Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 1
Introduction
Safeguards in the Bill of Rights: 1. the right to due process and equal
protection, 2. the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, 3. freedom of
expression, 4. the impairment clause, and 5. the guarantees against injustice to the
accused
Objective: co-existence
Goal: a well-ordered society based on the inviolability of rights which,
although they may not be curtailed arbitrarily, may nevertheless be regulated for the
common good.
*recognition of authority- a condition sine qua non for the proper enjoyment of
liberty; criterion- common weal
Chapter 2
The Nature of the Constitution
Definition
Constitution - body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power
of sovereignty are
habitually exercised (Cooley)
- the written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by
which the fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined,
and by which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe
and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic (Justice Malcom)
Purposes
1. to prescribe permanent framework of a system of government;
2. to assign to the several departments their respective powers and duties; and
3. to establish certain first fixed principles on which the government is founded
*Constitution neither creates nor confers certain basic individual rights, rather it
merely recognizes and protects these rights and does not bring them into
existence. It is not the cause but the consequence of personal and political
freedom.
Page |2
Classification
1. Written- one whose precepts are embodied in one document or set of documents.
2. Unwritten- consists of rules which have not been integrated into a single,
concrete form byt are scattered in various sources.
a. Statutes of a fundamental character
b. Judicial decisions
c. Commentaries of publicists
d. Customs and traditions
e. Certain common law principles
3. Conventional- an enacted constitution, formally “struck off” at a definite time and
place following a conscious or deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or
ruler.
4. Cumulative- result of the political evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time
but changing by accretion rather than by any systematic method.
5. Rigid- one that can be amended only by a formal and usually difficult process.
6. Flexible- one that can be changed by ordinary legislation.
Interpretation
1. Verba Legis—whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.
2. When there is Ambiguity—ratio legis et anima-- A doubtful provision shall be
examined in the light of the history of the times and the conditions and
circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. (Civil Liberties Union
vs. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317)
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat—the Constitution has to be interpreted as a
whole. (Francisco vs. HR, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003)
4. Whenever the language used in the Constitution is prohibitory, it is to be
understood as intended to be positive and unequivocal negation.
5. Whenever the language contains a grant of power, it is intended as a mandate,
not a mere direction.
• If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is
available—construe the Constitution from what “appears upon its face”. The
proper interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the
people adopting it than in the framers’ understanding thereof.
• In case of doubt, the provision should be considered as self-executing;
mandatory rather than directory; and prospective rather than retroactive.
Amendment or Revision
○ P vs. Pomar: maternity leave privileges to female employees are
constitutional now via social legislation.
iron rules- cannot be altered except by formal amendment; eg. Age qualifications
and terms of office of certain officers
Procedure
1. Proposal- generally made either directly by the Congress or by a constitutional
convention.
a. Direct legislative action- ¾ of all the members of the Congress is needed;
suited for a mere amendment or change of particular provisions only
b. Constitutional Convention- may be made by a 2/3 of all the members of
the Congress; suited if there is a need to overhaul the entire Constitution
○ Occena v. COMELEC: the choice of method of proposal is
discretionary upon the legislature
○ Imbong v. COMELEC: Congress as constituent body- may with the
concurrence of 2/3 votes call a constitutional convention; legislative
body- may pass the necessary implementing law providing the details
of the constitutional convention
c. People through Initiative- upon the petition of at least 12 per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least 3 percentum of the registered voters therein
(Sec. 2, Art. 17)
Position of the Constitutional Convention
○ Loomis v. Jackson: THEORY OF CONVENTIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY- the constitutional convention is supreme over
the other departments of the government because the powers it
exercises are in nature of sovereign powers.
○ Wood’s Appeal: considers the constitutional convention inferior
to the other departments of the government since it is merely a
creation of the legislature.
○ Frantz v. Autry: the constitutional convention must be
considered independent and co-equal with the other
departments of the government.
1. Ratification- any amendment to or revision shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 days nor later
than 90 days after the approval of such change by the Congress or the
constitutional convention or after the certification by the COMELEC of the
sufficiency of the petition under Section 2.
Staute: enacted by the chosen representatives pursuant to their
mandate
Constitution: approval will come directly from the people themselves
Page |5
Chapter 3
The Constitution and the Courts
Role of Judiciary
1. ultimate guardian of the Constitution
2. to rectify the wrong
3. sacred and solemn duty: to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land
4. to protect the individual liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights
2 Views:
Page |8
1. Orthodox view
○ Norton v. Shelby: unconstitutional act- a. not a law, b. confers no
rights, c. imposes no duties, d. affords no protection, e. creates no
office; total nullity
2. Modern view- less stringent; it does not repeal, supersede, revoke or annul
the statute if it finds it in conflict with the Constitution.
○ Manila Motors Co. vs. Flores: due to equity, the SC relaxed the
operation of the general rule.
Chapter 4
The Fundamental Powers of the State
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
Domain
3. the property taken is intended for a public use -same with PED
destroyed; Rationale- it or purpose and is
is noxious or intended for therefore wholesome
a noxious purpose
Chapetr 5
The Police Power
Characteristics
1. the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of three powers
2. it may be exercised as long as the activity or the property sought to be regulated
has some relevance to the public welfare
3. where the person’s act and acquisitions are hemmed- Rationale: Salus populi
est suprema lex and Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas- calls for the
subordination of individual benefit to the interests of the greater number.
4. it may not be bargained away through the medium of a contract or a treaty
○ Stobe v. Mississippi: legislature cannot bargain- 1. police power of the
State, 2. public health, 3. public morals; lotteries- mala prohibita: the right
to stop tem is governmental, to be exercised at all times by those in power,
at their discretion.
○ Inchong v. Hernandez: even the law infringers upon a certain treaty, the
treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a subsequent law
and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of
the State.
5. dynamic and must move with the moving society it supposed to regulate.
P a g e | 10
6. it is not deemed exhausted and may be exercised often as it is necessary for the
protection or the promotion of public welfare.
7. must conform to every changes of conditions
8. may sometimes use the taxing power as an implement for the attainment of a
legitimate police objective
○ Powell v. Pennsylvania: exorbitant tax for a margarine industry which
products are being mistaken for butter as well as massage parlors or sauna
baths if they are found to be fronts for prostitution.
○ Lutz v. Araneta: legitimate exercise of police power- imposition of a
special tax on sugar producers.
○ Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform:
the power of eminent domain could be used as an implement of the police
power; police power- prescribe retention limits for landowners; eminent
domain- depriving such owners f whatever lands they may own in the
excess of the maximum area allowed.
1. Lawful Subject- within the scope of the police power; the activity or property
sought to be regulated affects the public welfare; No man is an island; must
P a g e | 11
pass the test of reasonableness and must conform to the safeguards embodied
in the Bill of Rights
○ Taxicab Operators of Metro Manila v. Board of Transportation:
phasing out taxicabs more than 6 yrs. old- to protect the riding public and
promote their comfort and convenience
○ Velasco v. Villegas: prohibition of barber shop operators from rendering
massage services in a separate room- to prevent immorality and enable
the authorities to properly assess license fees.
○ Bautista v. Junio: prohibition of heavy and extra-heavy vehicles from
using public streets on weekends and legal holidays- to conserve energy
○ Tio Case: Video Regulatory Board- 1. to regulate the video industry;
2.to prevent piracy, flagrant violation of intellectual property rights and
the proliferation of pornographic videotapes
○ Lozano v. Martinez: BP22- to preserve the integrity of the banking
system
○ DepEd v. San Diego: it is not enough to simply invoke the right to
quality education as a guaranty of the Constitution; one must show that
he is entitled to it because of his preparation and promise.
○ Sangalang v. IAC: opening of two erstwhile private roads in Bel Air
Village- to prevent traffic decongestion and for public convenience
○ Del Rosario v. Bengzon: Generics Act- to promote and require the use
of generic products
○ TeleBAP v. COMELEC: a franchise is merely a privilege; Sec. 29 of BP
Blg. 881- valid
○ Ople v. Torres: National Computerized Identification Reference
System- unconstitutional; it pressures the people to surrender their
privacy by giving information about themselves on the pretext that it will
facilitate the delivery of basic services.
2. Lawful Means- both the end and the means must be legitimate
○ Ynot v. IAC: the prohibition of the interprovincial transport of carabaos
cannot prevent the indiscriminate slaughter because they can be killed
anywhere.
castration of convicted rapist- invalid; Rationale- affront to the
integrity of the person’s body as guaranteed by due process.
Chapter 6
Eminent Domain
Private Property- includes real and personal, tangible and intangible properties.
Taking- may include trespass without actual eviction of the owner, material impairment
of the value of the property or prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property
was intended.
○ U.S v. Causby: there is no diverstiture of title rather merely an intrusion into the
superjacent rights of the owner.
○ Ayala de Roxas v. Vity of Manila: there must be a just compensation for the
imposition of one’s property
○ P. v. Fajardo: a just compensation must be given to the owner affected with the
ordinance prohibiting the construction of the building which would destroy the view
of the public plaza.
○ NAPOCOR v. Aguirre-Paderanga: right-of-way easement falls within the ambit
of the term “expropriation.”
Taking may be justified under police power- aimed at improving the
general welfare, and whatever damages are sustained by the property
owners are regarded as merely incidental to a proper execution of such
power; loss- damnm obsque injuria; recompensation- altruistic feeling
special injury- if he suffers more than his aliquot part of the damages, he
will be entitled to payment of the corresponding compensation.
○ Richards v. Washington Terminal: if the petitioner sustained more than the
damage incurred bu the other houses in the vicinity, he is entitled to just
compensation.
○ Republic v. Castellvi: the just compensation shall commence during the actual
occupancy and deprivation which was in 1959; mere notice of the intention to
expropriate a particular property does not bind its owner and inhibit him from
disposing of it or otherwise dealing with it.
Requisites of Taking in Eminent Domain
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.
○ Amigable v. Cuenca: the owner may immediately file a complaint with the proper
court for payment of his property as the arbitrary action of the government shall
be deemed a waiver of its immunity from suit.
○ City Government of Quezon City v. Ericta: if it is intended for public use, then
the principle that governs is eminent domain.
○ Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC: compulsory donation was a taking of
private property without payment of the just compensation required in
expropriation cases.
Public Use- any use directly available to the general public as a matter of right and not
merely of forbearance or accommodation.
res communes- subject to direct enjoyment by any and all members of the
public indiscriminately
telephone or light companies- such services are demandable as a matter of
right by any one prepared to pay for them.
P a g e | 14
Any member of the general public, as such, can demand the right to use the
converted property for his direct and personal convenience.
If the lot is transferred already, it ceases to be public property and come under
the exclusive ownership of the transferees; the promotion of social objectives is
more paramount.
slum clearance- valid object of expropriation under the modern expanded
interpretation of public use.
○ Province of Camarines Sur v. CA: if it is for public purpose, expropriation
can take place.
Just Compensation-full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private
owner by the expropriator; intended to indemnify the owner fully for the loss he has
sustained as a result of the expropriation.
– if it is prejudicial to rge public, it will not satisfy the requirement
of just compensation.
○ Knetch v. CA: owner- refers to all those who have lawful interest in the
property to be condemned, eg. mortgagee, lessee, vendee
Nature
Taxes- the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property, levied
by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of government and for all public
needs
Taxation- method by which tax contributions are exacted
obligation to pay taxes- not a contract; it is a duty imposed upon the individual
by the mere fact of his membership in the body politic and his enjoyment of the benefits
available from such membership. Exceptions-poll taxes
Taxes License
-are levied to raise revenues - are imposed for regulatory purposes only
the legislature
Scope
1. citizen abroad and his income earned from sources outside his State
2. all income earned in the taxing State
a. citizens or aliens
b. all immovable and tangible properties found in its territory
c. tangible property owned by persons domiciled
3. shares of stock issued by a foreign corporation
Principle
1. power to tax may include the power to destroy- if it is used validly as
an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect ultimately
prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare.
2. power to tax does not include the power to destroy- if the purpose is
to raise revenues, it cannot be allowed to confiscate or destroy.
Exercise
1. it is inherent in the State
2. it may now also be exercised not only by the national legislature but also by the
local legislative bodies
3. it is pursuant to a direct authority conferred by Article X, Sec. 5 of the Constitution
4. its exercise may be reversed in proper cases specifically when it violates the due
process and equal protection clauses or the particular restriction on the power of
taxations as prescribed in Article VI, Sec. 28 of the Constitution
Double Taxation- when additional taxes laid on the same subject by the same taxing
jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the same purpose
P a g e | 17
Public Purpose- include even indirect public advantage or benefit; as long as some link
to the public welfare is established
Tax Exemptions
Constitutional- religious and charitable institutions
○ Lladoc v. CIR: gift tax- an excise tax imposed on the transfer of property by way
of gift inter vivos, the imposition of which on property used exclusively for religious
purposes does not constitute an impairment of the Constitution.
Statutory- granted in the discretion of the legislature
1. granted gratuitously
2. in pursuant to economic policy
3. General Rule- it may be validly revoked at will, with or without cause;
Exemption- granted for valuable consideration, it is deemed to partake of
the nature of a contract and obligation thereof is protected against
impairment
○ Casanova v. Hord: if the contract was impaired by the enactment of Section 134
of the Internal Revenue Law thereby infringing the impairment clause.
In-depth Discussion and Other Cases (Source: Ma. Luis Angeles Ramos)
In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA 759, the City
Government of QC was not exercising police power when they required private cemetery
owners to reserve 6% of the burial lots for pauper’s burial ground. The SC held that in
police power, the property to be taken is to be destroyed. The 6% are private property of
the cemetery owners. This is a taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art. III: “Private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of police power. The City was made to pay the
owners just compensation.
In Philippine Press Institute vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Sec. 2 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in every
province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELEC space,
was held to be an invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the
existence of a national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print
P a g e | 18
space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such
necessity. This was held to be an exercise of the power of eminent domain, albeit invalid,
because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.
In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear arms is merely
statutory privilege. The license to carry firearm is neither a property nor a property right.
Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside one’s residence may be
revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute
as to be beyond the reach of the police power.
CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, 1998, while
police power may be delegated to the President by law, RA 6939 and PD 260, as
amended, do not authorize the President or any other administrative body, to take over
the internal management of a cooperative. Accordingly, Memorandum Order No. 409,
issued by the President, constituting an ad hoc committee to temporarily take over and
manage the affairs of CANORECO is invalid.
In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27,
2000, there is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to “enact
ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare” of the
inhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in
the Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated police power.
MMDA is not a special metropolitan political subdivision.
However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, although
the law (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or
revoke drivers’ licenses without need of any legislative enactment, the same law vests
the MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is
a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom
legislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not precluded—and in fact is duty-
P a g e | 19
bound— to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the exercise of its
mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and
implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and
traffic education programs.
In City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005,
the SC declared as an invalid exercise of the police power the City of Manila Ordinance
No. 7783, which prohibited “the establishment or operation of businesses providing
certain forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate
area”, for being contrary to the Constitution, infringing the guarantees of due process
and equal protection of the laws.
In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000), the
issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially
regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units, to
issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power
of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the LGC.
Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section
2 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in
every province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELEC
space, was held to be invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the
existence of national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print
space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such
necessity.
In the case of Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, the
power of eminent domain must, by enabling law, be delegated to local governments by
the national legislature, and thus, can only be as broad as the real authority would want
it to be. The grant of the power to local government units under RA 7160 cannot be
understood as equal to the pervasive and all encompassing power vested in the
legislative branch of government.
Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716—the exercise of the power of
eminent domain is clearly superior to the final and executor judgment rendered by the
court in an ejectment case.
CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, The owner of
the property cut the electric lines alleging that it impaired him of the use of his property.
The SC held that the property owner was not justified in cutting the electric lines. His
property becomes the servient estate subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisition of
an easement of right of way filed by an electric power company for the construction of
transmission lines falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. However,
since there was an impairment of the use of the property, he is entitled to the payment
of just compensation.
In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the property can recover
possession of the property from squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property to
the Government, until the transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed.
b. newspaper space is the private property of airwaves are scarce resources, the use is
the newspaper owners
regulated by the State
c. print media do not enjoy privilege franchise (privilege) is issued by the State
Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and TELEBAP are media of
communication and information. Equal protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC
ruled that equal protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality. There may be
classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be
treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification.
TAX LICENSE
1. basis- to raise revenue - to regulate
2. limitation- Rate or amount to be collected - Amount is limited to cost of: a)issuing the
is unlimited provided it is not confiscatory license; and b)necessary inspection of police
surveillance
3. object- Imposed on persons or property - Paid for privilege of doing something but
privilege is revocable
4. effect of non-payment- Business or Business becomes illegal
activity does not become illegal
TAX DEBT
-due to the government in its sovereign - due to the government in its corporate
capacity capacity
Taxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation for the simple reason that
the government and the taxpayers are not creditors and debtors of each other. (Philex
Mining Corp. vs. CIR, 294 SCRA 687)