CONSTITUTIONAL L LAW ATTY. EDGAR B. PASCUA II ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW LAW “The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of Rights, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law way way above the articles on governmental power.” 1
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION AS LIMITATIONS ON POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN, AND TAXATION A. Fundamental Principles on Constitutional Law and the Bill of Rights a. THE BILL OF RIGHTS INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
BALANCES
GOVERNMENTAL
POWER
AND
State power is so vast that the protection of individual freedoms must be guaranteed. Taxation, Eminent Eminent Domain Domain and Police Power Power interfere with civil liberties. Without the Bill of Rights, Rights, the exercise exercise of these powers will be unbridled. It guarantees guarantees that there are certain areas of a person’s life, liberty and property which governmental power may not touch. Any governmental action in violation of the rights declared in the Bill of Rights is void, so that the provisions of a Bill of Rights are self – executing to this extent. However, the legislature may enact laws to protect and enforce the provisions of the Bill of Rights2. The Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on state power. It places boundaries on the controls of government and creates an area of sufficient liberty for individual actions. It provides rights rights to individuals to protect themselves from the encroaching power of government.3 b. IN THE ABSENCE OF GOVERNMENTAL INTERFERENCE, THE LIBERTIES GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE INVOKED The Court in the landmark case of People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991) clarified the proper dimensions of the Bill of Rights. “That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection against whom? Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights Ri ghts answers the query which he himself posed, as follows: "First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship 1
A.M. No. P-08-2519 November 19, 2008 (Formerly (Formerl y A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2155-P) ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. MIGUEL MORALES, CLERK OF COURT, ETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA 2 Courts as a rule consider the provisions of the Constitution as self executing, rather than as requiring future legislation for their enforcement. The reason is not difficult to discern. For if they are not treated as self-executing, the mandate of the fundamental law ratified by the sovereign people can be easily ignored and nullified by Congress. Suffused with wisdom of the ages is the unyielding rule that legislative actions may give breath to constitutional rights but congressional inaction should not suffocate them. 3 However, some believe that the Bill of Rights provided the resources by which government could spread and increase its power.
Constitutional Law
2016
Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II
P
a
g
e
1
between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder." (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas; Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17,1986)” *Case: The petitioner, an international flight steward, was formally informed by PAL that
due to his inability to attain his ideal weight, "and considering the utmost leniency" extended to him "which spanned a period covering a total of almost five (5) years," his services were considered terminated "effective immediately The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of the job of petitioner. However, the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal since his weight did not hamper the performance of his duties. Assuming that it did, petitioner could be transferred to other positions where his weight would not be a negative factor. Notably, other overweight employees, i.e., Mr. Palacios, Mr. Cui, and Mr. Barrios, were promoted instead of being disciplined. The NLRC rendered judgment affirming the Labor Arbiter. Arbiter. By Decision the CA reversed the NLRC. As such, review review was sought sought with the the Court. R u l e : Petitioner claims that PAL is using passenger safety as a convenient excuse to
discriminate against him. To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution. Constitution. However, in the absence of governmental governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee. After a meticulous consideration of all arguments arguments pro and con, We uphold the legality of dismissal. Separation pay, however, should be awarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This is so because his dismissal is not for serious misconduct. Neither is it reflective of his moral character. G.R. No. 168081 168081 Oct ob er 17, 2008 ARMA NDO G. YRASUEGUI vs. PHILIPPINE AIRL INES
However, Article 32 of the Civil Code affords the guarantee of protection to individuals for such violations by any public officer or employee, or any private individual, by directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating or in any manner impeding or impairing any of the rights and liberties of another person. Whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. a djudicated. Futher, any such violations of the Fundamental right of a citizen, by another, may constitute a crime, which may be punishable by the Revised Penal Code4, or other penal laws. 2 e
4 The
Revised Penal Code, Book Two, Title Two - CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Constitutional Law
2016
Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II
P
a
g
between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder." (Sponsorship Speech of Commissioner Bernas; Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. 1, p. 674; July 17,1986)” *Case: The petitioner, an international flight steward, was formally informed by PAL that
due to his inability to attain his ideal weight, "and considering the utmost leniency" extended to him "which spanned a period covering a total of almost five (5) years," his services were considered terminated "effective immediately The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed and held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of the job of petitioner. However, the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal since his weight did not hamper the performance of his duties. Assuming that it did, petitioner could be transferred to other positions where his weight would not be a negative factor. Notably, other overweight employees, i.e., Mr. Palacios, Mr. Cui, and Mr. Barrios, were promoted instead of being disciplined. The NLRC rendered judgment affirming the Labor Arbiter. Arbiter. By Decision the CA reversed the NLRC. As such, review review was sought sought with the the Court. R u l e : Petitioner claims that PAL is using passenger safety as a convenient excuse to
discriminate against him. To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution. Constitution. However, in the absence of governmental governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee. After a meticulous consideration of all arguments arguments pro and con, We uphold the legality of dismissal. Separation pay, however, should be awarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This is so because his dismissal is not for serious misconduct. Neither is it reflective of his moral character. G.R. No. 168081 168081 Oct ob er 17, 2008 ARMA NDO G. YRASUEGUI vs. PHILIPPINE AIRL INES
However, Article 32 of the Civil Code affords the guarantee of protection to individuals for such violations by any public officer or employee, or any private individual, by directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating or in any manner impeding or impairing any of the rights and liberties of another person. Whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. a djudicated. Futher, any such violations of the Fundamental right of a citizen, by another, may constitute a crime, which may be punishable by the Revised Penal Code4, or other penal laws. 2 e
4 The
Revised Penal Code, Book Two, Title Two - CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Constitutional Law
2016
Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II
P
a
g
Please read however the earlier case of ZULUETA vs COURT OF APPEALS; Case: Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March
26, 1982, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondent's secretary, forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet in her husband's clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private correspondence between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greetings cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martin's passport, and photographs. The documents and papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine which which petitioner petitioner had filed against against her husband. husband. R u l e : Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The
constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be] inviolable" is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a "lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any purpose in any proceeding." The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. G.R. No. 107383 February 20, 1996 CECILIA ZULUETA vs COURT OF A P P E A L S a n d A L F R E D O M A R T IN IN
c. HUMAN RIGHTS ENJOY A HIGHER PREFERENCE IN THE HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS THAN PROPERTY RIGHTS, DEMANDING THAT DUE PROCESS IN THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY MUST COME BEFORE ITS TAKING AND NOT AFTER Hence, the order of rights, as enumerated in the law, it is expressed that “No person shall be deprived of (1) (1) life, (2) liberty, or (3) property property …….” While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.5 Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow specificity."6 Rule: Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible. If human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs — political, economic or otherwise . G.R. No. L-31195 Jun e 5, 1973 PHILIPPIN PHILIPPINE E BL OOMING MILLS MILLS vs. PHILIPPINE PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO.
d. THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE SELF EXECUTORY *Thus, we have treated as self-executing the provisions in the Bill of Rights on arrests, searches and seizures, the rights of a person under custodial investigation, the rights of an accused, and the privilege against self-incrimination, It is recognized that legislation is unnecessary to enable courts to effectuate constitutional provisions guaranteeing the fundamental rights of life, liberty and the protection of property. The same treatment is accorded to constitutional provisions forbidding the taking or damaging of property for 3 e
5 March
vs. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 509; Tucker vs. Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 519-520. 6 NACCP vs. Button (Jan. 14, 1963), 371 U.S. 415, 433, 9 L. Ed. 2nd 405, 418.
Constitutional Law
2016
Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II
P
a
g
public use without just compensation. G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 MANILA PRINCE HOTEL vs. GSIS
B. Basic Principles on the Fundamental Powers of the State, their Characteristics, Similarities, and Distinctions, and their Limitations There are three inherent powers of government which the state imposes with civl rights and liberties; (1) police power, (2) eminent domain, (3) taxation. These are said to exist independently of the Constitution as necessary attributes of sovereignty. The provisions found in the law relating to the three inherent state powers, taxation, eminent domain and police power, do not grant the authority to the government, but limit a power which would otherwise be without limit. Being inherent, state legislation need not even be made for their existence. POLICE POWER Police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three fundamental powers of the State. The justification is found in the Latin maxims salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (so use your property as not to injure the property of others). As an inherent attribute of sovereignty which virtually extends to all public needs, police power grants a wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as parens patriae, gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers7 The concept of police power is well-established in this jurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general welfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an imposition of restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an exact definition but has been, purposely, veiled in general terms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace. Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled in general terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant.8 Police power is based upon the concept of necessity of the State and its corresponding right to protect itself and its people.9 Police power has been used as justification for numerous and varied actions by the State. These range from the regulation of dance 7
G.R. No. 159796 July 17, 2007 ROMEO P. GEROCHI, KATULONG NG BAYAN (KB) and ENVIRONMENTALIST CONSUMERS NETWORK, INC. (ECN), Petitioners, vs. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE), 8 Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 127 Phil. 306 (1967). 9 JMM Promotion and Management Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 87, 94 (1996) citing Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919).
Constitutional Law
2016
Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II
P
a
g
e
4
halls,10 movie theaters,11 gas stations12 and cockpits.13 The awesome scope of police power is best demonstrated by the fact that in its hundred or so years of presence in our nation’s legal system, its use has rarely been denied.14 "Its scope, ever-expanding to meet the exigencies of the times, even to anticipate the future where it could be done, provides enough room for an efficient and flexible response to conditions and circumstances thus assuring the greatest benefits." R u l e : “It must not be forgotten that police power is an inherent attribute of sovereignty. It
has been defined as the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same. The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare. As an obvious police power measure, Article 202 (2) must therefore be viewed in a constitutional light.” G.R. No. 169364 September 18, 2009 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. EVANGELINE SITON y SACIL
It finds no specific Constitutional grant for the plain reason that it does not owe its origin to the Charter. Along with the taxing power and eminent domain, it is inborn in the very fact of statehood and sovereignty. It is a fundamental attribute of government that has enabled it to perform the most vital functions of governance. Marshall, to whom the expression has been credited, refers to it succinctly as the plenary power of the State "to govern its citizens." "The police power of the State ... is a power coextensive with selfprotection, and it is not inaptly termed the "law of overwhelming necessity." It may be said to be that inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society." It constitutes an implied limitation on the Bill of Rights. According to Fernando, it is "rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable an individual citizen or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures calculated to ensure communal peace, safety, good order, and welfare." Significantly, the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and liberties "Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's will." It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number. Notwithstanding its extensive sweep, police power is not without its own limitations. For all its awesome consequences, it may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise, and in that event, it defeats the purpose for which it is exercised, that is, to advance the public good. Thus, when the power is used to further private interests at the expense of the
10
U.S. v. Rodriguez, 38 Phil. 759. v. Chan, 65 Phil. 611 (1938). 12 Javier v. Earnshaw, 64 Phil. 626 (1937). 13 Pedro v. Provincial Board of Rizal, 56 Phil. 123 (1931). 14 G.R. No. 122846 January 20, 2009 WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION, TITANIUM CORPORATION vs. CITY OF MANILA, CASTRO, MAYOR ALFREDO S. LIM 11 People
Constitutional Law
2016
Atty. Edgar B. Pascua II
P
a
g
e
5
