Page |1
May Encarnina P. Gaoiran Constitutional Law Reviewer Chapter 1 Introduction Constitutional Law- study of the maintenance of the proper balance between authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the State and liberty as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Role: to effect an equilibrium between authority and liberty so that rights are exercised within the framework of the law and the laws are enacted with due deference to rights. Fundamental Powers of the State: 1. Police power, 2. the power of eminent domain, and 3. the power of Taxation 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
Supremacy of the Constitution 1. It is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest official of the land, must defer. 2. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution. 3. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. 4. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. 5. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people. 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. Constitution of the Philippines: written, conventional and rigid Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution 1. Broad- it is supposed to embody the past, to reflect the present and to anticipate the future; must be comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency. 2. Brief- it must confine itself to basic principles to be implemented with legislative details more adjustable to change and easier to amend. 3. Definite- to avoid confusion and divisiveness among the people, and perhaps even physical conflict. Exception: due process clause; Rationale: to make them more malleable to judicial interpretation in the light of new conditions and circumstances. Essential Parts of the Written 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
Page |3
powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those rights (Art. 3, 2, 4, 5, 7) 2. Constitution of Government- consists of series of provisions outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its administration, and defining the electorate (Art. 6-9) 3. Constitution of Sovereignty- consists of the provisions pointing out to the mode or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought about (Art. 17) Permanence of the Constitution -capacity to resist capricious or whimsical change dictated not by legitimate needs but only by passing fancies, temporary passions or occasional infatuations of the people with ideas or personalities. 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.
Self-Executing Provision- rule that by itself is directly or indirectly applicable without need of statutory implementation eg. Provisions on Bill of Rights- may be invoked by proper parties independently of or even against legislative enactment ○ Collector Customs v. Villaluz: Article 3, Sec. 2 of the Constitutionthe authority to conduct preliminary investigations to determine probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest, which power may not be withdrawn or restricted by the legislature. Non-Self-Executing Provision- remains dormant unless it is activated by legislative implementation. eg. Article 2, Sec. 4- such requirement cannot be imposed until and unless the legislature so wills, through the passage of a law specifying the conditions.
Page |4
Article 2, Sec. 5- it is the implementing statute that will. 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 Amendment- isolated or piecemeal change only Revision- revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument
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 ○
Gonzales v. COMELEC: the Congress does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.
Judicial Review of Amendments ○ Tanada v. Cuenco: the present doctrine allows the courts to inquire into whether or not the prescribed procedure for amendment has been observed. ○ Sanidad v. COMELEC: the amending process, both as to proposal and ratification, raises a judicial question; judiciary- may declare a proposal invalid The 1987 Constitution -fourth fundamental law to govern the Philippines since it became independent on July 4, 1946. Evolution of the Constitution 1. Commonwealth Constitution in 1935 2. Constitution of 1973 during the Marcos Regime 3. Freedom Constitution of 1986 (February 25, 1986)
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 Voting (see Art. 8, Sec. 4) Requisites of a Judicial Inquiry 1. there must be an actual case or controversy; 2. the question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party; 3. the question of constitutionality 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 - involves a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial adjudication -must not be moot or academic or based on extra-legal or other similar considerations not cognizable by a court of justice Justiciable Controvery: must be definite and concrete, touching, the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests; real and substantial controvery admitting a specific relief through a decree that is conclusive in character. request for advisory opinion: not an actual case or controversy
Page |6
Rationale: it does not involve any conflict in law that has assumed the proportions of a full-blown dispute; the court is being asked only to counsel and not to decide. advice of the courts: a mere suggestion or recommendation that may be accepted or rejected at will by the department requesting it. declaratory judgment: actual controversy ○ Pacu v. Secretary of Education: the 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. ○ PHILCONSA v. Villareal: the SC dismissed the petition to compel the Speaker of the House of Representatives to produce the books of accounts of that body because the same had already become moot and academic as the Congress of the Philippines was abolished due to the effectivity of 1973 Constitution. ○ Perez v. Provincial Board: after filing a certificate of candidacy for an elective office, a claim to an appointive office is already moot and academic. ○ Morelos v. De la Rosa: an election protest will have to be dismissed upon the expiration of the protested official’s term. 2. Proper Party- one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of. ○ Tileston v. Ulmann: the patients of the physician and not the physician himself were the proper parties to question the constitutionality of a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives. ○ Cuyegkeng v. Cruz: if a certain person had not made a claim to the position held by the other, he could not be regarded as the proper party who had sustained an injury as a result of the questioned act. ○ Ex Parte Levitt: Levitt was not a proper party since he was not claiming the position held by Justice Black. ○ People v. Vera: the Government was the proper party to challenge the constitutionality of its own laws. ○ Emergency Powers Case: it is now permissible for an ordinary taxpayer, or a group of taxpayers, to raise the question of the validity of an appropriation law. ○ Tolentino v. COMELEC: a senator had the proper party personality to seek the prohibition of a plebiscite for the ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment. ○ PHILCONSA v. Gimenez: an organization of taxpayers and citizens were the proper party to question the constitutionality of a law providing for certain special retirement benefits for members of the legislature. ○ Oposa v. Factoran: petitioners minors’ personality to sue on behalf of succeeding generation can only be based on the personality concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. ○ Sanidad v. COMELEC: the interest of taxpayers in the lawful expenditure if the amounts of public money sufficiently clothe them with that personality to litigate the validity of the Decrees appropriating said funds.
Page |7 ○ ○ ○
○
○
○
Macalintal v. COMELEC: if the issue is of transcendental significance to the Filipino people, then the Court can take jurisdiction over such cases. Lozada v. COMELEC: if it involves a generalized interest just like calling for a special election, the petitioners were not the proper parties. Guazon v. De Villa: well-meaning citizens with only second-hand knowledge of the events were not considered proper parties to challenge the saturation driver or “zonas” being conducted by the military. Kilosbayan v. Morato: taxpayers do not have a legal standing to question the contract providing for the holding of the lotto or a national lottery. Osmena v. COMELEC: if the petitioner had not been injured as a result of the ban on political commercials on radio and television, then he is not the proper party. Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. COMELEC: petitioners have no right of questioning the law requiring the television and radio stations to allocate free time to the respondent agency.
*suspension of the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus proclamation of martial law- any citizen are allowed to challenge it.
or
the
3. Earliest Opportunity- General Rule: if not raised in the pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial, and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be considered on appeal. Exceptions: a) criminal cases: it can be raised at any time in the discretion of the court. b) civil cases: it can be raised at any stage if it is necessary to the determination of the case itself. c) every case except estoppels: it can be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court. 4. Necessity of Deciding Constitutional Question- “to doubt is to sustain”: a law is supposed to have been carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was finally enacted; presence of other basis: its constitutionality cannot be touched and the case will be decided on other available grounds. ○ Laurel v. Garcia and Lalican v. Vergara: the Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record if the case can be disposed of on some other ground: application of a statue or general law. ○ Zandueta v. dela Costa: estoppel- a person cannot question the validity of a law under which he had previously accepted benefits. ○ Gobenciong v. CA: General Rule- the matter of constitutionality shall be considered if it is the lis mota of the case and raised and argued at the earliest opportunity. Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality 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. Partial Unconstitutionality (separability clause) Requisites 1. the legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the rest of the statute is declared illegal; 2. that the valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute. ○ Bar Flunkers Case: the law was sustained in so far as it amended the Rules of Court prospectively but reducing the passing average in the bar exam was declared unconstitutional; Rationale: encroachment upon judicial functions. ○ Macalintal Case: unconstitutional- Congress interfering with COMELEC’s duties. Chapter 4 The Fundamental Powers of the State 3 Powers of the State 1. Police Power- power of the State to regulate liberty and property for the promotion of the general welfare. 2. Power of Eminent Domain- enables the State to forcibly acquire private property, upon payment of just compensation, for some intended public use. 3. Power of Taxation- the State is able to demand from the members of society their proportionate share or contribution in 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 Police Power
Power of Eminent
Power of Taxation
Page |9
Domain 1. regulates both property affect only property of and liberty rights
-same with PED
2. may be exercised only by the government
may be exercised by some private entities
-same with PP
3. the property taken is destroyed; Rationale- it is noxious or intended for a noxious purpose
intended for a public use or purpose and is therefore wholesome
-same with PED
4. compensation: intangible altruistic feeling that he has contributed to the general welfare
a full and fair equivalent of the property expropriated or protection
public improvements for the taxes paid
Limitations- “Constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed. Chapetr 5 The Police Power Definition and Scope Professor Freund: …the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. *more important than eminent domain and taxation 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. Exercise of the Police Power 1. lodged primarily in the national legislature 2. 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 Municipal governments- exercise their power under the general welfare clause. 3. no mandamus is available to coerce the exercise of the police power Remedy to legislative inaction- to resort to the bar of public opinion: a refusal of the electorate to return to the legislature members, who, in their view, have been remiss in the discharge of their duties; political questions Third remedies as regards to prostitution are questions that only the legislature can decide in the exercise of its sound discretion. The courts are powerless to intervene and compel decisive action as regards to cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer. 4. the ascertainment of facts upon which the police power is to be based is a legislative prerogative Debatable questions are for the legislature to decide. The courts DO NOT sit to resolve the matters on conflicting theories. ○ Jacobson v. Massachusetts: a convicted person cannot question the dubious efficacy of a remedy Tests of the Police Power justiciable- the question of the validity of legislative enactments as determined by the criterion of their conformity to the Constitution 1. The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the exercise of the police power (lawful subject); and 2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals (lawful means). 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. Integrity of the Police Power - effective instrument for the furtherance of the public welfare Chapter 6 Eminent Domain Definition and Scope -power of expropriation - the highest and the most exact idea of property remaining in the government that may be acquired from some public purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State. Article III, Sec. 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
P a g e | 12
-should be strictly interpreted against the expropriator and liberally construed in favor of the property owner
Who May Exercise 1. The Congress 2. The President of the Philippines 3. The various local legislative bodies 4. Certain public corporation; eg. Land Authority, National Housing Authority 5. Quasi-public corporations; eg. Philippine National Railways, PLDT Co., Meralco 1. Destruction from Necessity- may be validly undertaken even by private individuals -not allowed in eminent domain -cannot require the conversion of the property taken to public use - no need for payment of just compensation ○
American Print Works v. Lawrence: right of eminent domain- public right, it arises from the laws of society and is vested in the state, or benefit of the state, or those acting under it; right of necessity- under the laws of society or society itself, right of self-defense or self-preservation.
Necessity of Exercise- decided by a delegate only of the national legislature; judiciary- whether the expropriation contemplated by the delegate is necessary or wise ○ RP v. La Orden de PP. Benedictinos de Filipinas: condemnation of property is justified only if it is for the public good and there is genuine necessity therefore of a public character. ○ City of Manila v. Chinese Community: the necessity for conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the legislature. But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority is a question which the courts have the right to inquire into. Private Property- includes real and personal, tangible and intangible properties. eg. franchise, churches and other religious properties, cemeteries Exceptions: money and chose in action- a personal right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a suit at law, a right to receive, demand or recover a debt, demand or damages on a cause of action ex contractu or for a tort or omission of duty; conjectural both as to its validity and value. ○ RP v. PLDT: the State may require a public utility to render services in the general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor. ○ PLDT Co. v. NTC: PLDT is required to interconnect with a private communications company.
P a g e | 13
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 Steps in Ascertaining Just Compensation 1. the court shall determine the actual or basic value of the property; 2. if the entire property is not expropriated, there should be added to the basic value of the owner’s consequential damages after deducting there from the consequential benefits arising from the expropriation. 3. if the consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages, these items should be disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property should be paid in every case/ market value- price that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but not compelled to enter into a contract of sale. Factors to be considered in Ascertaining Fair Market Value 1. cost of acquisition 2. current value of like properties 3. actual or potential uses 4. size, shape or location, tax declarations consequential damages- consist of injuries directly caused on the residue of the private property taken by reason of the expropriation consequential benefits- must be direct and particular and not merely shared with the rest of the properties in the area, as where there is a general appreciation of land values because of the public use to which the condemned properties are devoted. ○ EPZA v. Dulay: the court simply state the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor; courts still have the power and authority to determine just compensation, independent of what is stated by the decree and to this effect, to appoint commissioners for such purpose. ○ CARP Cases: revolutionary expropriation; the contention and the manner of the just compensation provided in Sec. 18 of the CARP Law is not violative of the Constititution; the invalidation of said section will result in the nullification of the entire program.
P a g e | 15
When the property taken should be assessed?- as of the time of taking; When the assessment should be made as the time of the entry?- when entry precedes the filing of the complaint of expropriation. ○ Castellvi Case: just compensation is ascertained at the moment the expropriation proceedings were commenced. ○ Commissioner of Public Highways v. Burgos: the obligation to pay arises from law, independent of contract. Rights and Obligations of the Owner 1. He is entitled to payment of interest from the time of the taking until just compensation is actually paid to him. 2. Interests must be claimed or else it will be deemed waived. 3. Taxes paid by him from the time of the taking until the transfer of title, during which he did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the expropriator. ○ Republic v. Lim: General Rule- non-payment of compensation does not entitle the private landowner to recover possession of the expropriated lots. Exception- when the government failed to pay the compensation within 5 years from the finality of judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owner concerned shall have the right to recover their property. Principle- the government cannot keep the property and dishonor the judgment. ○ Coscolluella v. CA: just compensation is the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the property owner and the payment of the property within a reasonable time. Title to the property shall not be transferred until the actual payment of just compensation is made to the owner. Chapter 7 Taxation 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 -justified under the police power -the amount of fees required is usually limited only to the cost of regulation
Exception: if the business licensed is nonuseful and is sought to be discouraged by
P a g e | 16
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 Due Process and Taxation 1. taxes will not be allowed if they are confiscatory except when they are intended precisely for destruction as an instrument of the police power. 2. due process- where the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation to be given the property. Equal Protection and Taxation uniformity in taxation- means that persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate equality in taxation- means that the tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property Rule- higher taxes a. commercial or industrial lands than on residential lands b. practitioners in urban centers than in rural areas c. luxury items than on prime commodities d. non-useful enterprises than on useful enterprises e. persons with high income than on those with low income equitable taxation- connotes that taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their capacity to pay 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 ○
Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila: if imposed by different jurisdictions such as national government and the other by the city government, there is no double taxation; no violation of the equal protection clause- practitioners in Manila have a more lucrative income
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. Police Power- It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people (now common good). (Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508) It has been described as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested 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. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD, G.R. No.166494, June 29, 2007) Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a careful reading of the questioned Resolution reveals that the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s criminal complaint because respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the State when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question following the declaration thereof as a nuisance per se. in the words of the Ombudsman, “those who participated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire to serve the best interest of the general public; for the good and the highest good. 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. Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate): a. express grant by law b. within territorial limits (for local government units, except when exercised to protect water supply) c. must not be contrary to law For municipal ordinance to be valid: 1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; 2. it must not be unfair or oppressive; 3. it must not be partial or discriminatory; 4. it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade; 5. it must not be unreasonable; and 6. it must be general in application and consistent with public policy. 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 Centeno vs. Villalon-Pornillos, 236 SCRA 197 (1994), solicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of police power. 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. The implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) is an exercise of police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of rights provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.” The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)]
P a g e | 20
Republic vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314, November 15,2002, the regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police power of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulations of public utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When a private property is used for a public purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. Submission to regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as the use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public regulation. In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public against arbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right to prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on investment. 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. Power of Eminent Domain- It is government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State, private property for public use or purpose. (Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 586) 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. JIL School Foundation vs. Municipality of Pasig, G. R. No. 152230, August 9, 2005—Sec. 19, of the LGC requires the LGU to tender a prior written definite and valid offer to acquire the property before the filing of the complaint for eminent domain. 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. RP vs. PLDT, 26 SCRA 620—services were considered embraced in the concept of property subject to taking under the power of eminent domain. Republic, in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, may require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of government service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined by the court.
P a g e | 21
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. The establishment of an easement is a form of compensable taking. In NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 60077, January 18, 1991, the owner of the land was awarded full compensation against the NAPOCOR’s argument that the owners were not totally deprived of the use of the land and could still plant the same crops as long as they did not come into contact with the wires. The Court said: “the right of way easement perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no plant higher than 3 meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current conveyed through the transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays the fee to defendant once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said affected portion of their property. In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway was considered taking. The property owner was held to be entitled to 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. PPI vs. COMELEC
TELEBAP vs. COMELEC
a. there was taking of property
there was no taking of private property
b. newspaper space is the private property of the newspaper owners
airwaves are scarce resources, the use is
c. print media do not enjoy privilege
franchise (privilege) is issued by the State
regulated by the State
(Art. XII, Sec. 11)
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. May eminent domain be barred by “res judicata” or “law of the case”?- NO!
P a g e | 22
TAX 1. basis- to raise revenue 2. limitation- Rate or amount to be collected is unlimited provided it is not confiscatory 3. object- Imposed on persons or property 4. effect of non-payment- Business or activity does not become illegal
TAX -due to the government in its sovereign capacity
LICENSE - to regulate - Amount is limited to cost of: a)issuing the license; and b)necessary inspection of police surveillance - Paid for privilege of doing something but privilege is revocable Business becomes illegal
DEBT - due to the government in its corporate 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)
