CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

- Study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as represented by

the three inherent powers of the State and liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Chapter 2
THE NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION

CLASSIFICATION
- Written, conventional and rigid
- Written: precepts are embodied in one document or sets of documents
- Conventional: enacted constitution, formally “struck off” at a definite time and place
following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or ruler.
- Rigid: can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process.

ESSENTIAL QUALITIES
- Broad, brief and definite
- Broad: covers all persons and things within the territory of the State
- Brief: confined itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details
more adjustable to change and easier to amend.
- Definite: less ambiguity

ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. Constitution of liberty - consists of a series of prescriptions setting forth the
fundamental civil and political rights of the citizens and imposing limitations on the
powers of government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights.
2. Constitution of government - outlining the organization of the government the
3. Constitution of sovereignty - mode or procedure in accordance with which
formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about

INTERPRETATION
- Self-executing, mandatory and prospective
- Self-executing: directly or indirectly applicable without need of statutory
implementation
 Collector of Customs v. Villaluz – Art 3, Section 2 may not be withdrawn or
restricted by the legislature.
- Mandatory: As a rule, therefore, whenever the language used in the Constitution is
prohibitory, it is to be understood as intended to be a positive and unequivocal
negation; and whenever the language contains a grant of power, it is intended as a
mandate, not a mere direction."
- Prospective: rights already acquired or vested might be unduly disturbed or
withdrawn even in the absence of an unmistakable intention

AMENDMENT OR REVISION
- People v Pomar: SC declared unconstitutional a law granting maternity leave
privileges to female employees on the ground that it impaired the obligations of
contract
 - Amendment – isolated or piecemeal change only (direct legislative action)
- Revision – revamp of the whole instrument (Constitutional Convention)

Procedure
1. Proposal – under Article XVII section 1
- ¾ Member of Congress
- Constitutional Convention – 2/3 vote of Congress
- People’s Initiative – 12% of total number of registered voters, every district
3%

- Lambino v. COMELEC
- Amendment – adds, reduces, or deletes without altering basic principle
involved. Changes specific provisions.
- Revision – changes the basic principle of the separation of powers or
systems of checks-and-balances, substantial entirety of the constitution
Changes general provisions.

POSITION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

- Loomis v Jackson – Theory of Conventional Sovereignty - supreme over
other departments because powers exercise are in the nature of sovereign
power.
- Wood’s Appeal – inferior to other departments as mere creature of
legislature
- Frantz v. Autry – co-equal with the other department (Mabanag v. Lopez
Lito)

2. Ratification – Article 17 section 4

 Ratified by majority of votes cast in a plebiscite
 Gonzales v. Commission of Election – respondent argued that plebiscite
should be cast same date as a regular election. SC held that there is no
provision saying that there is in this provision nothing to indicate that the
election therein referred to is a special, not a general election.

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AMENDMENTS

 Sanidad v. Commission on Elections
- The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction in the amendment of Constitution
“The amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a
judicial question. This is especially true in cases where the power of the
Presidency to initiate the amending process by proposals of amendments, a
function normally exercised by the legislature, is seriously doubted”.

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS

REQUISITES OF A JUDICIAL INQUIRY (Dumlao v. Commission on Elections, 95 SCRA 392)
1. There must be an actual case or controversy;
2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party;
3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; and
4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination
of the case itself.

1. ACTUAL CASE
- Actual case or controversy must be ripe for judicial determination which involves a
conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
adjudication. The case must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other
similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice.
- advisory opinion not an actual case but solicit declaratory judgment involving
interpretation of rights, actual controversy court has jurisdiction.

Moot and Academic Principle Formula: (David v Macapagal-Arroyo)

1. grave violation of the Constitution
 Arroyo v DOJ
2. exceptional character and paramount public interest involved
 Province of North Cotabato v. Government of the Republic of the
Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
3. requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, bar and
public.
4. capable of repetition yet evading review

Tañada v. Angara
- When the act of the legislative is seriously alleged to have infringed the
Constitution settling controversy becomes duty of the Court
- Enactment of the questioned law or approval of the challenged action, dispute is
said to have ripened into a judicial controversy.

PACU v. Secretary of Education

- Petitioners challenged a regulation of the respondent requiring all private colleges
and universities to first obtain a permit from the Department of Education
before they could open and operate.
- SC held case is premature. "Mere apprehension that the Secretary of Education
might, under the law, withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners does not constitute
a justiciable controversy."

DOCTRINE OF CAPABLE OF REPETITION YET EVADING REVIEW

- May be question at any time.

2. PROPER PARTY
- One who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of
the act complained of. Act must be established
- party must prove to have direct and substantial interest (IBP v Zamora)
 - issue is of transcendental importance (Araneta v. Dinglasan)

Stronghold Insurance Company Inc. v Cuenca

- “Locus Standi” – personal and substantial interest in a case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
challenged.
- The jurisdiction of the court of law or equity may not be invoked by or for an individual
whose rights has not been breached.

Tileston v. Ullmann
- physician questioned the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of
contraceptives, upon the ground that it might prove dangerous to the life or health of
some of his patients whose physical condition would not enable them to bear the
rigors of childbirth
- The Court dismissed the challenge, holding that the patients of the physician and
not the physician himself were the proper parties

Cuyegkeng v. Cruz
- petitioner challenged in a quo warranto proceeding the title of the respondent who,
he claimed, had been appointed to the Board of Medical Examiners in violation of the
provisions of the Medical Act of 1959.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that Cuyegkeng had not made a
claim to the position held by Cruz and therefore could not be regarded as a proper
party who had sustained an injury as a result of the questioned act.

People v. Vera
- the Court held that the Government of the Philippines was a proper party to
challenge the constitutionality of the Probation Act because, more than any other, it
was the Government itself that should be concerned over the validity of its own laws.

Araneta v. Dinglasan
- it is now permissible for an ordinary taxpayer, or a group of taxpayers, to raise the
question of the validity of an appropriation law. As the Supreme Court then put it,
'The transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be
settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, technicalities of
procedure.”

De la Llana v. Chairman, COA

- public funds from taxation have been disbursed in alleged contravention of the law
or the Constitution

Tolentino v. COMELEC
- senators have locus standi in prohibition of plebiscite
Oposa v. Factoran
- number of minors, represented by their parents, sued the Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources "to prevent the 'misappropriation or
impairment'" of Philippine rainforests "and arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the
country's vital life-support systems and continued rape of Mother Earth."
- SC held that minors are proper parties as Petitioners minors assert that they
represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn
- intergenerational responsibility

Lozada v. Commission on Elections

- petition to compel the respondent to call special elections to fill twelve vacancies in
the interim Batasang Pambansa
- SC held not a proper party as petitioner only shares a generalized interest.

Guazon v. De Villa
- "well-meaning citizens with only second-hand knowledge of the events" were
not considered proper parties

Chavez v Judicial Bar Council

- Petitioner questions the composition of the JBC in which the Congress has a right to
have two representatives.
- SC held that composition is unconstitutional.
- Hence, a citizen has a right to bring this question to the Court, clothed with legal
standing and at the same time, armed with issues of transcendental importance to
society.

3. EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
- earliest possible opportunity, such that if it is not raised in the pleadings, it cannot
be considered at the trial, and if not considered in a trial, it cannot be considered on
appeal.

Exceptions:
1. criminal cases – constitutional question can be raised any time in the discretion of
the court (Palencia v. People)
2. Civil cases – constitutional question may be raised at any stage if it involves
jurisdiction of the court
3. Estoppel – involves jurisdiction of the court

Cabral v. Bracamonte
- SC held that objections based on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction over the
offense charged may be raised or considered motu proprio by the Court at any stage
of the proceeding

4. NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

 - The reason why the courts will as much as possible avoid the decision of a
constitutional question can be traced to the doctrine of separation of powers, which
enjoins upon each department a proper respect for the acts of the other departments.
- as long as there is some other basis that can be used by the courts for its decision, the
constitutionality of the challenged law will not be touched and the case will be decided on
other available grounds.
- Doctrine Of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies when an administrative remedy
is provided by law, relief must be sought by exhausting this remedy before judicial
intervention may be availed of
- Constitutional Policy of Avoidance – question of the constitutionality is the very lis
mota presented. Court will only pass upon constitutionality of a statute to the extent that it
is directly and necessarily involved in a justiciable controversy and is essential to the
protection of the rights of the parties concerned.

Zandueta v. De la Costa
- Common law principle of estoppel – person cannot question the validity of a law
under which he had previously accepted benefits.

Demetria v. Alba
- Seven pillars of limitations of the power of Judicial Review
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-
adversarial proceeding.
2. The Court will not anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the
necessity.
3. The Court will not formulate a rule of Constitutional Law broader than is required
by precise facts.
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question if there is also some other
ground upon which the case may be disposed of.
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity if a statute upon complaint of one who
fails to show that he is injured by its operation.
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of the law of one who has availed
himself of its benefits.
7. The Court will first ascertain whether construction of the statute is fairly possible by
which the question may be avoided.

EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY

1. Orthodox View
- an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not
been passed. It is therefore stricken from the statute books and considered never to
have existed at all.

2. Modern View
 - the court in passing upon the question of constitutionality does not annul or repeal the
statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it and
determines the rights of the parties just as if such statute had no existence.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT (Exception to the Orthodox View)

- Nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a
statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may
have consequences which cannot always be ignored.

CHAPTER 4
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE

1. Police Power
- The power to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare.
2. Eminent Domain
- The power to forcibly acquire private property for public use with just compensation.
3. Taxation
- The power to demand proportionate shares or contribution for the maintenance of
the government.

SIMILARITIES
1. They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express
constitutional grant.
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or be effective
unless it is able to exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.

DIFFERENCES
1. The police power regulates both liberty and property. The power of eminent domain and
the power of taxation affect only property rights.
2. The police power and the power of taxation may be exercised only by the government.
The power of eminent domain may be exercised by some private entities.
3. The property taken in the exercise of the police power is destroyed because it is noxious
or intended for a noxious purpose. The property taken under the power of eminent domain
and the power of taxation is intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore
wholesome.
4. The compensation of the person subjected to the police power is the intangible altruistic
feeling that he has contributed to the general welfare. The compensation in volved in the
other powers is more concrete, to wit, a full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated
or protection and public improvements for the taxes paid.
I. POLICE POWER
- regulates not only liberty but also property for the promotion of the public welfare.

Characteristics:
1. Most pervasive, least limitable and most demanding - It may be exercised as long as
the activity or the property sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare.

Stone v. Mississippi
- Several persons sell lottery tickets for 25 years.
- After 3 years law prohibits gambling.
- Petitioner held that law impairs the obligation of contracts.
- SC held petitioner cannot bargain away the public health or public morals.

Inchong v. Hernandez
- Petitioner sought to enjoin enforcement of the Retail Trade Nationalization Law which
is inconsistent with treaty of amity between Philippines and China and Universal
Declaration of Human Rights
- Retail Trade Nationalization Law is not unconstitutional because it was passed in the
exercise of the police power which cannot be bargained away through the medium of
a treaty.

Bayan Muna v Romulo

- Ratified treaty, unlike an executive agreement, takes precedence over any prior
statutory enactment.

Pangilinan v. Cayetano
- Statues enjoy preeminence over international agreements. In case of conflict
between law and treaty, it is the statute that must prevail. Treaty cannot amend a
statute.

2. The police power is dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is
supposed to regulate.
- Once exercised, it is not deemed exhausted and may be exercised again and again, as
often as it is necessary for the protection or the promotion of the public welfare.

Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association v. City Mayor of Manila

- SC upheld ordinance to minimize certain practices hurtful to public morals

City of Manila v. Laguio

- SC nullifies the ordinance in the operation of motels. SC held that ordinance should
instead impose reasonable regulation such as daily inspection.
Whitelight Corporation v. City of Manila
- Overturns Ermita-Malate ruling, SC held individual rights may be adversely affected
only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public
interest or public welfare.

Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform

- Eminent domain can be used as an implement of the police power. Expropriation of
agricultural lands to be distributed among the landless peasantry.

Lutz v. Araneta
- Taxation as an implement of the police power. The Supreme Court sustained as a
legitimate exercise of the police power the imposition of a special tax on sugar
producers for the purpose of creating a special fund to be used for the rehabilitation
of the sugar industry.

EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER

- The police power is lodged primarily in the national legislature. By virtue of a valid
delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised by the President and
administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels,
including the barangay.

TESTS OF THE POLICE POWER

1. Lawful Subject - The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those
of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power.
2. Lawful Means- The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

1. LAWFUL SUBJECT
- within the scope of police power for public welfare

Taxicab Operators of Manila v Board of Transportation

- Phasing of 6 year old taxicab is valid police measure to protect the riding public and
promote comfort and convenience.

Velaso v Villegas
- Prohibiting barber shop from massage services in a separate room to prevent
immorality and enable authority to assess license fees.

Bautista v. Junio
- Prohibiting heavy and extra heavy vehicles from using streets on weekends and legal
holidays.

Tio Case
- Creation of Videogram Regulatory Board is a valid exercise of Police power to
answer the need for regulating the video industry
Lozano v. Martinez
- Constitutionality of BP law

DEPED v San Diego

- Questions the NMAT disqualification of three times.
- Valid police power as protection of patients.
- State has a responsibility to harness its human resources that they are not dissipated
or no less worse not use at all.

Social Justice Society v. Atienza

- Zoning ordinance of City if Manila Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area
described therein 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 the date of effectivity... of the
ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area are the so-called "Pandacan
Terminals" of the oil companies.
- 1. Exercise of police power, property rights of individual may be subjected to the
restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government
- 2. The power to establish zones for industrial, commercial, and residential use
is derived from police power itself and is exercised for the protection and
benefit of the residents of a locality.

Manila Memorial Park v. Secretary of the DSWD

- 20 percent discount for senior citizens is a valid police power and not eminent
domain.

Ople v. Torres
- National Computerized Identification Reference System invalid police measure as a
sinister attempt of the government to intrude into their right,

2. LAWFUL MEANS
- pursued to lawful method
- In fine, the means employed for the accomplishment of the police objective must
pass the test of reasonableness and, specifically, conform to the safeguards
embodied in the Bill of Rights for the protection of private rights. Failing this, the law
will be annulled for violation of the second requirement.

Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court

- Executive Order No. 626-A not a valid police power.

OSG v. Ayala Land

- Collection of parking fees in the mall not a police power but eminent domain.
- Public access to said parking spaces for free is an intrusion into their property rights.
Respondent has a right to recover expenses for the maintenance and operation of
the parking facilities.
Fernando v St. Scholastica’s College
- Ordinance of see thru fences is not valid police power measure.
- Not being necessary to accomplish the City’s purpose.

II. EMMINENT DOMAIN

WHO MAY EXERCISE

1) The Congress.
(2) The President of the Philippines.
(3) The various local legislative bodies.
(4) Certain public corporations, like the Land Authority and the National Housing
Authority.
(5) Quasi-public corporations like the Philippine National Railways

For LGU requisites

1. Enactment of an Ordinance - Condition Precedent
2. must be for public use
3. payment of just compensation
4. preceded by a valid and definite offer to the owner who rejects the same

For Private Individuals

1. Valid delegation to a public utility
2. identified public use
3. Previous tender of a valid and definite offer
4. Payment of just compensation

DESTRUCTION FROM NECESSITY

American Printworks v Lawrence

- Destruction of Necessity – Eminent Domain
- Rights of Necessity or Preservation – Private Individual rights, self-defense, self-
preservation

NECESSITY OF EXERCISE
- When decided by the legislature not subject for judicial review.

City of Manila v. Chinese Community

- Establishment of playground
 - When the power is exercise by legislature, the question of necessity is essentially a
matter that the legislature can decide.
- Necessity must be of a public character

Republic of the Philippines v. La Orden de PP Benedictino’s de Filipinas (Order of St.

Benedict)
- Necessity of the expropriation of a portion of the respondent’s property for the
decongestion of traffic is not of the extreme necessity.

Expropriation Proceedings
1. Determination of the validity of the expropriation.
2. Determination of just compensation

Taking
- Trespass without actual conviction of the owner, material impairment of the value of
property, or prevention of the ordinary use for which the property is intended.

US v Causby
- Governmental planes fly at low altitude
- Taking in a form of prohibition of enjoyment of properties

Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila

- Imposition of 3 meter easement could not be done without just compensation

NPC v Aguirre-Paderanga
- Restriction of property rights over the land traversed by transmission lines

Republic v Castellvi
Requisites of Taking:
(1) The expropriator must enter a private property.
(2) The entry must be for more than a momentary period.
(3) The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority.
(4) The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated
or injuriously affected.
(5) The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the
owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.

City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta

- Private cemeteries to reserve 6% of their total areas for the burial of paupers was a
valid exercise of the police power under the general welfare clause.
- The Supreme Court disagreed, not police power but eminent domain.
- "The ordinance is actually a taking without compensation of a certain area from a
private cemetery to benefit paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation,"

Murrav v. La Guardia
 - Slum clearance is therefore now regarded as a valid object of expropriation under the
modern expanded interpretation of public use.
- people as a whole would profit indirectly from the elimination of many problems
engendered in the slums, such as fire hazards, lack of proper sanitation, ugliness,
disease, and the adverse effects of the sub-human conditions in the place upon the
slum-dwellers in general

JUST COMPENSATION
- full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner by the
expropriator
- standard is the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss.
- Fair market value, consequential damages.
- Capital gains tax
- Sworn valuation
- Determination of just compensation is a judicial function. Administrative Bodies
decision is only a preliminary decision. Determination of just compensation is a
judicial function as acquisition of private properties violates Constitutional rights.
- Just compensation is different from Inverse Condemnation – has the object to
recover the value even though no formal exercise of eminent domain. - NAPOCOR v
Heirs of Sangkay
- RA 10752 – 100% Zonal Valuation if National Government Project
- Local Government Code – 15% Fair Market Value
- RA 6657 – 10 years prescriptive period, from the time the landowner receive notice
of coverage

Secretary of DPWH v Spouses Tecson

- fair market value of the property at the time of filling of complaint for expropriation or
at the time of taking of property, whichever is earlier. Rule 67 Rules of Court

Republic of the Philippines v Mupas

- fair market value is not used in specialized property example churches, colleges,
cemeteries
- they are not usually sold in ordinary course of trade or business

Association of Small Land Owners v Secretary of Agrarian Reform

- just compensation is not monetary but in a form of Agrarian Reform Bonds
- In CARP cases, this is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of
relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific
and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
expropriation.