Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
I. CONSTITUTION
Definition
A body of rules and maxims in accordance with which
the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised
-Thomas M. Cooley
The written instrument enacted by the direct action of
the people by which:
a. the fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined, and by which
b. these powers are distributed among the several
departments (legislative, executive, judicial) for
their safe keeping and useful exercise to the
benefit of the body politic.
-Justice Malcolm
Purposes
a. To prescribe a permanent framework of
a system of a government
b. To assign or allocate to the several
departments their respective powers and duties
c. To establish certain principles on which the
government is founded
Types
a. According to Form
Written
One whose precepts are embodied in one
document or set of documents
Unwritten
Consists of rules which have not been
integrated into a single and concrete
instrument but are rather scattered in
various sources including statutes, judicial
decisions, publicists commentaries,
customs and traditions and certain common
law principles
b. According to Origin
Enacted (Conventional)
Formally struck off at a definite time and
place following a conscious or deliberate
effort taken by a constituent body or ruler
Evolved (Cumulative)
A product of time and is the result of
political evolution
not inaugurated at any specific time but
changing by accretion rather than by any
systematic method
Usually an unwritten constitution is an
evolved constitution
c. According to Procedure
Amendment
Rigid
One that can be amended only by a formal
and usually difficult process
Advantage: Capacity to withstand
capricious changes
Disadvantage: When there is a need to
amend some provisions therein, the
Constitution would rather impede progress
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
Flexible
One that can be changed by ordinary
legislation enacted by Congress
1987 Philippine Constitution is a Written,
Enacted and Rigid Constitution
Qualities of a Good Written Constitution
a. Broad
Covers not only the basics (organization of
the government, all persons & things inside
the territory of the State) but also provides
and anticipates for any contingencies
It must not only embody the past but must
also be able to anticipate the future
b. Brief
Confines itself to the basic principles or
polices for the governance of the State
leaving the details to be supplanted by laws to
be enacted by Congress
c. Definite
The provisions thereof must be clear to avoid
ambiguity so that they can easily be
understood by common people and to prevent
confusion and division
Essential Parts of a Good Written Constitution
a. Constitution of Liberty
That part that sets forth the fundamental civil
and political rights of the people and the
constitutional limitations on the exercise of
governmental powers as a mean to secure
those rights
Bill of Rights
b. Constitution of Government
Organization, powers, duties and functions,
limitation on powers, qualifications
c. Constitution of Sovereignty
Methods or procedures in amending or
revising the Constitution
Constitutional Construction
a. Verba Legis
Words used in the Constitution must be given
their ordinary meaning except where technical
terms are employed
b. Ratio Legis Est Anima
In case of ambiguity, words of the Constitution
should be interpreted in accordance with the
intent of the framers
c. Ut Magis Valeat Quam Pereat
of
In case of conflicting provisions, the
Constitution must be interpreted as a whole
In case of doubt, provisions are held to be:
self-executing except when the contrary
appears in the context of the provision
mandatory rather than directory
prospective rather than retroactive
1
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY Without Eminent Domain, the State cannot
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land
All laws enacted by Congress must conform to it
All acts, including that of the highest officers of the
land, must conform to its mandates
However, there are powers that the State may
exercise independently of the Constitution
(powers that are not expressly granted by the
Constitution)
II. Powers of the State
Three Inherent Powers (PET)
a. Police Power
power of the State to regulate liberty and property
rights of citizens for the promotion of the general
welfare
b. Power of Eminent Domain
power of the State to take away private properties
for public purpose upon payment of just
compensation
c. Power of Taxation
power of the State to demand from the members
of the society their proportionate contribution in the
maintenance and operation of the State
Tax is the lifeblood of the government
These powers although different from each other, have
common characteristics
Common Characteristics of the 3 inherent powers
a. These powers are inherent in the State
They can be exercised by the State without them
having been expressly conferred by the
Constitution
The moment that a State exists, it is already
vested with these powers
In fact, the provisions which may have reference
to any of the powers are far from conferring
authority to the State, but rather those provisions
impose limitations in the exercise of governmental
authority
Examples:
Sec 1 of Art 3: No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty and property without due process of law
which limits the Police Power of the State
Sec 9 of Art 3: Private property shall not be taken
for public purpose without payment of just
compensation which does not confer the power of
eminent domain but rather imposes limitation
Sec 28, par. 3 of Art 6: Charitable institutions,
churches and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit
cemeteries and all lands, buildings, and
improvements actually, directly, and exclusively
used for religious, charitable, or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation which
limits the power of taxation
b. These powers are not only necessary but are
indispensable to the State
Without these powers, the State may not be able
to function effectively
Without Police Power, the State cannot enact
Criminal Laws (Revised Penal Code)
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
construct roads
Without Taxation, the State cannot provide
basic services (free education in public
schools, PhilHealth)
c. These powers are the means or methods by which
the State can effectively interfere with private rights
Police Power regulates not only property rights but
also liberty of individuals
Eminent Domain involves property rights- taking of
private properties
Taxation imposes a mandatory payment in favor of
the State which also involves taking of private
properties
d. These powers are primarily lodged or vested in the
Congress. But by express delegation or authority,
the same can be exercised by other entities or
bodies
MMDA v. Garin: What was at issue therein was
whether or not MMDA could issue or promulgate
regulations authorizing the enforcers thereof to
confiscate drivers licenses. In that case, the SC
ruled that MMDA, being a government agency,
has no inherent police power because this power
is primarily lodged in the Congress.
e. The exercise of these powers presupposes payment
of just compensation
Differences of the 3 inherent powers
a. Police Power involves not only property rights
but also liberty of individuals; whereas the two other
powers only affect property rights of persons
b. Police Power and Power of Taxation may only
be exercised by the government; whereas the Power
of Eminent Domain can also be exercised by private
entities upon delegation of this authority (Eg. National
Power Corporation)
c. The property taken in the exercise of Police
Power has to be destroyed because generally, it is
regarded as a noxious or a hazardous property;
whereas the properties taken under the power of
Eminent Domain or power of Taxation are beneficial
properties hence, the same should be converted for a
public purpose/s
Whether or not beneficial property could be taken
under police power?
YES. Generally, property under Police Power is a
hazardous property hence, it is to be destroyed.
But where Police Power utilizes the other powers
(Eminent Domain or Taxation) as a tool in the
exercise thereof, then in those instances,
beneficial properties could be taken by the State
in the concept of Police Power
Carlos Superdrug v. DOJ: There was a law
granting 20% discounts to senior citizens. Then it
was argued that the law was confiscatory because
it would appear that establishments will be made
to subsidize more or less 68% of the 20%
discounts given to senior citizens. In that case, the
SC justified the validity of that law under Police
Power although it involves taking of a beneficial
property (profit, money) because that law was a
valid exercise of Police Power using as an
implement thereof the power of Taxation.
d. The exercise of Power of Taxation and Power of
Eminent Domain presupposes payment of just
2
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
compensation in the form of tangible property; whereas
for Police Power, just compensation would be
intangible
Powers Payment of Just
Compensation
Eminent Domain payment of sum money
Taxation delivery of services (free
education, health services)
Police Power altruistic feeling that
somehow, an individual
contributed to the
promotion of public welfare
III. Police Power
Definition
a. Police Power regulates not only property rights but also
liberty of individuals for the promotion of the public
welfare or the public good
Characteristics:
a. The most pervasive, least limitable, and most
demanding among all the inherent powers of the
State
While the 2 other powers involve only property rights,
the exercise of police power involves not just property
rights but also involves liberty if individuals
It is pervasive in the sense that practically the exercise
of police power covers and regulates almost any or
every human activity. It covers the activities of man
from womb to tomb (we have laws dealing with
abortion that even before a child is born, it is already
protected by the State; even after death, we have laws
pertaining to the disposition of ones remains and
succession rights)
Police Power, therefore, is wider in scope than the
other powers
b. Inherent, such that this power can be exercised by
the State independently of any Constitutional grant
Since this is not granted by the Constitution, the basis
for the power is rooted on the Latin maxims:
salus populi suprema lex: The welfare of the
people is the supreme law of the Land
sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas: One cannot
exercise his/her rights to the detriment or prejudice
to the rights of another
c. This power cannot be bargained away with through a
medium of a treaty or a contract
Treaty
Ichong v. Hernandez: A law was enacted prohibiting
aliens from engaging in a retail trade business. This
law is known as the Retail Trade Nationalization Law.
Ichong, a Chinese, was convicted for violating the law.
He filed a case in the SC with a contention that the
said law was in violation with the Treaty of Amity
entered into by the Philippines and China. The SC said
that the said law was not in conflict with the Treaty of
Amity between Philippines and China; but if at all, such
was in conflict with that treaty, then our law should
prevail because that was enacted pursuant to the
exercise of Police Power. The SC decreed in no
uncertain terms that Police Power could not be
bargained away with by a medium of treaty
However, the SC has now shifted in that it ruled that
the Philippines must comply with its treaty obligations.
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue: enjoining
the State to strictly comply with its treaty
obligations. The SC even enjoined the
government to make changes in our laws so as to
ensure that we will comply with our contractual
obligations.
But the fact remains that when there is a
conflict between a treaty and our local laws, our
local laws should prevail in the exercise of Police
Power
Contract
Ortigas and Co., Ltd. v. CA: Hermoso bought a
parcel of land from Ortigas and in the Contract of Sale,
there was an express stipulation that the subject
matter of that sale should only be used for residential
purposes. But Mathay, who leased the lot from
Hermoso, constructed instead a commercial building
thereon. He defended its action in accordance to
Resolution No. 81-01, a zoning ordinance reclassifying
the land from residential to commercial. Ortigas, on the
other hand, argued that the resolution cannot be given
a retroactive effect so as to impair obligations of a
contract created prior to the enactment of the
resolution. The SC, in this case, said that Police
Power, in the form of such an ordinance, is superior
compared to the contract entered into years before its
enactment. This is because Police Power cannot be
bargained away by a medium of a contract.
MMDA v. Garin: Confiscation of drivers license.
Garins argument was that he had property rights over
his drivers license because it was granted to him by
the State. Such franchise took the nature of contract.
The SC, however, held that a drivers license is
nothing but a privilege. As such, it can be revoked and
suspended by the State all in the name of Police
Power.
Chavez v. Romulo: A regulation was enacted by the
State cancelling the privileges of persons to carry
firearms outside their residences. Chavez questioned
the validity of the law contending that he already had
vested rights to carry his firearms outside his
residence. The SC, however, sustained the revocation
of the permit to carry a licensed firearm outside of the
residence. It is a privilege and it can be revoked and
suspended by the State pursuant to the Police Power
Stone v. Mississippi: There was a grant a franchise in
favor of few persons for them to operate lottery for a
period of 25 long years. But after 3 years, that was
cancelled by the State. Such cancellation was
questioned but the US SC decreed that such franchise
could be cancelled all in the name of Police Power
Oposa v. Factoran: The SC revoked the grant of
concessions or timber licenses, which were argued to
be property rights, in the name of Police Power
Police Power can, therefore, impair
obligations of contracts notwithstanding the
provisions of Art. 10, Sec. 3 of the Consti. stating
that, No law shall be passed impairing the
obligations of contracts.
d. The power is dynamic
It changes with time and with society.
In the past, operation of vital utilities is performed by
the State. But at present, there is now a move to
privatize the operation of public utilities. That is why,
now, NPC and PNB are now privatized.
In the past, there is no such thing as cybercrime law.
But today, there is already a cybercrime law.
e. In the exercise thereof, it may utilize as its tool the
other powers
3
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
The power of Taxation or Eminent Domain may be
used as an implement of Police Power for the
attainment of a legitimate police objective. This is the
only instance when Police Power may take a property
which is not noxious and is not destroyed
Police Power using Taxation
The Sin Tax Law is enacted pursuant to the Police
Power but using the Power of Taxation as its
implement thereof. This involves imposing higher tax in
the hope of dissuading people from smoking / drinking.
Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. CA: the SC justified such
imposition under police power using power of taxation
as a tool in the exercise thereof.
Luz v. Araneta: A law was enacted imposing special
tax on sugar. The validity of the law was assailed of
but the SC held that the said special law imposing
taxes on sugar companies was enacted pursuant to
the Police Power using the Power of Taxation as its
implement thereof. The purpose of which is to
rehabilitate the ailing sugar industry.
Police Power using Eminent Domain
Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. CA: The SC justified the
taking of a beneficial property (profits) all in the name
of Police Power using Eminent Domain
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP): where the State takes away private properties
such as lands to be distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
The act of taking a property is under Eminent Domain;
but to the extent that the CARP would prescribe certain
limitations or retention of ownership, then there is
regulation of property and liberty under Police Power.
Therefore, this law is enacted pursuant to the Police
Power using the Power of Eminent Domain as a tool
thereof
This explains why Police Power is the most
pervasive power of the State because it may other
powers in the course of its implementation
Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC: there was
an attempt on the part of the State, through the Sol.
Gen., to justify COMELECs resolution requiring
newspapers to give free print spaces to COMELEC by
invoking the Police Power of the State. However, such
invocation was not further elaborated by the Sol. Gen.
The SC, however, in this case, said that the
COMELECs resolution was invalid because it would
tantamount to taking of private property without just
compensation.
Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of
the Philippines v. COMELEC: what was at issue is
the validity of a law, Sec. 22 of the Omnibus Election
Code, mandating radio stations and TV networks to
provide free airtime to the COMELEC. It was assailed
as invalid as this would amount to taking of private
property without just compensation. But in this case,
the SC sustained the validity of the law as a valid
exercise of Police Power. The SC upheld the validity of
a COMELEC resolution requiring radio stations to give
free air time to COMELEC
Whats the difference between the two cases
mentioned above when the free space was declared
invalid while in the case of Telecommunications, the
giving of free airtime was valid?
The difference is that in the Telecommunications,
what was involved therein is a franchise- a franchise
to operate the telecommunications business. Under
Sec. 11, Art. 12 of the Constitution: the grant of any
such franchise is subject to the condition that it can
be modified, altered, repealed or suspended by the
State. But one does not need such legislative
franchise to be engaged in publishing business.
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
Radio broadcast, which is a franchise or a privilege,
can be regulated by the State under the Police
Power while the latter is not.
Small Landowners v. Executive of Agriculture: In
the exercise of the Power of the State to distribute
lands to the landless under the CARP, it is justified
under Police Power using as implement thereof the
power of Eminent Domain
Ortigas and Co., Ltd. v. CA: the SC said that the
enactment of the zoning ordinance is done not
pursuant to power of eminent domain but pursuant to
police power. Because zoning ordinance will not
invoke taking of private property. It only invokes
reclassification of the utilization of property from
residential to commercial.
Who can Exercise Police Power?
Police Power is primarily lodged in the Congress.
However, it may be delegated to other government
bodies. There has to be delegation of power by
Congress in favor such body because without which,
then such body cannot exercise Police Power. (eg.
Local Government Units through the Local
Government Code)
If there is a situation calling for the exercise of Police
Power, Congress has the full discretion whether to act
on it or not. If the Congress does not act on it, it cannot
be compelled by mandamus to act on that problem. If,
on the other hand, it decided to act on it, the remedies
to be pursued are also left to the sound discretion of
the Congress (eg. If the State decided to totally ban
the use of cigarettes on the ground that it could lead to
lung cancer, such prohibition cannot be questioned)
Jacobson v. Massachusetts: Jacobson was
convicted for refusing to be vaccinated for small pox.
As to him, small pox vaccination is not that effective
and could only cause health complications. But the US
SC said that the ascertainment of facts attendant to
the exercise of Police Power is generally left to the
sound discretion of Congress. Such that if such action
or decision by Congress is supported by a semblance
of proof, then that can be justified.
But if the actions or remedies of the Congress have no
basis at all, then they can be declared invalid
While Police Power is primarily vested in the Congress,
but due to the expanded concept of judicial review,
there is a chance that the action of congress for the
exercise by the state of police power may be reviewed
by the SC to determine whether or not there has been
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
Requisites for a Valid Exercise of Police Power
The exercise of Police Power necessitates that
there should be the existence of:
a. Lawful Subject
An activity/thing that is imbued with public
interest; otherwise, such cannot be regulated
by the State even in the name of Police Power
Cannot be a lawful subject: regulations affecting
the privacy rights of an individual, freedom of
religion, freedom to think
The right to pursue a profession can be
regulated by the State.
o PRC v. De Guzman: The passers from
Fatima College were not allowed to take their
oath. The SC sustained the action of PRC
because the practice of medical profession
can be regulated by the State. The health of
4
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
the citizens should not be entrusted to
incompetent physicians.
Employment can also be regulated by the State
o JMM Promotions v. CA: There is a law
requiring an artist record book before one can
be deployed as entertainers in Japan. This
was question by JMM but the law was
however sustained by the SC stating that it
was geared to protecting the plight of the
performers abroad.
b.Employment of Reasonable/Lawful Means
The means employed must be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon
individuals
Ynot v. IAC: This case involves a law
authorizing the outright confiscation of carabaos
transported from one province to another which
was questioned by Ynot. His contention was
that the means employed were not valid
because the law authorizes confiscation without
trial. The SC then ruled in favor of Ynot
nullifying such a law stating that indeed the law
imposes punishment without the benefit of a
hearing. Such law, thus, amounts to a bill of
attainder. The Court, moreover, held that while
the law has a lawful subject (the regulation of
the slaughter of carabaos), such does not have
lawful means. The means employed which is
the prohibition of transfer of carabaos from one
province to another is not reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose because
carabaos may still be slaughtered even if they
are not transferred from one province to
another.
City of Manila v. Laguio: An
ordinance was enacted prohibiting the
operations and establishments of motels in
Malate area. The purpose therefore was to get
rid of prostitution. But nonetheless, it was
decreed as invalid by the SC because the
means employed thereby were confiscatory.
The options given to the establishment were
winding up of operation, transferring to another
place or converting their business to allowable
business. All these things tantamount to taking
of private property without just compensation.
Villacienco v. Lukban: the mayor
rounded up 170 prostituted women and shipped
them out from Manila to Davao. The purpose
was to solve the problem on prostitution. The
SC held that there is no doubt that the purpose
was noble. There was in that situation the
existence of a lawful subject (problem on
prostitution) yet the method employed thereby
was unjust. According to the SC, prostituted
women also have rights like us such that they
cannot be shipped from one place to another.
Social Justice Society v. DSWD:
What was at issue is the validity of Sec. 36 of
RA 9165 requiring that before a person could
run for a public office especially for Congress,
one has to undergo the Mandatory Drug Test.
The purpose of the law was no doubt valid. But
according to the SC, the method employed
thereby was unlawful because the qualifications
for one aspiring for Congress were already set
forth in Article 6 and such qualifications cannot
be further amended by simple legislation.
Office of the Sol. Gen. v. Ayala Land
Inc: Sol. Gen. filed a petition to restrain owners
of the Ayala malls from collecting parking fees
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
from its customers. The Sol. Gen. anchored his
argument on the provisions of the Natl Bldg
Code requiring owners to allocate more space
as a parking area. The Sol. Gen. argued that
inasmuch as that was a requirement under the
Natl Bldg Code, then the use thereof by the
costumers must be provided for free. But the SC
held that such would be unjust and confiscatory.
It was already unfair on the part of the mall
owners requiring them to allocate a space for
parking area and restricting them to utilize them
fully to their benefit; such that providing the said
area for free will so to speak result to double
whammy.
City Govt. of Quezon v. Ericta: There
was an ordinance enacted by the City Council
of Quezon to the end that private owners of
cemetery should allocate space as burial sites
for paupers. No doubt that the purpose of the
law is noble but the SC said that such ordinance
would only be confiscatory. This would amount
to taking of property without payment of just
compensation.
Police Power must conform to Due Process and
Equal Protection
There has to be prior hearing
Exceptions:
o Cabrera v. Lapid: Demolition of the fishpond of
Cabrera without a court order. It was argued
that it was violative of Due Process but the SC
disagreed noting that such property is a
nuisance per se. Hence it can be abated all in
the name of Police Power.
o Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA: a cease
and desist order was issued by PAB even
without prior notice or hearing which prohibits
Solar Textile from using its defective water
treatment facilities as it already discharged
untreated waters to the nearby river. But it was
sustained as valid because after all it was by
way of exception as provided in Sec 7 of PD
984 allowing PAB to issue ex parte a temporary
restraining order (TRO) even the matter could
be heard or given notice. What is important is
the hearing after the issuance of the TRO.
If the Police Power is to be exercise by LGUs, such
exercise must be authorized by Law
There should be proper delegation of authority by
Congress because after all this power is primarily
lodged in Congress
At present, there is already the Local Government
Code delegating Police Power to the LGUs
The exercise thereof must be applied only within the
territorial jurisdiction of the LGU concerned
The ordinances must conform to the constitution and
other laws.
o City of Manila v. Laguio:
The requisites of a valid ordinance:
(1) must not contravene the Consti. or any statute
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade
(5) must be general & consistent w/ public policy
(6) must not be unreasonable
If police power is to be exercised by
Congress, they only have to check the
validity thereof by determining the existence
of a lawful subject and lawful means. But if
5
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
police power is to be exercised by LGUs, in
addition to that, they also have to check the
validity of the ordinance as set forth in the
case of City of Manila
IV. Eminent Domain
Definition
the state will take away private property for a public
purpose but with the payment for just compensation
this power is inherent in the state: it may be exercised
by the state independently of any constitutional
provision
Sec. 9, Art, 3: private property cannot be taken for
public use without payment of just compensation
this provides a limitation to the exercise of police
power
the power of eminent of domain is coercive in the
sense even if the property owner is not willing to part
with his property, it can be taken from him but there
has to be just compensation
but just because the state has this power does not
mean that when every state needs a private property
for a public purpose, the state will at once get the
property
Methods
in PH jurisdiction, the state must:
1) negotiate with the property owner
2) when the property owner refuses to sell, the state
may exercise its power of eminent domain
case: if the acquisition of the private property is for
resettlement purposes, there is a need to comply with the
provisions of Section 9 and 10 of RA 7279 there is a
hierarchy in the acquisition of lands.
*There must first be an attempt to acquire government lands,
alienable lands of public domain, unregistered land, and
lastly, private lands.
Rule 1: the acquisition of private lands must be the last
priority
Rule 2: resort to eminent domain must be the last recourse
iii.
iv.
Eminent domain Destruction of private
property due to necessity
Involves the taking of private There can be a taking if it was
property for a public purpose not done pursuant to the power
of eminent domain.
The Civil Code dictates that the
owner of the property may
demand indemnification from
those who were benefitted.
Who can exercise
Primarily lodged in Congress
Office of the President, LGUs, public corporations,
quasi public corporations only if there is a valid
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
delegation of authority coming from Congress. There
must be a law empowering them to do the same.
Moday v. CA, the SC held that municipalities can
validly exercise the delegated Power of Eminent
Domain in line with the provisions of the Local
Government Code
In order for there to be a valid delegation, such
exercise must adhere to the ff. requirements:
1. There has to be necessity of taking
a. if congress is the one directly exercising
this power, the necessity of the taking is
not open to judicial scrutiny unless if
there is abuse of discretion
b. if it is exercised by a mere
delegate, any issue regarding to the
necessity may be under judicial scrutiny
c. Chinese Community v. City of Manila:
the SC nullify an ordinance of the City of
Manila to expropriate a cemetery owned
by the Chinese Community on the
ground that there was no necessity of
the taking of such property
2. What should be taken is a private property
a. property is anything that is contracted
within the commerce of man both
real and personal property
b. service can be under the contemplation
of eminent domain
c. charitable institutions, church buildings,
cemeteries, etc are not exempt from
being expropriated
d. properties already devoted for public
use can still be expropriated if done by
Congress; if expropriation is done by a
delegate of Congress, it can still be
expropriated but there must be a special
delegation of authority meaning a
general law will not suffice
e. money and promissory notes cannot be
expropriated
3. Taking should be of strict constitutional
sense
a. taking, to be valid, should comply with
the requirements set forth in
Republic v. Castellvi:
i. that the expropriator must enter the property
ii. the entrance must be for more than a momentary period
the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
the property must be for a public purpose or otherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously affected
v. the entry must be of such manner as to oust the owner
therefrom or to deprive him of the use of his property
b. General Rule: taking, in eminent
domain, entails actual dispossession of
property
Exception: there can still be taking if
there is a material impairment of the
value of the property or deprivation of
the ordinary use of which the property
was intended
US v. Cosby: the US SC held that there
was taking of the property of Cosby,
which is near an airport, because he
cannot construct a high rise building on
such property due to the danger of
6
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
flying and landing airplanes. Cosby was
allowed to recover just compensation
Pp. v. Fajardo: the SC held that there
was taking of the property of Fajardo,
which was near the national highway,
because the municipality prohibited him
through an ordinance from constructing
any building that obstructs the view of
the public plaza from the national
highway. Fajardo was allowed to
recover just compensation
4. Payment of just compensation
a. Taking that is not compensable
(Damnum Absque Injuria)
Taking under police power and not pursuant to eminent
domain
Destruction by necessity under Art.
432 of the Civil Code. The aggrieved
property owner can demand
payment from those who benefited
and not from the State
If the burden is shared equally by the
members of the community, it is
not considered taking under
Eminent Domain
However, if there is one person who
suffered more, it is otherwise
(therefore, pay just compensation)
Richards v. Washington Tunnel:
the US SC held the there was taking
on the house of Richards, which was
near a government tunnel, because
of the smoke from the tunnel that
goes into Richards house as a result
of an exhaust fan which was
installed in the tunnel. Although
other members of the community are
also burdened by the smoke, it was
Richards who suffered the most.
Richards was allowed to recover just
compensation
Taking under sec. 17, Art 12 of the Constitution which
provides that in times of national emergency, the State
may temporarily take over privately owned public utilities
or business affected with public interest
But in section 18, Art 12, there can
be compensation which states that,
The State may, in the interest of
national welfare or defense,
establish and operate vital industries
and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public
ownership utilities and other private
enterprises to be operated by the
Government
5. Public purpose
a. the converted property is directly
available to the general public as a
matter of right or redounds to their
indirect advantage or benefit
b. Still public use even if it is not
for free and even if not everyone can
avail or make use of the property
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
b.i. NHA v. Reyes: the SC held that
the taking of the private property
for low-cost housing is for public
use even if not all have the
financial capacity to avail of such
c. Abandonment by the State of the public
use of the property entitles the property
owner to file a case for recovery of the
expropriated property but should
return the just compensation received
with legal interest from his default. If the
State uses such property for another
public purpose, the property owner can
file an injunction against State and
recover such expropriated property. The
State may then later institute another
expropriation case for such same
property for the new public use.
6. Observance of due process
Just Compensation
Stages in Expropriation Cases
STAGE 1: Determination of the necessity of the taking
STAGE 2: Payment of the Just Compensation
If the government takes away your property
without filing the necessary expropriation case,
can you file a case against the government in spite
the states immunity from suits?
Emiliano v. IAC, the state maybe sued without
its consent. Immunity from suit cannot be
invoked to trample upon the rights of private
citizens. Direct recourse is allowed before the
courts of law.
If the State takes private property without an
expropriation proceeding and without payment
of just compensation, the remedy of the property
owner is to file for collection of just
compensation and not recovery of the property
Such action will not prescribe
Spouses Campos V. NPC, the claim for JC will
not prescribe. Spouses filed a case for JC after
26 years and the SC ruled that it was valid
notwithstanding the provision that claims
against NPC shall be filed within 5 years from
the time of taking. The 5-year period provision
only governed actions for damages.
Form of Just Compensation
General Rule: Just compensation is taken in the form
of money: cash or check
Exception: Agrarian cases. In the implementation of
Agrarian Reform Law, payment of just compensation
may take in the form of Land Bank of the Philippines
Bonds
Who is entitled to receive the payment of just
compensation?
Property owner
What if the state expropriates a parcel of land but
there is an improvement thereon and that
7
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
improvement is owned by another person (land
lessee)?
The land owner (land lessor) will receive the payment
for the land. In our jurisdiction, owner may include the
lessee. In LBP v. AMS as cited in the book, lessee of
an agricultural land is not entitled for the payment of
JC. (but the way it is cited is misleading)
LBP v. AMS
Facts:
- Parcels of land in Davao owned by NAFCO and
APECO and eventually owned by TOTCO
- Leased by AMS was renewed with TOTCO and
was annotated at the back of certificates of title
covering the property
- The term is 5years
What is Just Compensation (JC)?
- Renewed by TOTCO and AMS, but unlike in the
past, the renewed contract of lease was no
longer annotated at the back of the certificate
- The parcels of land were eventually taken in the
concept of Agrarian Reform
- LBP paid for the value of the land and the crops
to the land owner (TOTCO)
- AMS demanded for payment for the value of the
crops
Issue:
- WON AMS is entitled for JC for the value of the
crops
Decision:
- SC said LBP could not be faulted for paying the
JC including that of the crops to TOTCO
because in the first place the contract of lease
was not annotated at the back of the
certificates. LBP had no knowledge of the lease
agreement. More than that, there is nothing in
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
provides that the state also pays to the
agricultural lessee. CARL provides that the JC
should be given to the owner. SC emphasized
that if at all AMS is entitled for the JC for the
value of the crops, then the right of action of
AMS should not be as against LBP but as
against TOTCO. SC did not actually say that
AMS is not entitled payment for the crops. SC
said that the claims for JC should be filed by
AMS against the owner and such claims shall
be decided on the basis of the civil code
provisions of lease.
Heirs of Banaag v. AMS
SC faulted the adjudicator of the Agrarian Reform for
resolving the issue of ownership. SC said that the
adjudicator had no authority to resolve any such
dispute because such issue would call upon the
application of the civil code provisions of which the
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
adjudicator had no confidential authority to rule
upon. Again, SC did not actually say that AMS is not
entitled payment for the crops. And such issue of
ownership should be resolved by regular courts. SC
said that the claims for JC should be filed by AMS
against the owner and such claims shall be decided
on the basis of the civil code provisions of lease.
Summary for the two cases:
Lessee is entitled but claims for the value of
improvement should be against the land owner.
Dont be fooled by the citations in the book.
Can the owner change his mind after agreeing for
the taking of the property?
In GR 162474, while the owner agreed for the taking of
his property, the owner is not permitted to change his
mind and his only remedy is to demand for the JC. The
owner is estopped.
NPC v. Henson: It is a sum of money which a
person desirous but not compelled to sell and
another person willing but not compelled to buy a
property would agree on as a price for that particular
property. Primordial consideration should be given
on the nature and the character of the property at
the time of the taking.
Rep v. Vicente Lim: JC necessitates not only the
payment of the correct amount but also the
timeliness of the payment of such.
Base price is the fair market value of the property.
In determining the Fair Market Value, the following
are considered:
a. acquisition cost if acquired onerously
b. actual value of similar properties
c. potential use thereof
d. actual use of the property
e. shape, location and size
f. valuation as appearing in the tax declaration
How to compute JC if what is taken is NOT THE
ENTIRE property?
If the Consequential Loss is greater than the
Consequential Benefits
Just Compensation= Fair Market Value +
(Consequential Loss Consequential Benefits)
If the Consequential Loss is less than the
Consequential Benefits
Just compensation = Fair Market Value
Situation 1:
8
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
FMV of the portion taken 100, 000 Exceptions:
1. When there is no question as regards to the
Due to the taking, the lot became triangular in shape valuation of the property
and owner suffered damages because of the decrease 2. Agrarian cases, the constitution of BOC is left to
of the selling price of the property 10, 000 the parties and when the parties agreed not to
form BOC
JC = 110, 000
Amount to be Deposited
Situation 2: Rule 67 of the Revised Rules of Court: Upon filing
of the expropriation case, the expropriator is required
FMV of the portion taken 100, 000 to deposit an amount which is equivalent to the full
Due to the taking, the lot became triangular in shape assessed value of the property as appearing in the
and owner suffered damages because of the decrease tax declaration in order for the court to issue a writ of
of the selling price of the property 10, 000 possession allowing the expropriator to take actual
possession of the property during the pendency of
Benefits due to the increase of the selling price of the the case
other part of the property 5, 000

JC = 105, 000 If the expropriator is an LGU, amount to be

deposited is only 15% of the assessed value of the
Situation 3: property

FMV of the portion taken 100, 000 In RA 8974, if the purpose of the expropriation is to
implement national government infrastructure
Due to the taking, the lot became triangular in shape
project, what needs to be done is not a deposit but
and owner suffered damages because of the decrease
payment of BIR Zonal valuation of the property. This
of the selling price of the property 10, 000
amount deposited or paid is NOT the just
compensation
Benefits due to the increase of the selling price of the
other part of the property 25, 000 NPC v. Pobre, the expropriator is not allowed to
unilaterally withdraw because damages may have
JC = 100, 000
already been caused to the property
Owner should not be made to suffer more than what he When is JC computed?
already suffered Rep. v. Castelvi, Rep. wanted that the valuation in
1947 but the court said it should be computed in
Who should determine JC? 1959, the year the complaint was filed.
Eslaban v. de Onorio, SC said JC is computed at
EPZA v. Dulay: JC should be determined by the the time of taking.
courts of law.
General Rule
Brgy San Roque Talisay v. Heirs of Francisco Rule 67 section 4: JC is computed at the time of taking of the
Pastor: expropriation cases will always be filed in property or at the time the complaint is filed, whichever comes
first
the RTC regardless of the assessed value of the
property Heirs of Sancay v. NPC: NPC constructed a tunnel without the
knowledge of the owners and eventually the heirs filed a case for
the payment of JC. It is termed as Reversed Condemnation
A Board of Commissioners of 3 members will also Proceeding (Normally, it should be the State to file the
be constituted to determine the just compensation expropriation complaint but in this case it was the owners who
for recommendation to the court. This consists of: filed the case for payment of JC). In this case, JC is computed at
the time of the filing of the complaint even if the taking is earlier
a. Representative of the court than the filing of such complaint. This is so because the taking
done by NPC is surreptitious and without the knowledge of the
b. Person to be designated by the owners.SC ruled that the taking referred to under Rule 67 is that
expropriator taking which complies with the requirements in Rep. v. Castelvi
c. Person designated by the property owner The rule that the valuation of the property shall
The Board is mandated to conduct a hearing where the parties are be computed at the time of taking or filing of the
heard and allowed to submit their respective manifestations complaint presupposes of course that the taking
regarding the valuation of the property should comply with the requirements in Rep. v.
Castelvi.
NPC v. Dela Cruz: the purpose of BOC is to aid
the court in fixing the JC. There should be a Exceptions
hearing to be conducted where the parties City of Cebu v. Dedamo: the filing of
present their evidence. the complaint preceded the taking of the
The court is not duty-bound to accept the property but SC said that the valuation should
valuation of the property as fixed by the Board be computed at the time of taking not
especially if the valuation of the Board is illegal, necessarily at the time of the filing of complaint
grossly excessive, ridiculous, or very low which was done earlier the reason for that is
NPC v. Dela Cruz: 1. BOC applies illegal there is a provision under section 19 of RA 7160
principles 2. BOC disregarded the rules of LGC which provides in essence that the
preponderance of evidence 3. The amount in valuation taken by the local government unit
the report is excessively high or excessively low should be reckoned as of the date of actual
possession.
General Rule: The constitution of the Board of
Commissioners is mandatory Should the court award interest? If yes, how much?
9
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
 Constitutional Law II | Pre-Midterm
Attorney Renato Galeon
NHA v. Reyes: the SC assessed 12% interest by a
way of penalty. SC said what should be awarded
normally is 6% interest because payment of JC is
not forbearance of money
GR 164185 and in LBP v. Rivera, SC said it is 6%
per annum. Pursuant Central Bank circular 799
series of 2013.
May the court award actual damages?
Yes, See Eusebio v. Luis
How about attorneys fees?
Yes
When shall the title be transferred to the
expropriator?
General Rule
Ownership over the property would only transfer if
there is the full payment of JC as adjudged by the
court.
If there is no full payment yet, the owner can still
mortgage or even dispose his property by sale
because the ownership is not yet transferred.
Exception
Agrarian reform cases
What if the expropriator failed to pay the JC even the
expropriation case is already decided? Can the owner
recover his property?
In GR 162474: while the owner agreed for the taking
of his property, the owner is not permitted to change
his mind and his only remedy is to demand for the
JC.
But in the more recent case, Republic. V. Vicente
Lim, SC allowed recovery of the property. If there
were no payment of the JC after the lapse of 5
years, then the owner may be allowed to recover his
property.
This different from the case of Eusebio v. Luis,
because in Eusebio there was no actual
expropriation proceeding.
How to reconcile?
In Lim: if no payment within 5 years from the finality
of decision, then recovery is allowed.
In Reyes: within that 5 year period, the only remedy
is to demand the payment of JC.
Therefore, if there is an expropriation proceeding
and the State fails to pay the just compensation
after 5 years from the time of the finality of the
expropriation case, the property owner can file a
recovery of the expropriated property but he should
return the just compensation received with legal
interest from his default. Prior to such 5 year period,
he can only ask for payment of just compensation
through a writ of execution of judgment and not
recovery of the property
When does the 5-year period start?
Situation
Feb 14 filing
Nov 1 decision
Nov 5 lawyers received the decision
The 5-year period should be reckoned on the date the
decision attained finality.
Cases like this, decisions of the court attain finality
after the period of 15 days from receipt of the parties
of such decision. If no appeal within 15 days from the
receipt, then the decision attains its finality.
EH 406 | Irma, Bon, Memay
The 5-year period starts on November 20 which is 15
days after November 5 when the parties received the
decision.
What if the property is no longer utilized for which it
was expropriated?
Situation 1:
Land was expropriated for the construction of a road. A
road was constructed in 2017 but in 2026 the
government has decided to just abandon the road.
In MCIAA v. CA involving the property of
Chiongbian, SC said that if the property
expropriated is acquired with no conditions
attached to it, then the owner cannot recover the
property. It is only when such taking has with it
reacquisition conditions when the property would
no longer be utilized for public purpose, that the
owner can recover it.
SC came up with another ruling in MCIA v.
Lozada, where it allowed recovery of an
expropriated property on the ground of non-
utilization thereof for public purpose to which it
was expropriated.
The case of Chiongbian and Lozada has the same
circumstances but the SC came up with different rulings.
In Chiongbian, SC found no condition, hence, there was
no reservation. In Lozada, however, SC allowed
expropriation on the supposition that the airport would
continue to be in operations.
Final Ruling:
Every expropriation case has this built-in condition that
the property should be devoted for the very same
purpose for which it was expropriated as stated in the
complaint. Such that: if the property was not utilized in
the said purpose, then recovery may be allowed with or
without the express condition. The State shall have to
institute a separate expropriation case for that new
purpose.
Situation 2
Land is expropriated for land expansion.
Nov 1, 2016 decision
Nov 20, 2016 became final
Nov 22, 2016 JC was fully paid
But even before the lapse of the 5 year period
reckoned from the finality of the decision (just after the
lapse of 2 years), the government decided not to make
use of the property for the purpose for which it was
expropriated.
Can the owner recover the property after the lapse of just
2 yrs or must he wait for the lapse of 5 years?
YES. He can file an action for recovery and need
not wait for the lapse of 5 years.
In the case of Lim, the 5-year period would only
govern if the ground of your recovery is non-
payment of JC.
If your ground for recovery is non-utilization for
public purpose for which it was expropriated,
then you dont have to wait for 5 years before
you can file the said action.
10