One of the requisites for judicial review is that it must have an actual case or controversy.

An
"actual case or controversy" for legal action involves a conflict of legal rights that is definite and
concrete, bearing upon the legal relations of parties with adverse legal interests. It must be a
real and substantial controversy allowing for specific relief through a conclusive decree, as
opposed to an opinion on the law's application to hypothetical facts.

One of the requisites for judicial review is that the party must have a legal standing. A proper
party in legal action is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury
as a result of the act complained of. Until such actual or potential injury is established, the
complainant lacks the legal standing to raise a constitutional question. The party must
demonstrate not only the invalidity of the law or government act but also that they have suffered
or are about to suffer a direct injury as a result of its enforcement, rather than suffering in some
indefinite way.

Police power is described as the power promoting the public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property. It may be exercised as long as the activity or property
sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare. It may regulate liberty and
property but must not be used to prohibit them entirely.

Police power is described as the power promoting the public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property. It may be exercised as long as the activity or property
sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare. A valid police power must
have a valid governmental objective that affects the general welfare, and the means employed
must be reasonably connected to the accomplishment of the objective sought and not unduly
oppressive.

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the state to take private property for public use,
provided that just compensation is given to the owner. The foundation of the right to exercise
eminent domain is genuine necessity, and such necessity is of public character.

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Private property
includes real and personal, tangible and intangible properties. Private property already devoted
to public use shall not be subjected to expropriation, unless directed by the national legislature
or under specific grant of authority to the delegate.

The Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Substantive due process deals with the intrinsic validity of the law, determining
whether it is unreasonable, whimsical, or capricious. A valid governmental objective that affects
the general welfare must be present, and the means employed must be reasonably connected
to the accomplishment of the objective and not unduly oppressive. A valid exercise of police
power is compliant with due process.

The Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law. Procedural due process refers to the method by which the law is enforced and
requires compliance with the procedures or steps provided by the statute or the constitution in
accordance with fair play. The requisites of procedural due process include an impartial and
competent court or tribunal to hear and decide on the matter, as well as notice and an
opportunity to be heard. A violation of these requisites is a violation of the due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. The guarantee of equal protection clause
does not mean application of all laws to all persons or things without distinction. The constitution
allows classification as long as it is valid, for a classification to be valid it must pass the test of
reasonableness, which requires that, classification must be based on substantial distinction, it
must be germane to the purpose of the law, it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and
it must apply equally among all members of the same class.

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 the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

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.
Generally, a warrantless search is unreasonable; however, there are warrantless searches and
seizures allowed by the law. One such warrantless search allowed by law is a search incident to
a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to lawful arrest are accepted on the requisites
that first, the arrest must be a valid warrantless arrest. The search must be conducted
immediately after the arrest or at the place where the arrest was made. It must be limited to the
person of the individual arrested, and the permissible area of search is restricted to the person's
body and the clothing being worn at the time of the arrest, as well as the immediate vicinity of
the arrest. Any evidence seized during a search incidental to a lawful arrest may be admissible
in court, provided it is relevant to the offense for which the person was arrested.

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.
Unreasonable search and seizures are those that do not have a valid warrant. However,
warrantless searches are allowed by law, such as searches incident to a lawful arrest. In cases
of lawful warrantless arrest, like in flagrante delicto, where a person commits, is committing, or
attempts to commit an offense in the presence of a police officer, the officer now has personal
knowledge to establish probable cause for a warrantless search.

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.
Unreasonable search and seizures are those that do not have a valid warrant. However, there
are exceptions, such as searches incident to a lawful arrest. One example is hot pursuit, where
an arrest can be made without a warrant if the person has just committed a crime and the officer
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person is responsible for the crime. The
arrest must be made shortly after the criminal act. The warrantless search after the arrest in hot
pursuit is valid.

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.
Generally, a warrantless search is unreasonable; however, there are warrantless searches and
seizures allowed by the law. One such warrantless search and seizure allowed by law is
stop-and-frisk. Searches and seizures in stop-and-frisk are accepted provided that the police
officer must have a genuine reason to conduct the stop-and-frisk, such as reasonable suspicion
that the person is armed and dangerous, or reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity
is happening. The frisk must be limited to a pat-down of the outer clothing to detect weapons or
other dangerous objects, and it must be conducted in a respectful manner and in a place that is
not overly intrusive. Violation of these circumstances shall make the search and seizure void
and any evidence found inadmissible.

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.
A consented warrantless search is a recognized exception to the constitutional requirement of a
warrant for searches and seizures, provided that there is a manifested probable cause in conducting
a warrantless search. For such a search to be considered valid, the consent must be given freely,
without coercion or intimidation, and by an individual with the legal capacity to consent. The scope of
the search is limited to what is specifically agreed upon, and it is advisable for the consent to be
witnessed by a neutral party. A mere failure to object against a warrantless search does waive the
right against unreasonable search. Giving the objective requested by authority does not waive the
right against unreasonable search and seizure. Failure to adhere to these requirements may render
the search invalid, resulting in any evidence obtained being excluded from admissibility in court.

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.
Generally, a warrantless search is unreasonable; however, in the enforcement of customs and
tariff laws, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may conduct searches and
seizures on vessels without a search warrant, provided there is probable cause to conduct a search,
as vessels can be quickly moved out of reach, making obtaining a warrant impracticable.

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.
Generally, a warrantless search is unreasonable; however there are instances when a search
becomes valid without warrant, one of those, is a search of land moving in checkpoints.
Searches in checkpoints are valid provided that there is a legitimate purpose for such search
and that the search must be limited to visual inspection of the vehicle. Any evidence obtained in
the search is admissible provided that the acquisition of the evidence is proper.