CASE DIGESTS

INQUERIES TO THE STUDY OF THE

INHERENT POWERS
OF THE STATE
Direction: Read and answer the cases in a brief and
concise manner. (Do not answer me with “I think the
answer is”, I need a statement not your beliefs. Nawa’y
matunawan kayo sa mga kaso na ito at huwag niyo ko
isumpa.)
CASE 1:
STATE A decided to pass into law imposing time restriction to the right to mobility
where people are prohibited from inter-province traveling in the months of November
and December. This is due to the fact that terrorism activities arise in the said months.
1. Is the law justifiable? Explain
2. Which right is alleged to be violated? Expound.
CASE 2:
PERSON A legally owns a 24-hectare property complete with all land titles and other
documents to that effect. The local government of Place A decided to buy the property
for the purpose of having a public cemetery and decided to pay PERSON A with 16,000
pesos per hectare. However, the fair market value of the property, if sold to a private
person, is 190,000 pesos per hectare.
1. Can PERSON A refuse from the government? .
YES! Despite that the State has its inherent powers, the use of these powers are limited
by the Bill of Rights. In particular, Art. III, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that
“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.” Should the government
exercises its power against an individual without due process of law or in excess of its
legal authority, an aggrieved individual may refuse from being subjected to the abuse of
power and validly invoke his rights against the government.

In this case, the person may validly refuse to be subjected under the State’s exercise of
eminent domain primarily on the ground that “Private property shall not be taked for
public use without just compensation.” Just compensation is defined as the “full and fair
value of the property taken. It is the market value of the property.” It is apparent in this
case that the amount imposed by the local government is grossly inadequate, thereby
violating the concept of just compensation.

Furthermore, local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain. They
can only exercise it when expressly authorized by the Legislature. In this case, there was
no showing of any legislative act which authorized the local government to exercise the
power of eminent domain.

2. Specify the provision supporting his probable refusal.

Art. II, Sec. 11 of the Constitution provides that, “The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.” Hence, should any
fundamental right such as the right to life, liberty, or property be violated, an individual
will have a cause of action against its aggressor, even if it be the State when in abuse of
its authority.

3. Which shall be respected? The amount posted by the government or the

private sale? Explain.
The right of the private individual must prevail in this case. Under Sec. 9, Art. III of the
Constitution, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.” Just compensation is defined as the “full and fair value of the property
taken. It is the market value of the property.” It is apparent in this case that the amount
imposed by the local government is grossly inadequate, thereby violating the concept of
just compensation.

CASE 3:
The local government of Place A decided to pass into law an ordinance prohibiting the
use of “puke shorts” and other similar mode of dressings in public places.
1. Is the law justifiable? Explain
NO. The local government, in this case, exercises its police power as it restrains and
regulates the use of liberty of an individual. This power, however, has its limitations.
Such power can only be exercised on a lawful subject. This means that the activity or
property sought to be regulated affects the general welfare. There is no showing in this
case that the wearing of “puke shorts” yield to the necessities of protecting vital public
interests. In fact, it is a violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of expression.

2. Specify which right can be invoked to question the Constitutionality of the

ordinance.
Sec. 4, Art. III
CASE 4:
PERSON A inherited a property from a relative who passed away last month. Upon
developing the property, PERSON A discovered “a bountiful amount of gold in the form
of spoons and forks”. It is later traced that the articles of gold are dated under the
Japanese occupation. The government decided to sequester the property including the
articles of gold.
 1. Does the act of government justifiable? Explain
NO. The law provides that if the finder is the owner of the land or the property where it
is found, the entire hidden treasure belongs to him. In this case, the person became the
owner of the property when he inherited the same from his relative. Only on the
following circumstances can the State sequester the hidden treasure at their just price:
when the discovery was made on the property not belonging to the finder; when the
property belongs to the State; or of the things found be of interest to science or the
arts.
2. Which right is violated?
Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution. Right to Property.
CASE 5:
Due to the increasing number of Jejemon, their culture has infiltrated most of the social
institutions of State of Jejebuster. The Jejebuster government decided to create Anti-jeje
law prohibiting practices, most specifically the use of jeje language in any form, and
other similar jeje acts.
1. Is the law justifiable? Explain
NO. All persons should be treated alike. Equal protection is violated when a cultural
group as Jejemon is prohibited from its practices, when other cultural groups are not.
2. Which right is being violated?
Sec. 1, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution is violated. “No person…shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”
CASE 6:
An art exhibit depicting Christ the King with a condom and a vulva side by side has been
petitioned by the Catholic Church before the Regional Trial Court of Manila for
“offending religious feelings and sentiments”.The painter invoked his constitutional right
to “freedom of expression”.
Decide:
1. If you were the RTC, what will be the verdict to this case? Justify your answers

The painter’s right to freedom of expression is violated. It has been ruled that “If such
pictures, sculptures, and paintings are shown in art exhibits for the cause of arts, there
would be no offense committed.” Only when such art creates “clear and present danger”
can the State interfere to one’s freedom of expression.

CASE 7:
Due to the proliferation of fake news, the government of STATE A decided to pass into
law the prohibition of use of Facebook and other social media platforms. It is further
stated and rationalized that law has been crafted to the wisdom that the people are
starting to build organizations to “ topple the legitimate” government due to
misinformation.
1. Is the law Constitutional? Explain
NO. Art. III, Sec. 4, provides, “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceable assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.

That the people are “starting to build” organizations to topple the legitimate
government due to misinformation as a ground for the prohibition of the use of
Facebook and other social media platforms is a mere speculation. The Constitutional
rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances
cannot be violated especially by virtue of mere speculation.

Furthermore, proposed solution is a problem solution mismatch. The Constitution

provides under Art. XVI, Sec. 10, that “The State shall provide policy environment for the
full development of Filipino capability and the emergence of communication suitable to
the needs and aspirations of the nation and the balanced flow of information into, our
of, and across the country, in accordance with a policy that respects the freedom of
speech and of the press.” Social media is a platform for a balanced flow of information.
The prohibition of the use of social media retrogresses the achievement of the said
provision. Rather that the prohibition of its use, the State must instead regulate the
same.

2. Which right is being violated?

CASE 8:
Due to the seemingly uncontrollable traffic congestion in the Republic of Pakio, the
government of Pakers decided to pass into law prohibiting car owners to use their
private cars everyday. Thus, requires usage of only 2 days per week. Further, the law
prohibits single-riding scheme where a car can only be used if there are passengers.
Decide:
1. Is the law legal? Explain
YES. If all means are exhausted, the State may validly exercise its police powers which
essentially infringes private rights, to resolve an issue that is of public interest. In this
case, uncontrollable traffic congestion is of public interest as it not only annoys the
public but it has proven to affect the economy by delaying deliveries of services,
consequently discourages investors.
2. Which right of the people is allegedly being violated? Explain .
NONE. There can be no violation of rights when the State exercises its police power on
the ground of public interest. In this case, to resolve an uncontrollable public distress is
a public interest.
3. Decide in favor of the government.
CASE 9:
The local government of STATE A decided to put up a public-funded funeraria “to give
free burial assistance to the general public in the promotion of dignity of human life”.
The said funeraria was located right beside the business establishment “Bagong Buhay
Cafeteria” whose product is food service. Arising from a previous ordinance, it has been
required that establishment related to food service must observe sanitary and hygiene
practice. Due to this, the said cafeteria lost almost 75% of its income.
1. Can PERSON A, who owns Bagong Buhay Cafeteria, demand just compensation?
2. Is eminent domain applicable? Justify your answers.
CASE 10:
In the United States, it is a fundamental right of the people to own and carry a gun “for
the preservation of life”. The US government decided to abolish the said right due to the
Las Vegas incident dated October 3, 2017.
1. Is it justifiable? Justify your answer

Mahal ko pa rin kayo kahit sinusumpa niyo na ‘ko sa dami ng mga kaso na ito.
-DDLEM