as the
rights to secure, use, or dispose of said property.
Under Civil Code, anything that may be subject of
appropriation is considered as property, which
includes real and personal property, whether tangible
or intangible, or other property rights as defined
under the civil code.
ii. Right to enter contract is a property
right
iii. Right to work is a property right
Case:
Republic v Cagandahan
Facts:
Jennifer Cagandahan is diagnosed with Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia. She filed a Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the
RTC to change her name to Jeff and gender to Male.
RTC granted the petition but the OSG sought for
reversal of the ruling.
Ruling:
The Court held that where the person is biologically
or naturally intersex, the determining factor in his
gender classification would be what the individual,
having reached the age of majority, thinks of himself.
Respondent is the one who has to live with his
intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right
to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to
him should belong the primordial choice of what
courses of action to take along the path of his sexual
development and maturation. Life is already difficult
for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how
respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus
help make his life easier, considering the unique
circumstances in this case.
II. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
A. INHERENT: POWERS: Police Power, Eminent
Domain, Taxation
Police Power
State authority to enact legislation that may interfere
with personal liberty or property in order to promote
the general welfare.
Eminent Domain
Inherent power of a nation or a sovereign state to
take, or sanction the taking of, private property for a
public use without the owner's consent, conditioned
upon payment of just compensation.
Taxation
An inherent power of the state exercised through
legislature, to impose burdens upon subjects and
objects within its jurisdiction, for the purpose of
raising revenues to carry out the legitimate objects of
the government.
B. Similarities and differences
As to the Effects
Similarities
Police Power Taxation Eminent
1. All are inherent power of state Domain
2. Legislative in character – there must be a law
in order to authorize its exercise. Limitation of Loses part Owner loses
3. Similar to purpose – the public will benefit. rights but of its private
every time they are exercised, a person's there is an property but property but
right is affected, adversely affected. They are altruistic attains gets paid just
also similar because that person, adversely feeling that he services. compensation
affected, gets something in return. did something
good for
Differences general
welfare
As to Purpose

Police Power Taxation Eminent

Domain
C. Who exercises the power?
Promote Raise funds To make a
The Legislative, but the power is delegable to other
general for the property entities.
welfare. government available for
. public use 1. Police Power - delegated to the President,
local administrative agencies, and local
governments.

As to Means Use to Attain Purpose 2. Eminent Domain - can be delegated to

public and private entities by valid delegation,
Police Power Taxation Eminent to the president, lawmaking bodies of the
Domain LGUs, public corporations, quasi-public
corporations, and administrative bodies.
Limit the Collect Take private
3. Taxation- can be exercised by the President
person's right. contribution property, in
and law-making bodies of LGUs.
or exact order to make
charges a property
from the available for III. DUE PROCESS, Article III, Section 1
people public use. "No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, and
property, without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the
laws." (Art. III, Sect. 1)
As to Benefit to Society
What does “due process” mean?
Police Taxation Eminent Due process means that:
Power Domain 1. There shall be a law prescribed in harmony
with the general powers of the legislature;
General Delivery of Society is 2. It shall be reasonable in its operation;
welfare is basic benefited 3. It shall be enforced according to the regular
promoted for services by because now methods of procedure prescribed;
the common the the public get 4. It shall be applicable alike to all citizens of the
good government use the State or to all of a class. (People v. Cayat,
G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939)
property once
private There must be a law that hears before it condemns
A. Relativity of due process
The concept of due process is flexible for not all
situations calling for procedural safeguards call for
the same kind of procedure. (Secretary of Justice v.
Lantion, 2000)
To say that the concept of due process is flexible
does not mean that judges are at large to apply it to
any and all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope
once it has been determined that some process is
due; it is a recognition that not all situations calling for
procedural safeguards call for the same kind of
procedure. (Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972)
B. Judicial standards of review
1. Reasonable / Rational connection test
2. Clear and present danger test
3. Dangerous tendency test
Reasonable / Rational connection test
It requires only that there be a legitimate government
interest and that there is a reasonable connection
between it and the means employed to achieve it.
Ways to test if reasonable or valid of the purpose of
the law:
a. Medical
b. Empirical
c. Scientific
d. Statistical
When are precautionary principles applied?
When the threat is uncertain of the damage or threat,
the damage must be serious, must be irreversible.
Example is wearing a face shield.
Clear and Present Danger Test
There must be a clear and present danger that it will
bring about the substantive evils that the state has
the right to prevent or prohibit. The substantive evil
must be extremely serious and the degree of
imminence is extremely high before it can be
punished.
● Evil sought to be prevented must be evil
● Clear danger - degree of danger
● Present danger - Proximity of danger
Dangerous Tendency Test
If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency of
an evil which the state has the right to prevent, then
such words are punishable. It is sufficient if the
natural tendency and the probable effect of the
utterance were to bring about the substantive evil that
the legislative body seeks to prevent. Used during
Marcos era, rarely used at present. Ex: Freedom of
speech such as inciting to sedition
Cases:
PBM Employees Org. v PBM
Facts: The labor union of PMB employees decided to
stage a mass demonstration to express their
grievances against the Pasig police. PBM disallowed
them to conduct the mass demonstration as they said
it would violate the CBA (No strike, No Lock out) and
would affect their property rights. (hinder the normal
operations of the company) Those who proceeded
were terminated from work. PBM employees now
challenged the validity of the termination.
Ruling: It was not violative of the CBA because the
demonstration was not against the company but
against the Pasig police, thus the termination was
unlawful. The court also discussed the hierarchy of
rights and stated that the PBM employees' right to
freedom of speech is recognized over PBM’s property
rights. The employees and laborers of herein private
respondent firm were fighting for their very survival,
utilizing only the weapons afforded them by the
Constitution — the untrammeled enjoyment of their
basic human rights.It was thus, the PBM who was
found guilty of unfair labor practice for disallowing
and terminating those who participated in the
demonstration which as it was a denial of social
justice.
Note: The purpose of permit is for schedule (time,
place, manner, participants) to avoid concurrent
rallies/demonstrations. If the mayor denies, there
must be a clear and present danger
Tablarin v Gutierrez
Facts:
Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Section 5
(a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382 “Medical Act of
1959” and MECS Order No. 52 which requires the
taking and passing of the NMAT as a condition for
securing certificates of eligibility for admission. They
also argued that NMAT is an unfair, unreasonable
and inequitable requirement in which they appear to
suggest it is an unnecessary requirement.
Ruling:
Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the statute and
regulation they assail in fact clash with the invoked
constitutional provision.
The government is entitled to prescribe an admission
test like the NMAT as a means for achieving its stated
objective of "upgrading the selection of applicants
into medical schools" and of "improving the quality of
medical education in the country." The NMAT is
reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end
of legislation and regulation in this area. That end, it
is useful to recall, is the protection of the public from
the potentially deadly effects of incompetence and
ignorance in those who would undertake to treat our
bodies and minds for disease or trauma.
4. Balancing of Interest test
C. Two Aspects of Due Process:
1. Substantive due process
This serves as a restriction on the government's law
and rule-making powers. It requires the intrinsic
validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
person to his life, liberty, and property. It requires that
the law itself is fair, reasonable, and just. There must
be law and it must be reasonable (Lawful purposes +
Lawful Means) There must be a legitimate state
interest to promote general welfare ex. Public Safety
Requisites of substantive due process:
a. There must be a valid law upon which it is
based.
b. The law must be passed or approved to
accomplish a valid governmental objective.
c. The objective must be pursued in a lawful
manner.
d. The law as well as the means to accomplish
the objective must be valid and not
oppressive.
Precautionary Principles
When human activities may lead to threats of serious
and irreversible damage to the environment that are
scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be
taken to avoid or diminish that threat.
Requisites
1. There must be uncertainty
2. There must be serious damage or threat to
environment and health
3. Serious damage or threat is irreversible
Benevolent Neutrality
With respect to these governmental actions,
accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to
promote the government's favored form of religion,
but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their
religion without hindrance.
Cases:
Tanada v Tuvera
Facts:
The petitioners seek writ of mandamus to compel the
respondents to publish or cause publication in the
Official Gazette of Presidential Decrees, Letters of
Instructions, General Orders, Proclamations,
Executive Orders, Letter of Implementation, and
Administrative Order. According to the petitioner, the
right of the people to be informed was violated
because the issuances were not published prior to its
effectiveness.
Ruling:
The court ruled that the clear object of the publication
is to give the general public adequate notice of the
laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct
as citizens. Without such notice and publication,
there would be no basis for the application of
ignorance of the law excuses no one. It would be the
height of injustice to punish or burden a citizen for the
transgression of the law of which he had no notice.
GMA v MTRCB
Facts: GMA produced the show “Muro Ami '' it was
ordered to be suspended by the MTCRB for failing to
secure the permit pursuant to section 7 of PD 1908.
A penalty was to be imposed on GMA pursuant to
circular 98-17. Petitioners challenge the validity of
MTCRB’s power to review and the penalty.
Ruling: MTRCB has the power to review the show
pursuant to section 7 of PD 1908 because the show
did not fall into the exceptions provided by the law.
But the suspension was invalid because it was not
filed with the ONAR. The Administrative Code of
1987, particularly Section 3 thereof, expressly
requires each agency to file with the Office of the
National Administrative Register (ONAR) of the
University of the Philippines Law Center three
certified copies of every rule adopted by it.
Administrative issuances which are not published or
filed with the ONAR are ineffective and may not be
enforced
Knights of Rizal v DMCI Homes, Inc.
Facts:
The petitioner Knights of Rizal filed a petition for
Injunction seeking a temporary restraining order, and
later a permanent injunction, against the construction
of Torre de Manila. They argued that the completed
Torre de Manila will forever ruin the sightline of the
Rizal Monument in Luneta Park.

Ruling:
The Court considers the stoppage of the construction
of Torre De Manila in the private property of DMCI as
“taking” because it prohibits them of their property
right without due process of law. The construction of
Torre De Manila does not violate the preservation of
national culture, heritage, and treasure because there
is no law prohibiting the construction of buildings
distant and beyond the national shrine.
Evasco v Montanez
Facts: Montanez runs promotions of billboards.
Mayor of Davao City passed an ordinance which
requires the application of permit renewal for each
billboard; non-compliance resulted in directing these
businesses to voluntarily dismantle their billboards.
Montanez now challenges the validity of the
ordinance for being unconstitutional for being
overbreadth in its application, vague and inconsistent
with P.D. 1096 (National Building Code of the
Philippines)
Ruling:
The ordinance was a valid exercise of police power.
Vested in the Sangguniang Panlungsod is the
legislative power to regulate, prohibit, and fix license
fees for the display, construction, and maintenance of
billboards and similar structures. The ordinance has a
lawful subject which was the regulation of billboard
construction safeguards the life and property of
inhabitants and the means was lawful which was the
rules in implementing its policy: minimum distance of
the billboards from property lines; required height;
securing of permits.
Mayor Fernando v St. Scholastica’s College
Facts: The city government of Marikina enacted an
ordinance which seeks to regulate the construction of
walls and fences in Marikina. They claim that it is a
valid exercise of police power for public health and
safety specifically to reduce crimes in the area. The
city ordered respondent St. Scholastica to to replace
the fence of their Marikina property to make it 80%
see-through and at the same time, to move it back six
meters to provide parking space for vehicles to park.
Respondent now challenges the validity of the
ordinance.
Ruling: The ordinance was not a valid exercise of
police power. While there was a lawful subject which
the means employed by the petitioners are NOT
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of this
purpose and are unduly oppressive to private rights.
Petitioners failed to prove that an 80% see-through
fence would provide better protection and a higher
level of security, than a tall solid concrete wall.
Compelling the respondents to reconstruct their fence
in accordance with the assailed ordinance, an
encroachment on their right to property, which
necessarily includes their right to decide how best to
protect their property. Additionally, requiring the
exposure of their property via a see-thru fence is
violative of their right to privacy.
International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications v Greenpeace Sea
(Philippines)
Facts:
Plaintiff challenged the decision of granting a
Biosafety permits and allowing field test of a new pest
resistant biotechnologically engineered aubergine.
They alleged that the field trials of the bioengineered
aubergine were a violation of their constitutional right
to health and balanced ecology because the
environmental compliance certificate No.1151 was
not secured prior to the project implementation and
because there is no scientific peer reviewed studies
that shows that the Bt gene used in the genetically
modified organism is safe for human consumption
and for the environment.
Ruling:
Invoking the precautionary principle, the Supreme
Court blocked further field trials of Bt talong until
regulatory systems governing the import and release
of GMOs are strengthened. “When these features –
uncertainty, the possibility of irreversible harm, and
the possibility of serious harm – coincide, the case for
the precautionary principle is strongest. When in
doubt, cases must be resolved in favor of the
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful
ecology.” The Supreme Court considered that there
was a preponderance of evidence that GMO could be
a threat to both ecosystems and health.
Mosqueda v Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters
Association
Facts:
Davao City enacted the Ordinance No. 0329,
imposing a ban against aerial spraying as an
agricultural practice by all agricultural entities within
Davao City in 2007. The respondents filed their
petition in the RTC to challenge the constitutionality
of the ordinance. They alleged that the ordinance
was an unreasonable exercise of police power,
violated the equal protection clause, amounted to·
the confiscation of property without due process of
law and lacked publication pursuant to Local
Government Code.
Ruling:
The ordinance was unconstitutional. To be
considered as a valid police power, both the Formal
and Substantive tests must be passed. The function
of pesticides control, regulation and development is
within the jurisdiction of the Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority (FPA).
FORMAL - whether the ordinance is enacted (a)
within the corporate powers of the local government
unit, and whether (b) it is passed in accordance with
the procedure prescribed by law.
SUBSTANTIVE - involving inherent merit, like the
conformity of the ordinance with the limitations under
the Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the
requirements of fairness and reason, and its
consistency with public policy
2. Procedural Due Process
Procedural due process is that which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial. It contemplates notice and
opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered
affecting one's person or property.
It means compliance with both the procedures or
stops, even periods, prescribed by the statute, in
conformity with the standard of fair play and without
arbitrariness on the part of those who are called upon
to administer it. (Alliance v. Garin)
● Employed by Courts or Judicial Department
● Rules should be published, otherwise its void
● Public is not involved
Valid delegation test
1. Completeness tests - a law is complete
when it sets forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate.
2. Sufficient Standard Test - a law lays down
a sufficient standard when it provides
adequate guidelines or limitations in the law
to map out the boundaries of the delegate
authority and prevent the delegation from
running riotTo be sufficient, the standard
must specify the limits of the delegate�s
authority, announce the legislative policy, and
identify the conditions under which it is to be
implemented.
Quasi-judicial function
● Just like court, determining and hearing case
● In the exercise, what is required is notice and
hearing Ex. LTFRB, COMELEC
● Interpret law/rules
Procedural Due Process in Judicial Proceeding
Requirement
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal
clothed by law with authority to hear and
determine the matter (Judicial Power given
by congress except sa SC kasi galing sa
Consti ang power ng SC. Congress cannot
decree the jurisdiction of the SC)
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person
or the property which is the subject matter of
the proceeding
- Once the court acquires jurisdiction,
jurisdiction is never lost until finality
of the case
3. Opportunity to be heard given to the
defendant
4. Judgment must be rendered after a lawful
hearing
7 cardinal primary requirements of procedural
due process in Administrative Proceedings (Ang
Tibay vs. CIR)
1. the respondents’ right to a hearing, which
includes the right to present one’s case and
submit supporting evidence, must be
observed;
2. the tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
3. the decision must have some basis to
support itself;
4. there must be substantial evidence;
5. the decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected;
6. in arriving at a decision, the tribunal must
have acted on its own consideration of the
law and the facts of the controversy and must
 not have simply accepted the views of a
subordinate; and
7. the decision must be rendered in such a
manner that respondents would know the
reasons for it and the various issues
involved.
Cases
Nestle Philippines, Inc., v Puedan
Facts: Respondents demanded Nestle Philippines
that they be regular employees. They filed a
complaint to the Labor Arbiter and NLRC which partly
favored the respondent. Nestle now move for
reconsideration contending that it was deprived of
due process, its right to participate in the proceedings
before the LA and the NLRC
Ruling: NPI was accorded due process, trial type
hearing is not always necessary. The essence of due
process is to be heard, and, as applied to
administrative proceedings, this means a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict
judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type
hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules
of procedure are not strictly applied.
Assuming arguendo that NPI was somehow deprived
of due process by either of the labor tribunals, such
defect was cured by:(a)NPI's filing of its motion for
reconsideration before the NLRC; (b) the NLRC's
subsequent issuance of its Resolution dated August
30, 2013 wherein the tribunal considered all of NPI's
arguments as contained in its motion;(c) NPI's
subsequent elevation of the case to the CA.
Turks Shawarma Company v Pajaton
Facts:
Respondents filed Complaints for constructive and
actual illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay,
holiday pay, holiday premium, rest day premium,
service incentive leave pay and 13th month pay
against petitioners. They claimed that there was no
just or authorized cause for their dismissal and that
petitioners also failed to comply with the
requirements of due process. Zeñarosa (petitioner)
filed a Notice of Appeal with Memorandum and
Motion to Reduce Bond with the NLRC. He posted a
partial bond amounting to P15,000, maintaining that
he cannot afford to post the full amount. However, it
was dismissed by the NLRC for non-perfection. The
partial bond in the amount of ₱15,000.00 is not
reasonable in relation to the award which totalled to
₱197,936.27.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that the right to appeal is not a
natural nor a component of due process. It is a mere
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in
accordance with the law. The party who seeks to
appeal must comply with requirements. No motion to
reduce bond shall be entertained except on
meritorious grounds, and upon the posting of a bond
in a reasonable amount. The mere filing of a motion
to reduce bond without complying with the requisites
in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop T he
running of the period to perfect an appeal. the
₱15,000.00 partial bond posted by petitioners is not
considered reasonable in relation to the total
monetary award of ₱197,936.27.
Lagon v Velasco
Facts: Lagon obtained a loan from velasco which he
paid using a bouncing check. A criminal complaint
was filed against him. During the preliminary
conference the judge ordered both sides to submit
their judicial affidavits. Lagon requested to submit his
judicial affidavit after Velasco submitted his. He
claims that the submission by both parties of their
judicial affidavits before the pre-trial conference is
violative of his right to due process, hence
unconstitutional. Lagon claims that under the Judicial
Affidavit Rule, the defendant is forced to adduce
evidence simultaneously with the plaintiff. This
conflicts with the rule on Demurrer to Evidence,
which grants a defendant the right to opt out of
presenting evidence, and instead move for the
dismissal of the complaint upon the failure of the
plaintiff to show a right to relief.
Ruling: Section 2 of the judicial affidavit rule is not
unconstitutional. A judicial affidavit does not deprived
Lagon of due process of law. There is nothing in the
provisions of the Judicial Affidavit Rule, which
prohibits a defendant from filing a demurrer to
evidence, if he truly believes that the evidence
adduced by the plaintiff is insufficient.

Republic v Sereno
Facts:
In August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed
by Atty. Larry Gadon against Sereno, alleging that
Sereno failed to make truthful declarations in her
SALNs. Sereno contends that an impeachable officer
may only be ousted through impeachment and since
the mode is wrong, the SC has no jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Respondent was not denied due process, she was
heard by the court. Respondent filed her Comment to
the Petition, moved that her case be heard on Oral
Argument, filed her Memorandum, filed her
Reply/Supplement to the OSG's Memorandum and
now, presently moves for reconsideration. All these
representations were made ad cautelam which,
stripped of its legal parlance, simply means that she
asks to be heard by the Court which jurisdiction she
does not acknowledge.
Borlongan v BDO
Facts: Eliseo Borlongan, Jr. and Carmelita Borlongan
acquired a property in Pasig City. They discovered
that their property was part of an execution sale in a
Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC) case against
Tancho Corporation and others, including Carmelita,
over loan obligations. Banco de Oro (BDO)
foreclosed Tancho Corporation’s property in 2000 and
secured the property in 2001. Despite knowing
Tancho Corporation no longer occupied the
foreclosed property, the Makati RTC ordered the
serving of summons there. Summons remained
unserved, and on BDO’s motion, the Court allowed
publication of summons. They now challenge the
validity of the summons done in publication.
Ruling: The summons was invalid. Proper service of
summons is essential for due process to relay
jurisdiction over a party in a legal proceeding.
Personal service of summons is the primary mode
and must be faithfully attempted before alternatives
are considered.
AllIance for the Family Foundation Phil., Inc., v Garin
Facts:
Petitioners, aligned with the intentions of the RH Law,
asserted that certain contraceptive products,
specifically Implanon and Implanon NXT, possess
abortifacient characteristics—properties that induce
abortion or prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting
in the womb. They filed oppositions to the
recertification of these products, which were
seemingly unaddressed by the respondents, who are
officials of the Department of Health (DOH) and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The
respondents argued that the FDA, through its
regulatory powers, is not required to comply with due
process requirements of notice and hearing in its
certification procedures..
Ruling:
The petitioners’ were deprived of their right to due
process. The Court expounded that the failure of the
respondents to act upon, much less address, the
various oppositions filed by the petitioners against the
product registration, recertification, procurement, and
distribution of the question contraceptive drugs and
devices violated the petitioners’ right to due process.
Instead of explaining, the respondents chose to
ignore them and proceeded with the registration,
recertification, procurement, and distribution of
several contraceptive drugs and devices.
Government of the U.S.A. v Purganan
Facts: The US government requested the extradition
of Mark Jimenez, a Filipino citizen, for various
offenses. Jimenez filed an urgent motion to set for
hearing the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and later
applied for bail. The DOJ argued that Jimenez was
not entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance
of a warrant of arrest, and that bail was not a matter
of right in extradition proceedings. Jimenez claimed
that he had a constitutional right to due process and
to bail, and that there were special circumstances
that justified his provisional release. The court
discussed w/n Jimenez is entitled to notice and
hearing and bail.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that Jimenez was
not entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance
of a warrant of arrest. The Court held that the
extradition law and treaty did not require such
procedure, and that it would defeat the purpose of
extradition by giving the potential extradite the
opportunity to escape.
He is also not entitled to a bail. The Supreme Court
ruled that Jimenez was not entitled to bail as a matter
of right, but only as an exception upon a clear and
convincing showing of special circumstances. The
Court held that the constitutional right to bail was
available only in criminal proceedings, and that
persons sought to be extradited were presumed to be
flight risks.
D. Constitutional and statutory due process
Constitutional Due Process
Due Process Clause in Article III, Section 1 of the
Constitution embodies a system of rights based on
moral principles so deeply embedded in the traditions
and feelings of our people as to be deemed
fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by
our entire history.
Protects the individual from the government and
assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or
administrative proceedings.
Statutory Due Process
Due process under the Labor Code, like
Constitutional due process, has two aspects:
substantive, i.e., the valid and authorized causes of
employment termination under the Labor Code; and
procedural, i.e., the manner of dismissal. (Agabon v
NLRC)
Protects employees from being unjustly terminated
without just cause after notice and hearing.
Cases:
Agabon v NLRC
Facts:
Petitioners then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
and payment on money claims. Petitioners also claim
that private respondents did not comply with the twin
requirements of notice and hearing.
Ruling:
Petitioners’ due process was violated. If the dismissal
is based on a just cause under Article 282 of the
Labor Code, the employer must give the employee
two written notices and a hearing or opportunity to be
heard if requested by the employee before
terminating the employment: a notice specifying the
grounds for which dismissal is sought a hearing or an
opportunity to be heard and after hearing or
opportunity to be heard, a notice of the decision to
dismiss;
IV. Equal Protection, Article III, Section 1
A. Concept
All persons or things similarly situated must be
similarly treated both as to rights confirmed and the
responsibilities imposed. It does not demand
absolute equality.
B. Requisites for valid classification
Classification
The grouping of persons or things similar to each
other in certain particulars and different from all
others in these same particulars.
Requisites
1. Such classifications rests upon substantial
distinctions;
2. It applies equally to all members of the same
class;
3. It is relevant to the purposes of the law; and
4. It is not confined to existing conditions only.
C. Judicial standards of review
Rational basis test
The traditional test, which requires only that the
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.
Intermediate scrutiny test
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/gender is the
best established example of an intermediate level of
review.
Strict scrutiny test
Requires that the classification serve a compelling
state interest and is necessary to achieve such
interest. This level is used when suspect
classifications or fundamental rights are involved.
Cases:
PASEI v Drilon
Facts:
The petitioners are challenging the constitutionality of
Department Order No. 1, Series of 1988 of DOLE or
the GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE TEMPORARY
SUSPENSION OF DEPLOYMENT OF FILIPINO
AND HOUSEHOLD WORKERS as it allegedly a (1)
"discrimination against males or females;" (2) "does
not apply to all Filipino workers but only to domestic
helpers and females with similar skills;" (3) and that it
is violative of the right to travel. It is held likewise to
be an invalid exercise of the lawmaking power, police
power being legislative, and not executive, in
character.
Ruling:
It is a valid exercise of police power and not violative
of the Equal Protection Clause. While it is true that
the Order applies only to "female contract workers", it
does not make an undue discrimination between the
sexes. It is well-settled that equality before the law
under the Constitution does not import a perfect
Identity of rights among all men and women. It admits
of classifications, provided that (1) such
classifications rest on substantial distinctions; (2) they
are germane to the purposes of the law; (3) they are
not confined to existing conditions; and (4) they apply
equally to all members of the same class.
Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v BOT
Facts:
Respondent Board of Transportation (BOT) issued
Memorandum Circular No. 77-42, Phasing out and
Replacement of Old and Dilapidated Taxis. Petitioner
contends that the implementation and enforcement of
the assailed memorandum circulars violate the
petitioners' constitutional rights to (1) Equal protection
of the law; (2) Substantive due process; (3)
Protection against arbitrary and unreasonable
classification and standard. Petitioners alleged that
the Circular in question violates their right to equal
protection of the law because the same is being
enforced in Metro Manila only and is directed solely
towards the taxi industry.
Ruling:
The memorandum circular does not violate the
petitioner's constitutional rights. The Board's reason
for enforcing the Circular initially in Metro Manila is
that taxicabs in this city, compared to those of other
places, are subjected to heavier traffic pressure and
more constant use.
Nunez v Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Nunez was accused by the respondent Court of
Estafa through falsification of public and commercial
documents committed with other co-accused, all
public officials, in several cases. The petitioner of this
case assails the validity of the Presidential Decree
creating the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner claims
that PD No,1486, as amended, creating the
Sandiganbayan is violative of due process, equal
protection, and ex post facto clause of the
constitution.
Ruling:
Appeal was shrunk and limited only to questions of
law, EXCLUDING a review of the facts and trial
evidence; and there is only one chance to appeal
conviction certiorari to the SC, INSTEAD OF THE
TRADITIONAL TWO CHANCES; while all other
estafa indictees are entitled to appeal as a matter of
right covering both law and facts and tot o appellate
courts. Appeals must be germane to the purposes of
the law ; it must not be limited to existing conditions
only, and must apply equally to each member of the
class.
Abubakar v People
Facts: Abubakar, Guiani, Baraguir, and two (2)
employees of DPWH-ARMM were charged in
Criminal Case No. 24970 for allegedly awarding
excessive mobilization fees to Arce Engineering
Services they were found guilty. Abubakar and
Baraguir assert that their right to equal protection was
violated due to “selective prosecution.” Only a
handful of DPWH-ARMM officials were charged with
violation of Republic Act No. 3019. Several
employees who allegedly participated in the
preparation of project documents were not indicted.
Ruling:
Selective prosecution was not established. The
prosecution of offenses is generally addressed to the
sound discretion of the fiscal. A claim of “selective
prosecution” may only prosper if there is extrinsic
evidence of “clear showing of intentional
discrimination. The prosecution of one person to the
exclusion of others who may be just as guilty does
not automatically entail a violation of the equal
protection clause. A case for selective prosecution
arises when a prosecutor charges defendants based
on “constitutionally prohibited standards such as
race, religion or other arbitrary classification.” A
selective prosecution claim rests upon an alleged
violation of the equal protection clause. Petitioners
failed to establish discriminatory intent on the part of
the Ombudsman in choosing not to indict other
alleged participants to the anomalous transactions.
Their contention that several other public officials
were not criminally charged, by itself, does not
amount to a violation of petitioners Abubakar and
Baraguir's right to equal protection of laws. The
evidence against the others may have been
insufficient to establish probable cause.
Gallardo v People
Facts: Public Health Workers (PHWs) of Davao del
Sur filed letter-complaint for alleged refusal to
appropriate in the municipal budget the amount
representing payment of their salaries by the
Municipality of Bansalan headed by Mayor Arturo
Gallardo, among others, with the Ombudsman.
Probable cause was found and information was filed
stating that Gallardo caused undue injury to PHW
workers. Gallardo requested for reinvestigation. This
was granted by Sandiganbayan, However
Ombudsman Desierto recommended his disapproval
writing a note “let the court determine if indeed the
evidence cannot stand the judicial scrutiny”.
Petitioner filed a motion to quash on the ground that
they were not accorded equal protection of the law.
They contend that similar cases were dismissed by
Desierto previously and should be accorded the
same to the case at bar. The court ruled on w/n the
Ombudsman violated the equal protection rights of
the petitioners on the ground of not uniformly
deciding similar cases
Ruling: It was not a violation of the equal protection
clause. The Ombudsman, contrary to the
investigating prosecutor’s conclusion, was of the
conviction that petitioners are probably guilty of the
offense charged, and for this, he is not required to
conduct an investigation anew. He is merely
determining the propriety and correctness of the
recommendation by the investigating prosecutor, i.e.,
whether probable cause actually exists or not, on the
basis of the findings of fact of the latter. He may
agree, fully or partly, or disagree completely with the
investigating prosecutor. Whatever course of action
that the Ombudsman may take, whether to approve
or to disapprove the recommendation of the
investigating prosecutor, is but an exercise of his
discretionary powers based upon constitutional
mandate. In asserting that petitioners were deprived
the equal protection of law since the Ombudsman, in
sixteen (16) previous cases which were similar to the
case at bar, dismissed the same. The Ombudsman
dismissed those cases because he believed there
were no sufficient grounds for the accused therein to
undergo trial. On the other hand, he recommended
the filing of appropriate information against
petitioners because there are ample grounds to hold
them for trial. He was only exercising his power and
discharging his duty based upon the constitutional
mandate of his office.
Tiu v CA
Facts: Republic Act 7227 was passed into law.
Under Section 12 thereof, created the Subic Special
Economic Zone and granted thereto special
privileges, such as tax exemptions and duty-free
importation of raw materials, capital and equipment to
business enterprises and residents located and
residing in the said zones. The President issued EO
97-A, specifying the area within which the
tax-and-duty-free privilege was operative. Petitioners
challenged before the Supreme Court the
constitutionality of EO 97-A for allegedly being
violative of their right to equal protection of the laws,
inasmuch as the order granted tax and duty
incentives only to businesses and residents within the
“secured area” of the Subic Special Economic Zone
and denying them to those who live within the Zone
but outside such “fenced-in” territory. The court ruled
on w/n the EO was in violation of equal protection
when it only applied to the “secured areas”.
Ruling: The EO 97-A is not violative of the equal
protection clause; neither is it discriminatory. The
fundamental right of equal protection of the laws is
not absolute, but is subject to reasonable
classification. It was based, rather, on fair and
substantive considerations that were germane to the
legislative purpose. The purpose of RA 7227 is to
boost the economy thus it is reasonable that it only
applies to the “secured area” where that will benefit
the economy on a national level.
ISAE v Quisumbing
Facts: Private respondent, International School (IS),
hires both foreign and local teachers as members of
its faculty, classifying the same into two: (1)
foreign-hires and (2) local-hires. The School employs
four tests to determine whether a faculty member
should be classified as a foreign-hire or a local
hire.Should the answer to any of four tests queries
point to the Philippines, the faculty member is
classified as a local hire; otherwise, he or she is
deemed a foreign-hire. Foreign hires have 25% more
salary. They now challenged the validity of the 25%
increase if w/n it is violative of the equal protection
clause.
Ruling: It was violative of the equal protection
clause. The School’s policy contravened public policy
and the principle of equal pay for equal work. The
Court held that there was no reasonable distinction
between the services rendered by foreign-hires and
local-hires, and that the School failed to show that
foreign-hires performed 25% more efficiently or
effectively than local-hires.
Telebap and GMA v Comelec
Facts:
The petitioners are challenging the validity of Section
92 of BP No. 881 on the ground: (1) that it takes
property without due process of law and without just
compensation; (2) that it denies radio and television
broadcast companies the equal protection of the
laws. They are contending that Section 92 of BP 881
singles out radio and television stations to provide
free air time. They contend that newspapers and
magazines are not similarly required.
Ruling:
There is a fallacy that broadcast media are entitled to
the same treatment under the free speech guarantee
of the Constitution as the print media. There are
important differences in their characteristics which
justify the differential treatment for free speech
purposes. Because of the physical limitations of the
broadcast spectrum, the government must, of
necessity, allocate broadcast frequencies to those
wishing to use them. There is no similar justification
for government allocation and regulation of the print
media. The broadcast media have also established a
uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all
Filipinos. Newspapers and current books are found
only in metropolitan areas and in the poblaciones of
municipalities accessible to fast and regular
transportation.
Garcia v Drilon
Facts:
Rosalie Jaype-Garcia filed a verified petition before
the RTC for the issuance of a TOR against her
husband, Jesus Garcia, pursuant to R.A. 9262. Jesus
challenged the constitutionality of R.A. 9262 for being
violative of the due process and the equal protection
clauses, and the validity of the modified TPO issued
in the civil case for being “an unwanted product of an
invalid law.
Ruling:
The equal protection clause of the Constitution allows
classification and it should be based on substantial
distinctions which make for real differences; that it
must be germane to the purpose of the law; that it
must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
that it must apply equally to each member of the
class. 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. With this, R.A. 9262 is based on a valid
classification and did not violate the equal protection
clause by favoring women over men as victims of
violence and abuse to whom the State extends its
protection.
Since “time is of the essence in cases of VAWC if
further violence is to be prevented,” the court is
authorized to issue ex parte a TPO. Ordinary
requirements of procedural due process must yield to
the necessities of protecting vital public interests
V. Police Power
A. Concept, application and limits
Concept
Power of state to regulate or prohibit, to limit a
person’s right to promote general welfare.
Application
Limitation
● The Constitution is the limitation of police
power.
● This constitutional mandate on due process
is a safeguard against the arbitrary and
despotic wielding of police power by the
government.
B. Requisites for valid exercise of police power
(must concur)
1. The interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class,
require interference by the state
2. The means employed are reasonably
necessary for the attainment of the object
sought and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals
C. Delegation to Administrative bodies
Congress can delegate it to administrative bodies as
well as LGU but it must pass the sufficient standard
test and completeness test.
Cases:
Bautista v Junio
Facts:
The petitioners, Mary Concepcion Bautista and
Enrique D. Bautista, challenged the constitutionality
of the ban, arguing that it violated their due process
and equal protection rights. The provision banning
the use of Heavy and Extra Heavy vehicles is unfair,
discriminatory, [amounting to an] arbitrary
classification" and thus in contravention of the equal
protection clause.
Ruling:
The letter of instruction is a valid exercise of police
power in response to conserving energy. In cases
involving the exercise of police power and the
regulation of property rights, the state is accorded
much leeway, and due process cannot be invoked
unless there is a clear violation of constitutional
rights. The classification of vehicles is not violative of
the Equal Protection Clause as there is a rational
basis for classification.
Chavez v Romulo
Facts: In 2003 President Gloria directed the then
PNP Chief, respondent Ebdane, to suspend the
issuance of Permits to Carry Firearms Outside of
Residence stressing for nationwide gun ban in all
public places to avert rising crime incidents.
Acting on President Arroyo’s directive, respondent
Ebdane issued the assailed Guidelines (Guidelines in
the Implementation of the Ban on the Carrying of
Firearms Outside of Residence.)Petitioner Francisco
I. Chavez, a licensed gun owner filed a petition
arguing that the President did not have the power to
impose a gun ban and cancel existing permits and
that the PNP Chief did not have the authority to
issue the guidelines. The court ruled on w/n the
guidelines were proper exercise of police power.
Ruling: The “Gun ban” is a valid exercise of Police
Power, there is a lawful purpose and lawful means. It
is apparent from the assailed Guidelines that the
basis for its issuance was the need for peace and
order in the society. (Lawful Purpose). The assailed
Guidelines do not entirely prohibit possession of
firearms. What they proscribe is merely the carrying
of firearms outside of residence. However, those who
wish to carry their firearms outside of their residences
may re-apply for a new PTCFOR. This we believe is
a reasonable regulation. (Lawful Means) Laws
regulating the acquisition or possession of guns have
frequently been upheld as reasonable exercise of the
police power. In State vs. Reams,] it was held that the
legislature may regulate the right to bear arms in a
manner conducive to public peace. Furthermore, in
the Philippines there is no constitutional right to carry
arms unlike the US where there is.
MMDA v Viron
Facts: The case involves the authority of the
Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA)
to close provincial bus terminals along EDSA and
other major thoroughfares in Metro Manila to alleviate
traffic congestion. Petitioners argue that the MMDA
has the authority to implement the closure, while
respondents, Viron Transportation Co., Inc. and
others, contend that the MMDA lacks such power and
that the closure violates their property rights and the
Public Service Act. The court ruled on w/n the MMDA
has the authority to close the bus terminals and if
such action is a valid exercise of police power.
Ruling: The Supreme Court denied the petition,
ruling that the MMDA does not have the authority to
close the bus terminals as it oversteps the powers
granted by law. The executive order was declared
null and void for being ultra vires (beyond the
powers). The Court emphasized that the MMDA’s
functions are administrative and it lacks legislative or
police power. The closure of the terminals was not
considered a reasonable necessity to solve traffic
congestion and was not in line with the Public Service
Act. The ruling was grounded on the principle that the
welfare of the people is the supreme law, and any
measure must be firmly based on public interest and
not unduly oppressive.
Association of Medical Clinic for Overseas Workers,
Inc. v GCC Approved Medical
Center Association
Facts: DOH issued Administrative Order No. 5,
Series of 2001 which directed the decking or equal
distribution of migrant workers among the several
clinics who are members of GAMCA. This order was
issued to comply with the Gulf Cooperative Countries
(GCC) States' requirement that only GCC-accredited
medical clinics/hospitals' examination results will be
honored by the GCC States' respective embassies.
DOH then repealed the law, reasoning that the
referral decking system did not guarantee the migrant
workers' right to safe and quality health service.
GAMCA challenges. Subsequently, RA No. 10022
lapsed into law which prohibits decking systems.
GAMCA challenges the validity of the law.
Ruling: It is a valid exercise of police power. These
two elements of reasonableness (valid object and
valid means) are undeniably present in Section 16 of
RA No. 10022. The prohibition against the referral
decking system is consistent with the State's exercise
of the police power to prescribe regulations to
promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
people. Public interest demands State interference
on health matters, since the welfare of migrant
workers is a legitimate public concern. These rules
are part of the larger legal framework to ensure the
Overseas Filipino Workers' (OFW) access to quality
healthcare services, and to curb existing practices
that limit their choices to specific clinics and facilities.
St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees Asso. v NLRC
Facts: Congress passed RA 7431 or the "Radiologic
Technology Act of 1992." Under the law, no person
shall practice or offer to practice as a radiology and/or
x-ray technologist in the Philippines without having
obtained the proper certificate of registration from the
Board of Radiologic Technology. Petitioner took the
exam and failed, she was dismissed from her job.;
She now challenges the validity of the law.
Ruling: The law is a proper exercise of police power.
It has long been recognized that the regulation in the
field of medicine is a reasonable method of protecting
the health and safety of the public to protect the
public from the potentially deadly effects of
incompetence and ignorance among those who
would practice medicine.Section 2 of RA 7431
provides that it is the policy of the State to upgrade
the practice of radiologic technology in the
Philippines for the purpose of protecting the public
from the hazards posed by radiation as well as to
ensure safe and proper diagnosis, treatment and
research through the application of machines and/or
equipment using radiation.
D. Delegation to Local government units
Section 16 of Local Government Code or R.A.
7160 – General Welfare Clause
Every local government unit shall exercise the
powers expressly granted, those necessarily implied
there from, as well as powers necessary, appropriate,
or incidental for its efficient and effective governance,
and those which are essential to the promotion of the
general welfare. Within their respective territorial
jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and
support, among other things, the preservation and
enrichment of culture, promote health and safety,
enhance the right of the people to a balanced
ecology, encourage and support the development of
appropriate and self-reliant scientific and
technological capabilities, improve public morals,
enhance economic prosperity and social justice,
promote full employment among their residents,
maintain peace and order, and preserve the comfort
and convenience of their inhabitants.
Branches
1. General Legislative Power
- Exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied there from, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental
for its efficient and effective governance
- Without law, they cannot enact an ordinance.
If there is a law, it must be within the scope of
the law. They should not make rules contrary
to the constitution or law.
- Purpose is to implement the statute,
constitution
 - LGU acting as agent of the state
2. Police Power Proper
- Authorizes the municipality to enact
ordinances as may be necessary and proper
for the health and safety, prosperity, morals,
peace, good order, comfort, and convenience
of the municipality and its inhabitants, and for
the protection of their property
- Can enact ordinance without law as long as it
promotes safety, security, health, public
morals, etc. but it must not be contrary to the
constitution or act of congress.
- LGU acting as agent of inhabitants
Cases:
Social Justice Society v Atienza
Facts: The City Council of Manila enacted
Ordinance No. 8027 which reclassified the Pandacan
Area from industrial to commercial, and directed the
owners and operators of businesses disallowed
under the reclassification to cease and desist from
operating their businesses within six months from
effectivity date of the ordinance. Most affected are the
oil companies composed of Shell, Chevron (Caltex)
and Petron whose oil depots are located therein.
Despite the ordinance, the Sanggunian adopted
Resolution No. 13 extending the agreement of
scaling down of the Pandacan depots up to April
2003 and authorized the mayor of Manila to issue
special business permits to the oil companies.
Nevertheless, the petitioners filed a petition for
mandamus, sought to compel the Mayor to enforce
Ordinance No. 8027. The oil companies questioned
the constitutionality of the ordinance. The court rule
on w/n the ordinance was valid.
Ruling: The ordinance is a valid exercise of police
power. Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted for the
purpose of promoting sound urban planning, ensuring
health, public safety and general welfare of the
residents of Manila. The Sanggunian was impelled to
take measures to protect its residents from
catastrophic devastation in case of a terrorist attack
on the Pandacan depots. Further, the zoning
ordinance which reclassified the area is reasonable
and not arbitrary enactment to the oil companies
because they were not prevented nor prohibited from
doing business in the city other than the now
reclassified location of the depot where such
operations are no longer permitted. The power to
establish zones for industrial, commercial and
residential uses is derived from the police power itself
and is exercised for the protection and benefit of the
residents.
Ermita- Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v City
Mayor
Facts:
Ordinance No. 4760 was enacted and petitioner
claimed that it was beyond the powers of the Manila
City Board to regulate due to the fact that hotels were
not part of its regulatory powers. Respondent
contends it bears a reasonable relation to a proper
purpose, which is to curb immorality, a valid and
proper exercise of the police power.
Ruling:
Police power is the inherent and plenary power in the
State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to
the comfort, safety, and welfare of society. The
ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize certain
practices hurtful to public morals (prostitution,
adultery and fornication in Manila traceable in great
part to the existence of motels).
De la Cruz v Paras
Facts:
An ordinance known as Prohibition and Closure
Ordinance of Bocaue, Bulacan was enacted. It
prohibits the exercise of a lawful trade, the operation
of night clubs, and the pursuit of a lawful, occupation,
such clubs employing hostesses
Ruling:
It is clear that in the guise of a police regulation, there
was in this instance a clear invasion of personal or
property rights. The municipal corporations cannot
prohibit the operation of nightclubs. They may be
regulated, but not prevented from carrying on their
business.
City of Manila v Judge Laguio
Facts:
An Ordinance was enacted, prohibiting any business
providing certain forms of amusement, entertainment,
services and facilities where women are used as
tools in entertainment and which tend to disturb the
community, annoy the inhabitants, and adversely
affect the social and moral welfare of the community,
such as but not limited to motels and inns, among
others.
Ruling:
The Ordinance infringes the due process clause
since the requisites for a valid exercise of police
power are not met. It is an invalid exercise of
delegated power as it is unconstitutional and
repugnant to general laws. The Ordinance infringes
the Due Process Clause “No person shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law” and PD 499 which allows operations
of all kinds of commercial establishments.
White Light v City of Manila
Facts:
Manila Mayor signed into law an ordinance
prohibiting short-time admission in hotels, motels,
lodging houses, pension houses and similar
establishments in the City of Manila to “protect the
interest, health and welfare, and morality of its
constituents in general and the youth in particular”.
Ruling:
Police power is the concept that the state has the
right to protect itself and its people. The ordinance
aims directly to the elimination of illicit sex,
prostitution, drug use and alike in the establishments
covered. This goal is under what police power
promotes but the question falls on the means on how
to achieve it, taking into consideration that it must be
aligned with the constitution. With the petition in
place, the ordinance contravenes the due process
clause that serves as a protection against arbitrary
regulation or seizure.
Tano v Socrates,
Facts:
Ordinance 15-92 was enacted which banned the
shipment out from Puerto Princesa whether via air or
water, of all live fish and lobster except for sea bass,
catfish, mudfish, and milkfish fries. Further, the Govt
of Palawan enacted Resolution No. 33: Prohibition on
catching and gathering marine corals etc.
Ruling:
Sec. 16 of Local Government Code provides every
local government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted or implied therefrom for its efficient
and effective governance, and those which are
essential to the promotion of general welfare.
Included in the general welfare is to enhance the right
of the people to a balanced ecology. Ordinances
have 2 objectives: to establish a “closed season” for
covered aquatic animals for 5 years, and to protect
coral in the marine waters from destruction. The
accomplishment of the first devolved from fishery
laws, while the second falls within the general welfare
clause of LGC.
People v Fajardo
Facts:
Municipal council passed the ordinance which
provides that any person/s who will construct/repair a
building should, before constructing or repairing,
obtain a written permit from the Municipal Mayor.
Fajardo and his son-in-law were charged with
violation of the ordinance. The reasoning was that
“the building would destroy the view of the public
plaza.”
Ruling:
The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, in
that it operates to permanently deprive appellants of
the right to use their own property; hence, it
oversteps the bounds of police power, and amounts
to a taking of appellants property without just
compensation. State may not, under the guise of
police power, permanently divest owners of the
beneficial use of their property and practically
confiscate them solely to preserve or assure the
aesthetic appearance of the community.
Churchill and Tai v Rafferty
Facts:
Signs, signboards or billboards that are offensive to
the sight are ordered to be destroyed or removed.
The billboard complained of was offensive to the
sight, and is otherwise a nuisance.
Ruling:
The court is of the opinion that unsightly
advertisements or signs, signboards, or billboards
which are offensive to the sight, are not disassociated
from the general welfare of the public. Hence, it is not
beyond the reach of the police power of the
government. Further, the regulation of billboards and
their restriction is not so much a regulation of private
property as it is a regulation of the use of the streets
and other public thoroughfares.
Magtajas v Pryce Properties
Facts:
Sangguniang Panlungsod enacted ordinance no.
3353: an ordinance prohibiting the issuance of
business permit and cancelling existing business
permit to any establishment for the using and
allowing to be used its premises or portion thereof for
the operation of casino; and ordinance no. 3375-93:
an ordinance prohibiting the operation of casinos and
providing a penalty for violation therefore.
Ruling:
Under existing laws, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
the City of Cagayan de Oro does not have the power
and authority to prohibit the establishment and
operation of a PAGCOR gambling casino within the
City's territorial limits. The Ordinances contravene PD
1869; they prevent PAGCOR from exercising the
power conferred on it to operate a casino in Cagayan
de Oro City. P.D. 1869 has not been modified by the
Local Government Code.