Sei sulla pagina 1di 18

Who exercises Power?

petitioner MMDA is illegal and the respondent Court of Appeals


Power is inherently vested in the Legislature. However, Congress did not err in so ruling.
may delegate it to the president, administrative bodies, and to
lawmaking bodies of LGU. (MMDA V. Bel-Air) The MMDA was created to put some order in the metropolitan
RA 9274 does not give MMDA the police power nor to legislate transportation system but unfortunately the powers granted by
their authority. It is limited to- Formulation, coordination, its charter are limited. Its good intentions cannot justify the
regulation, implementation, preparation, management, opening for public use of a private street in a private subdivision
monitoring, setting of policies, installation of a system and without any legal warrant. The promotion of the general welfare
administration. is not antithetical to the preservation of the rule of law.
MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March TEST FOR VALID EXERCISE of POLICE POWER
27, 2000 1. lawful subject- The interest of public in general as
FACTS distinguished from those in particular class, require the
exercise of the power. (is means that the activity or
Petitioner MMDA is a government agency tasked with the delivery property sought to be regulated affects the general
of basic services in Metro Manila.  Respondent Bel-Air Village welfare; if it does, then the enjoyment of the rights
Association, Inc. (BAVA) is a non-stock, non-profit corporation flowing therefrom may have to yield to the interests of
whose members are homeowners in Bel-Air Village, a private the greater number.)
subdivision in Makati City. Respondent BAVA is the registered 2. Lawful Means- The means employed are reasonably
owner of Neptune Street, a road inside Bel-Air Village. necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose, and
not unduly oppressive on individuals.
On December 30, 1995, respondent received from petitioner, Francisco vs. Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006
through its Chairman, a notice dated December 22, 1995 FACTS
requesting respondent to open Neptune Street to public vehicular Petitioner Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr. ("petitioner"), as member of
traffic starting January 2, 1996. the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and taxpayer, filed this
original action for the issuance of the writs of Prohibition and
Actions Filed: Mandamus. Petitioner prays for the Prohibition writ to enjoin
1.       BAVA – applied for injunction; trial court issued temporary respondents Bayani F. Fernando, Chairman of the Metropolitan
restraining order but after due hearing, trial court denied the Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the MMDA
issuance of a preliminary injunction. ("respondents") from further implementing its "wet flag scheme.”
2.       BAVA – appealed to CA which issued preliminary injunction and respondents sought the dismissal of the petition for petitioner's
later ruled that MMDA has no authority to order the opening of lack of standing to litigate and for violation of the doctrine of
Neptune Street, a private subdivision road and cause the hierarchy of courts. Alternatively, respondents contended that the
demolition of its perimeter walls. It held that the authority is Flag Scheme is a valid preventive measure against jaywalking.
lodged in the City Council of Makati by ordinance.
MMDA – filed motion for reconsideration but was denied by CA; ISSUE
hence the current recourse. W/N the implementation of wet flag scheme is in violation of
ISSUES the MMDA’s authority to impose such
   1.     Has the MMDA the mandate to open Neptune Street to Held
public traffic pursuant to its regulatory and police powers? On the Flag Scheme's alleged lack of legal basis, we note that all
         2.    Is the passage of an ordinance a condition precedent the cities and municipalities within the MMDA's jurisdiction, 7
before the MMDA may order the opening of subdivision roads to except Valenzuela City, have each enacted anti-jaywalking
public traffic? ordinances or traffic management codes with provisions for
HELD pedestrian regulation. Such fact serves as sufficient basis for
respondents' implementation of schemes, or ways and means, to
The MMDA is, as termed in the charter itself, "development enforce the anti-jaywalking ordinances and similar regulations.
authority." All its functions are administrative in nature. After all, the MMDA is an administrative agency tasked with the
implementation of rules and regulations enacted by proper
The powers of the MMDA are limited to the following acts: authorities.
formulation, coordination, regulation, implementation, Petition is dismissed.
preparation, management, monitoring, setting of policies, MMDA vs. Viron Transportation, G.R. No. 170656, August 15,
installation of a system and administration. There is no syllable in 2007
R.A. No. 7924 that grants the MMDA police power, let alone Facts
legislative power. GMA declared Executive Order (E.O.) No. 179 operational, thereby
creating the MMDA in 2003. Due to traffic congestion, the MMDA
The MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of recommended a plan to “decongest traffic by eliminating the bus
the community. It is the local government units, acting through terminals now located along major Metro Manila thoroughfares
their respective legislative councils that possess legislative power and providing more and convenient access to the mass transport
and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod system.” The MMC gave a go signal for the project. Viron Transit,
of Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering a bus company assailed the move. They alleged that the MMDA
the opening of Neptune Street, hence, its proposed opening by didn’t have the power to direct operators to abandon their
terminals. In doing so they asked the court to interpret the extent
and scope of MMDA’s power under RA 7924. They also asked if department.[18] He has control over the executive department,...
the MMDA law contravened the Public Service Act. (mandate bureaus and offices. This means that he has the authority to
public utilities to provide and maintain their own terminals as a assume directly the functions of the executive department,
requisite for the privilege of operating as common carriers) bureau and office, or interfere with the discretion of its officials.
(Mencorp Transportation System, Inc. (Mencorp), another [19] Corollary to the power of control, the President also has the...
provincial bus operator, later filed a similar petition for duty of supervising the enforcement of laws for the maintenance
declaratory relief14 against Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo of general peace and public order. Thus, he is granted
and MMDA Chairman Fernando) administrative power over bureaus and offices under his control
However the trial courts, denied the petition. By Decision 18 of to enable him to discharge his duties effectively.
January 24, 2005, the trial court sustained the constitutionality Administrative power is concerned with the work of applying
and legality of the E.O. pursuant to R.A. No. 7924, which policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper
empowered the MMDA to administer Metro Manila’s basic governmental organs.[21] It enables the President to fix a uniform
services including those of transport and traffic management. standard of administrative efficiency and check the official
The trial court held that the E.O. was a valid exercise of the police conduct of his... agents.[22] To this end, he can issue
power of the State as it satisfied the two tests of lawful subject administrative orders, rules and regulations.
matter and lawful means, hence, Viron’s and Mencorp’s property Prescinding from these precepts, we hold that A.O. No. 308
rights must yield to police power. involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an
ISSUE: administrative order. An administrative order is:
W/N the president violated the use of PP through the "Sec. 3. Administrative Orders. Acts of the President which relate
implementation of the Project to particular aspects of governmental operation in pursuance of
HELD: his duties as administrative head shall be promulgated in
The authority of the President to order the implementation of the administrative orders.
Project notwithstanding, the designation of the MMDA as the It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole
implementing agency for the Project may not be sustained. It is purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative...
ultra vires policy
It bears stressing that under the provisions of E.O. No. 125, as Sangalang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 176 SCRA 719
amended, it is the DOTC, and not the MMDA, which is authorized
to establish and implement a project such as the one subject of FACTS:
the cases at bar. Thus, the President, although authorized to  August 12, 1977, the municipal officials of Makati, destroyed and
establish or cause the implementation of the Project, must removed the gates constructed/located at the corner of Reposo
exercise the authority through the instrumentality of the DOTC Street and Jupiter Street as well as the gates/fences
which, by law, is the primary implementing and administrative located/constructed at Jupiter Street and Makati Avenue forcibly,
entity in the promotion, development and regulation of networks and then opened the entire length of Jupiter Street to public
of transportation, and the one so authorized to establish and traffic. Subsequently, Petitioners brought the present action for
implement a project such as the Project in question. damages against the defendant-appellant Ayala Corporation
By designating the MMDA as the implementing agency of the predicated on both breach of contract and on tort or quasi-delict
Project, the President clearly overstepped the limits of the A supplemental complaint was later filed by said Petitioners
authority conferred by law, rendering E.O. No. 179 ultra vires. seeking to augment the reliefs prayed for in the original complaint
Ople vs. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 because of alleged supervening events which occurred during the
trial of the case. That the exclusivity of the said village was
FACTS: adversely affected and diminished due to the opening of the said
A petition was raised by Sen. Blas Ople to invalidate the AO NO streets to the public. That the exclusivity of the said village was
308 or the Adoption of Nat’l Computerized Identification guaranteed in the restrictions of TCT(transfer Certificate Title)
Reference System issued by Former President FVR. (lots shall only be used for residential purposes).
The Petitioner assailed that the implementation of the said AO is
violative to the rights of privacy as guaranteed in the constitution ISSUE:
and the said A.O is a usurpation of the Legislative authority of the Whether the Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts of the
Congress to exercise Police Power. complainants was violated by the Respondents in a resolution
ISSUE: promoting the welfare of the general public?
W/N AO 308 is in violation of the constitutional rights of the
public Adoption of Nat’l Computerized Identification Reference HELD:
System No, while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally
W/N declaration of FVR of AO 308 is a usurpation of the guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled
Legislative authority of congress to exercise police power with the legitimate exercise of police power, i.e., “the power to
HELD: prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
Yes. The right to privacy is accorded independently of its education, good order or safety and general welfare of the
identification to liberty. It is guaranteed in several provisions in people.’ Invariably described as “the most essential, insistent, and
the constitution. Sect 3 (1), 1, 2, 6 ,8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights. illimitable of powers” and “in a sense, the greatest and most
As head of the Executive Department, the President is the Chief powerful attribute of government,” the exercise of the power may
Executive. He represents the government as a whole and sees to be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is capricious,
it that all laws are enforced by the officials and employees of his whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a denial of
due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional trial on the merits, the lower court sustained the confiscation of
guarantee. Police power is elastic and must be responsive to the carabaos, and as they can no longer be produced, directed the
various social conditions; it is not confined within narrow confiscation of the bond. It deferred from ruling on the
circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must constitutionality of the executive order, on the grounds of want of
follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. The court do authority and presumed validity. On appeal to the Intermediate
not see why public welfare when clashing with the individual right Appellate Court, such ruling was upheld. Hence, this petition for
to property should not be made to prevail through the state’s review on certiorari. On the main, petitioner asserts that EO 626-A
exercise of its police power. is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes outright confiscation,
Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595 and that its penalty suffers from invalidity because it is imposed
without giving the owner a right to be heard before a competent
FACTS: and impartial court—as guaranteed by due process.
Petitioner appeal is to induce the court to set aside the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining the law ISSUE:
authorizing the segregation of lepers, and denying the petition for W/N EO 626 is unconstitutional for being violative to due
habeas corpus, by requiring the trial court to receive evidence to process clause
determine if leprosy is or is not a contagious disease. Petitioner
also alleged that it is violative of her Constitutional right. HELD;
(The Philippine law pertaining to the segregation of lepers is YES. To warrant a valid exercise of police power, the following
found in article XV of chapter 37 of the Administrative Code. must be present: (a) that the interests of the public, generally, as
Codal section 1058 empowers the Director of Health and his distinguished from those of a particular class, require such
authorized agents "to cause to be apprehended, and detained, interference of the State, and; (b) that the means are reasonably
isolated, or confined, all leprous persons in the Philippine necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose.
Islands.") Even if assuming there was a reasonable relation between the
means and the end, the penalty is invalid as it amounts to outright
ISSUE: confiscation, denying petitioner a chance to be heard.
W/N DOH has the authority to exercise power. ?
City Government of Quezon vs. Judge Ericta GR No. L-34915 June
HELD: 24, 1983
Section 1058 of the Administrative Code was enacted by the
legislative body in the legitimate exercise of the police power Facts:
which extends to the preservation of the public health.  It was An ordinance 6118 (ORDINANCE REGULATING THE
placed on the statute books in recognition of leprosy as a grave ESTABLISHMENT, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE
health problem. The methods provided for the control of leprosy MEMORIAL TYPE CEMETERY OR BURIAL GROUND WITHIN THE
plainly constitute due process of law. JURISDICTION OF QUEZON CITY AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world THE VIOLATION THEREOF) was promulgated in Quezon city which
over. Similarly, the local legislature has regarded leprosy as a approved the the regulation of establishment of private
contagious disease and has authorized measures to control the cemeteries in the said city. According to the ordinance, 6% of the
dread scourge. To that forum must the petitioner go to reopen total area of the private memorial park shall be set aside for
the question. We are frank to say that it would require a much charity burial of deceased persons who are paupers and have
stronger case than the one at bar for us to sanction admitting the been residents of QC. Himlayang Pilipino, a private memorial park,
testimony of expert or other witnesses to show that a law of this contends that the taking or confiscation of property restricts the
character may possibly violate some constitutional provision. use of property such that it cannot be used for any reasonable
purpose and deprives the owner of all beneficial use of his
Ynot vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659 property. It also contends that the taking is not a valid exercise of
police power, since the properties taken in the exercise of police
FACTS: power are destroyed and not for the benefit of the public.
the constitutionality of former President Marcos’s Executive
Order No. 626-A is assailed. Said order decreed an absolute ban Issue:
on the inter-provincial transportation of carabao (because it is the Whether or not the ordinance made by Quezon City is a valid
Pambansang Hayop) (regardless of age, sex, physical condition or taking of private property
purpose) and carabeef. The carabao or carabeef transported in
violation of this shall be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the Ruling:
government, to be distributed to charitable institutions and other No, the ordinance made by Quezon City is not a valid way of
similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat taking private property. The ordinance is actually a taking without
Inspection Commission (NMIC) may see fit, in the case of compensation of a certain area from a private cemetery to benefit
carabeef. In the case of carabaos, these shall be given to paupers who are charges of the municipal corporation. Instead of
deserving farmers as the Director of Animal Industry (AI) may also building or maintaing a public cemeteries. State's exercise of the
see fit. Petitioner had transported six (6) carabaos in a pump boat power of expropriation requires payment of just compensation.
from Masbate to Iloilo. These were confiscated by the police for Passing the ordinance without benefiting the owner of the
violation of the above order. He sued for recovery, which the RTC property with just compensation or due process, would amount
granted upon his filing of a supersedeas bond worth 12k. After to unjust taking of a real property. Since the property that is
needed to be taken will be used for the public's benefit, then the enactment of the Ordinance was an invalid exercise of delegated
power of the state to expropriate will come forward and not the power as it is unconstitutional and repugnant to general laws.
police power of the state.
In order for an Ordinance to be valid it must satisfy 2
There are two different types of taking that can be identified:
requirements:
1. It must pass muster under the test of constitutionality
2. Test of consistency of prevailing laws. - A "possessory" taking occurs when the government
(City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005) confiscates or physically occupies property. A
- "regulatory" taking occurs when the government's
City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005 regulation leaves no reasonable economically viable
FACTS: use of the property
On 30 Mar 1993, Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7783 entitled AN POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OR OPERATION - Also known as Power of Expropriation
OF BUSINESSES PROVIDING CERTAIN FORMS OF AMUSEMENT, - Sec. 9, Art. 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides
ENTERTAINMENT, SERVICES AND FACILITIES IN THE ERMITA- “Private property shall not be taken for public use
MALATE AREA, PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION without just compensation.”
THEREOF, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. It basically prohibited - It is the inherent right of the State to condemn private
establishments such as bars, karaoke bars, motels and hotels from property to public use upon payment of just
operating in the Malate District which was notoriously viewed as a compensation.
red light district harboring thrill seekers. Malate Tourist - SECTION 18, Art 12. “The State may, in the interest of
Development Corporation avers that the ordinance is invalid as it national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital
includes hotels and motels in the enumeration of places offering industries and, upon payment of just compensation,
amusement or entertainment. MTDC reiterates that they do not transfer to public ownership utilities and other private
market such nor do they use women as tools for entertainment. enterprises to be operated by the Government.”
MTDC also avers that under the LGC, LGUs can only regulate - SECTION 4 Art. 13 (A g r a ria n a n d N a t u r al R e s o
motels but cannot prohibit their operation. The City reiterates u r c e s R e f o r m). “The State shall, by law, undertake
that the Ordinance is a valid exercise of Police Power as provided an agrarian reform program founded on the right of
as well in the LGC. The City likewise emphasized that the purpose farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to
of the law is to promote morality in the City. own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the
case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of
ISSUE: the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall
W/N ORD. 7783 is Valid encourage and undertake the just distribution of all
W/N City of Manila properly exercised police power agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
HELD: prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject
to the payment of just compensation. In determining
The SC ruled that the said Ordinance is null and void. The SC noted
retention limits, the State shall respect the right of
that for an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
small landowners. The State shall further provide
corporate powers of the local government unit to enact and must
incentives for voluntary land-sharing.”
be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law, it  must
- SECTION 9, Art. 13 (U r b a n L a n d R e f o r m a n d H
also conform to the following substantive requirements:
o u sin g). “The State shall, by law, and for the common
good, undertake, in cooperation with the public sector,
(1) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; a continuing program of urban land reform and
housing which will make available at affordable cost
decent housing and basic services to underprivileged
(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;
and homeless citizens in urban centers and
resettlements areas. It shall also promote adequate
(3) must not be partial or discriminatory; employment opportunities to such citizens. In the
implementation of such program the State shall
(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; respect the rights of small property owners.”

CAMARINES NORTE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (CANORECO),


(5) must be general and consistent with public policy; and vs.
COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000
(6) must not be unreasonable. FACTS:

The police power of the City Council, however broad and far- On May 18, 1989, Conrad L. Leviste filed with the Regional Trial
reaching, is subordinate to the constitutional limitations thereon; Court, Daet, Camarines Norte, a complaint for collection of a sum
and is subject to the limitation that its exercise must be of money and foreclosure of mortgage against Philippine Smelter
reasonable and for the public good. In the case at bar, the Corporation (PSC).
For failure to file an answer to the complaint, the trial court exercise it only when expressly authorized by statute
declared PSC in default and allowed plaintiff Leviste to present (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23,
evidence ex-parte. 2006)
- the very foundation of the right to exercise eminent
A copy of the writ of possession was served on petitioner as domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must
owner of the power lines standing on certain portions of the be of a public character (Masikip vs. City of Pasig, G.R.
subject property. Later, on August 12, 1992, Vines Realty filed an No. 136349, January 23, 2006)
amended motion for an order of demolition and removal of
improvements on the subject land. Masikip vs. City of Pasig, G.R. No. 136349, January 23, 2006

FACTS:
Among the improvements for removal were the power lines and Lourdes Dela Paz Masikip is the registered owner of a parcel of
electric posts belonging to petitioner (CANORECO). land, which the City of Pasig sought to expropriate a portion
thereof for the “sports development and recreational activities”
Petitioner opposed the motion on the ground, among other of the residents of Barangay Caniogan. This was in January 1994.
reasons, that petitioner was not a party to the case and therefore Masikip refused.
not bound by the judgment of the trial court and that it had On March 23, 1994, City of Pasig sought again to expropriate said
subsisting right-of-way agreements over said property. portion of land for the alleged purpose that it was “in line with the
program of the Municipal Government to provide land
The sheriff, at the request of Vines Realty demolished the opportunities to deserving poor sectors of our community.”
remaining electric posts resulting in the cutting off of power
supply to various business establishments and barangays. Petitioner protested, so City of Pasig filed with the trial court a
complaint for expropriation. The Motion to Dismiss filed by
Masikip was dismissed by the rial court on the ground that there
ISSUE: was genuine necessity to expropriate the property. Case was
elevated to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed petition for lack
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to retain possession of of merit.
the power lines located in the land sold at public auction as a
result of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage. Hence, this petition.
RULLING:
Yes. ISSUE:
To exercise the power of eminent domain in the manner provided W/N the Local Government of Pasig has the right to exercise
by law for the exercise of such power by other corporations Power of Expropriation
constructing or operating electric generating plants and electric
transmission and distribution lines or systems." HELD:
The acquisition of an easement of a right-of-way falls within the
purview of the power of eminent domain. Such conclusion finds Eminent domain is “the right of a government to take and
support in easements of right-of-way where the Supreme Court appropriate private property to the public use, whenever the
sustained the award of just compensation for private property public exigency requires it, which can be done only on condition
condemned for public use.The Supreme Court, in Republic vs. of providing a reasonably compensation therefor.” It is the power
PLDT Thus held that: of the State or its instrumentalities to take private property for
"Normally, of course, the power of eminent domain results in the public use and is inseparable from sovereignty and inherent in
taking or appropriation of title to, and possession of, the government.
expropriated property; but no cogent reason appears why said
power may not be availed of to impose only a burden upon the This power is lodged in the legislative branch of government. It
owner of condemned property, without loss of title and delegates the power thereof to the LGUs, other public entities and
possession. It is unquestionable that real property may, through public utility corporations, subject only to constitutional
expropriation, be subjected to an easement of right-of-way." limitations. LGUs have no inherent power of eminent domain and
Public utilities’ power of eminent domain may be exercised may exercise it only when expressly authorized by statute.
although title it is not transferred to the expropriator.
Consequently, we rule that a court’s writ of demolition cannot
prevail over the easement of a right-of-way which falls within the
Sec. 19, LGC: LGU may, through its chief executive and acting
power of eminent domain.
pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain
for public use, purpose or welfare for the benefit of the poor and
Who may exercise the Power of Eminent Domain?
landless, upon payment of just compensation, pursuant to the
- The power of eminent domain is lodged in the
provisions of the Constitution and pertinent laws.
legislative branch of the government. It delegates the
Provided: (REQUISITES FOR EXERCISING POWER OF EMINENT
exercise thereof to local government units, other
DOMAIN)
public entities and public utility corporations, 9 subject
only to Constitutional limitations. Local governments
(1) power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless a valid
have no inherent power of eminent domain and may
and definite offer has been previously made to the owner and Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which
such offer was not accepted; private property should be expropriated. In this case, there was
no showing at all why petitioners’ property was singled out for
(2) LGU may immediately take possession of the property upon expropriation by the city ordinance or what necessity impelled the
the filing of expropriation proceedings and upon making a deposit particular choice or selection. Ordinance No. 1843 stated no
with the proper court of at least 15% fair market value of the reason for the choice of petitioners’ property as the site of a
property based on the current tax declaration; socialized housing project.
and For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the
corporate powers of the city or municipality to enact but must
also be passed according to the procedure prescribed by law. It
(3) Amount to be paid for expropriated property shall be
must be in accordance with certain well-established basic
determined by the proper court, based on the fair market value at
principles of a substantive nature. These principles require that an
the time of the taking of the property
ordinance (1) must not contravene the Constitution 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)
There is already an established sports development and
must be general and consistent with public policy, and (6) must
recreational activity center at Rainforest Park in Pasig City.
not be unreasonable.
Evidently, there is no “genuine necessity” to justify the
(Private Property)
expropriation. The records show that the Certification issued by
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V PLDT G.R. No. L-18841, January
the Caniogan Barangay Council which became the basis for the
27, 1969
passage of Ordinance No. 4, authorizing the expropriation,
PRINCIPLE: All private property capable of ownership may be
indicates that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres
expropriated, except money and choices in action. Even services
Compound Homeowner’s Association, a private, non-profit
may be subject to eminent domain.
organization, not the residents of Caniogan.

FACTS:
(Requisites for Exercise)
The Bureau of Telecommunications set up its own Government
(Necessity)
Telephone System by utilizing its own appropriation and
equipment and by renting trunk lines of the PLDT to enable
Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004
government officers to call private parties. One of the rules of
PLDT is the prohibition on the Bureau’s public use of the service
FACTS:
furnished for the private use of said Bureau. The Bureau has
extended its services to the general public since its inception (also
The case is about the validity of Ordinance No. 1843 authorizing
using the lines of PLDT). PLDT contends that said bureau was
the mayor of Cebu City to initiate expropriation proceedings for
violating the conditions under which their Private Branch
the acquisition of lot (1029) of petitioners Diosdado, Doroteo and
Exchange is inter-connected with the PLDT’s facilities and after
Ursula Lagcao.
giving an ultimatum, PLDT disconnected the trunk lines rented by
In 1964, Province of Cebu donated 210 lots to the City of Cebu,
the Bureau, effectively isolating the Philippines from the rest of
one of which is the lot 1029. 1965,petitioners purchased said lot
the world (except United States).
on installment but in late 1925, these 210 lots reverted to the
Province of Cebu. The latter tried to annul sale which resulted to
Petitioner thus filed for judgment commanding PLDT to execute a
the filing of the case of the petitioners.
contract with plaintiff.
RTC and CA ruled in their favor and as such a deed of sale was
ISSUE:
executed and a TCT was issued in their favor. When they tried to
Whether or not the PLDT may be forced to execute a contract
take possession of the land, they found out that it was occupied
with petitioner.
by squatters. Thus, they instituted ejectment proceedings which
HELD:
was later on granted by the MTCC and affirmed by RTC.
The parties cannot be coerced to enter into a contract where no
However, Mayor Garcia wrote letters requesting the deferment of
agreement is had between them. While the Republic may not
the demolition since the city was still looking for a relocation site
compel the PLDT to celebrate a contract with it, the Republic may,
for the squatters; this was granted. During the suspension the
in the exercise of the sovereign power of eminent domain, require
Sanguiang Panlungsod of Cebu passed a resolution and 2
the telephone company to permit interconnection of the
ordinances (all about the lot 1029). Ord. No. 1843likewise
government telephone system and that of the PLDT subject to just
appropriated the amount of 6, 881, 600 for the payment of
compensation. The use of PLDT’s lines and services are subjected
subject land; this was approved bythe Mayor.
to a burden to the respondent for the public use and benefit,
ISSUE:
thus, they constitute properties over which the power of eminent
Whether or not the exercise of eminent domain is valid in the
domain may be exercised. 
case at bar.
RULLING:
City of Manila vs. Chinese Community
NO, it is NOT VALID. The foundation of the right to exercise
FACTS:
eminent domain is genuine necessity and that necessity must be
of public character.
The City of Manila presented a petition in the Court of
First Instance of said city, praying that certain lands, therein
particularly described, be expropriated for the purpose of necessity that may be found to exist, in order to accomplish the
constructing a public improvement. The petitioner alleged that for purpose of the incorporation, … the party claiming the right to the
the purpose of constructing an extension of Rizal Avenue, Manila, exercise of the power should be required to show at least a
it is necessary for the plaintiff to acquire ownership of certain reasonable degree of necessity for its exercise (New Central Coal
parcels of land situated in the district of Binondo. The defendants Co. vs. George's etc. Co. [37 Md., 537, 564]).
– the Chinese Community of Manila, Ildefonso Tambunting, and
Feliza Concepcion de Delgado – alleged in their Answer (a) that no [2] The general power to exercise the right of eminent
necessity existed for said expropriation and (b) that the land in domain must not be confused with the right to exercise it in a
question was a cemetery, which had been used as such for many particular case. The power of the legislature to confer, upon
years, and was covered with sepulchres and monuments, and that municipal corporations and other entities within the State,
the same should not be converted into a street for public general authority to exercise the right of eminent domain cannot
purposes. One of the defendants, Ildefonso Tampbunting, offered be questioned by the courts, but that general authority of
to grant a right of way for the said extension over other land, municipalities or entities must not be confused with the right to
without cost to the plaintiff, in order that the sepulchers, chapels exercise it in particular instances. The moment the municipal
and graves of his ancestors may not be disturbed. corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority
conferred, it must comply with the conditions accompanying the
The Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, decided that authority.
there was no necessity for the expropriation of the particular strip
of land in question, and absolved each and all of the defendants [3] The right of expropriation is not an inherent power
from all liability under the complaint, without any finding as to in a municipal corporation, and before it can exercise the right
costs. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the city of Manila some law must exist conferring the power upon it. When the
has authority to expropriate private lands for public purposes. courts come to determine the question, they must only find (a)
Section 2429 of Act No. 2711 (Charter of the city of Manila) that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of
provides that "the city (Manila) . . . may condemn private property eminent domain, but (b) also that the right or authority is being
for public use." exercised in accordance with the law. In the present case there
are two conditions imposed upon the authority conceded to the
ISSUE City of Manila: First, the land must be private; and, second, the
purpose must be public. If the court, upon trial, finds that neither
Whether or not the City of Manila can condemn of these conditions exists or that either one of them fails,
private property for public use certainly it cannot be contended that the right is being exercised
in accordance with law.

HELD
[4] The exercise of the right of eminent domain,
whether directly by the State, or by its authorized agents, is
No. It is true that Section 2429 of Act No. 2711, or the Charter of necessarily in derogation of private rights, and the rule in that
the City of Manila states that "the city (Manila) . . . may condemn case is that the authority must be strictly construed. No species of
private property for public use." But when the statute does not property is held by individuals with greater tenacity, and none is
designate the property to be taken nor how it may be taken, the guarded by the constitution and laws more sedulously, than the
necessity of taking particular property is a question for the courts. right to the freehold of inhabitants. When the legislature
When the application to condemn or appropriate property is interferes with that right, and, for greater public purposes,
made directly to the court, the question of necessity should be appropriates the land of an individual without his consent, the
raised (Wheeling, etc. R. R. Co. vs. Toledo, Ry, etc., Co. [72 Ohio plain meaning of the law should not be enlarged by doubtly
St., 368]). The necessity for conferring the authority upon a interpretation. (Bensely vs. Mountainlake Water Co., 13 Cal., 306
municipal corporation to exercise the right of eminent domain is and cases cited [73 Am. Dec., 576].)
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.

RATIO/DOCTRINE:

[1] The taking of private property for any use, which is


not required by the necessities or convenience of the inhabitants
of the state, is an unreasonable exercise of the right of eminent
domain, and beyond the power of the legislature to delegate.
(Bennett vs. Marion, 106 Iowa, 628, 633; Wilson vs. Pittsburg, etc.
Co., 222 Pa. St., 541, 545; Greasy, etc. Co. vs. Ely, etc. Co., 132 Ky.,
692, 697.) To justify the exercise of this extreme power (eminent
domain) where the legislature has left it to depend upon the
requisite has not been fullled the courts must protect, and
eventually restore possession to the injured party.

The refusal to grant a license or the enactment of an ordinance


whereby a person may be deprived of property or rights, or an
attempt thereat is made, without previously indemnifying him
therefor, is not, nor can it be, due process of law.
ELEMENTS OF POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
(1) the expropriator must enter a private property;
(2) the entrance into private property must be for more than a PEOPLE V. FAJARDO Et. Al
momentary period;
(3) the entry into the property should be under warrant or color FACTS:
of legal authority;
(4) the property  must be devoted to a public use or otherwise Fajardo was mayor in Baao, Camrines Sur when the municipal
informally appropriated or injuriously affected; and council passed the ordinance No. 7, Series of 1950 that prohibits
(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a the construction of a building that blocks the view of the town
way as to oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial plaza. Moreover, it redirects the grant of permission to the mayor.
enjoyment of the property. After his incumbency, Fajardo applied for a permit to build a
building beside the gasoline station near the town plaza. His
(Taking in the constitutional sense) request was repeatedly denied.  He continued with the
construction under the rationale that he needed a house to stay
in because the old one was destroyed by a typhoon.
- May include trespass without actual eviction of the owner,
He was convicted and ordered to pay a fine and demolish the
material impairment of the value of the property or prevention of
building due to its obstructing view.
the ordinary uses for which the property was intended
He appealed to the CA, which in turn forwarded the petition due
to the question of the ordinance’s constitutionality.
Ayala de Roxas vs. City of Manila ISSUE:
W/N The ordinance is deemed constitutional.
Facts: HELD:
City of Manila(Robert Dieck manila engineer) Denied Ayala De No. Court ruled that the ordinance fails to state any policy, or to
Roxas for a license to authorize to build a terrace on the strip of 3 set up any standard to guide or limit the mayor's action. The
meters of her own lot that adjoins the canal of San Jacinto ordinance thus confers upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted
without .The said Denial was due to that portion of a land that she power to grant or deny the issuance of building permits, and it is a
owns will be used for a wharf or public way in relation to an settled rule that such an undened and unlimited delegation of
ordinance of their own pursuant to the Law of Waters and Civil power to allow or prevent an activity.
Code in Force. (Ord. 78, however, it did not devote any 3 meter While property may be regulated to the interest of the general
easement as what John Tuther(Municipal Secretary) can welfare, and the state may eliminate structures offensive to the
remember, only that he believes it was more easier to prevent sight, the state may not permanently divest owners of the
collision. The said easement does not have any prior beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them
indemnification solely to preserve or assure the aesthetic appearance of the
community.
It is also refuted in the admin code Sec 2243:
ISSUE:
certain legislative powers of discretionary character . — The
municipal council shall have authority to exercise the following
W/N City Of Manila hast the authority to deny Ayala to use a discretionary powers: To establish fire limits in populous
portion of her land because of an easement. centers, prescribe the kinds of buildings that may be constructed
or repaired within them, and issue permits for the creation or
HELD: repair thereof, charging a fee which shall be determined by the
municipal council and which shall not be less than two pesos for
each building permit and one peso for each repair permit issued.
No. Under section 5 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, no
The fees collected under the provisions of this subsection shall
legislation shall be enacted in the Philippine Islands which shall
accrue to the municipal school fund."
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law; and the due process of law in order to deprive a
person of his property is, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, However the power of the municipal council to require the
reserved to the judicial authority. issuance of bldg.., permits rest upon its first establishment of fire
limits in populous area.

According to article 349 of the Civil Code, no one shall be deprived


of his property, except by competent authority and with sufcient REPUBLIC VS. VDA. DE CASTELLVI
cause of public utility, always after proper indemnity; if this
FACTS: 
After the owner of a parcel of land that has been rented and was the expansion of the Dasmariñas Resettlement Project to
occupied by the government in 1947 refused to extend the lease, accommodate the squatters who were relocated from the
the latter commenced expropriation proceedings in 1959. During Metropolitan Manila area. The trial court rendered judgment
the assessment of just compensation, the government argued ordering the expropriation of these lots and the payment of just
that it had taken the property when the contract of lease compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the
commenced and not when the proceedings begun. The owner lower court.
maintains that the disputed land was not taken when the
government commenced to occupy the said land as lessee A few years later, petitioners contended that respondent NHA
because the essential elements of the “taking” of property under violated the stated public purpose for the expansion of the
the power of eminent domain, namely (1) entrance and Dasmariñas Resettlement Project when it failed to relocate the
occupation by condemnor upon the private property for more squatters from the Metro Manila area, as borne out by the ocular
than a momentary period(for the contract of lease relied upon inspection conducted by the trial court which showed that most
provides for a lease from year to year), and (2) devoting it to a of the expropriated properties remain unoccupied. Petitioners
public use in such a way as to oust the owner and deprive him of likewise question the public nature of the use by respondent NHA
all beneficial enjoyment of the property, are not present. when it entered into a contract for the construction of low cost
(because the Republic was paying the lessor Castellvi a monthly housing units, which is allegedly different from the stated public
rental of P445.58; and that the contract of lease does not grant purpose in the expropriation proceedings. Hence, it is claimed
the Republic the "right and privilege" to buy the premises "at the that respondent NHA has forfeited its rights and interests by
value at the time of occupancy) virtue of the expropriation judgment and the expropriated
properties should now be returned to herein petitioners.
ISSUE:

Issue: Whether or not the judgment of expropriation was


Whether or not the taking of property has taken place when the forfeited in the light of the failure of respondent NHA to use the
Republic has entered and occupied the property as lessee. expropriated property for the intended purpose but for a totally
different purpose.
HELD: No, the property was deemed “taken” only when the
expropriation proceedings commenced in 1959.
Held: The Supreme Court held in favor of the respondent NHA.
The essential elements of the taking are: (1) Expropriator must Accordingly, petitioners cannot insist on a restrictive view of the
enter a private property, (2) for more than a momentary period, eminent domain provision of the Constitution by contending that
(3) and under warrant of legal authority, (4) devoting it to public the contract for low cost housing is a deviation from the stated
use, or otherwise informally appropriating or injuriously affecting public use. It is now settled doctrine that the concept of public use
it in such a way as (5) substantially to oust the owner and deprive is no longer limited to traditional purposes. The term "public use"
him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof. has now been held to be synonymous with "public interest,"
"public benefit," "public welfare," and "public convenience." Thus,
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
In the case at bar, these elements were not present when the satisfies the requirement of public use."
government entered and occupied the property under a contract
of lease. In addition, the expropriation of private land for slum clearance
and urban development is for a public purpose even if the
(The court cannot accept the Republic's contention that a lease on developed area is later sold to private homeowners, commercials
a year to year basis can give rise to a permanent right to occupy, firms, entertainment and service companies, and other private
since by express legal provision a lease made for a determinate concerns. Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to
time, as was the lease of Castellvi's land in the instant case, ceases undertake, for the common good and in cooperation with the
upon the day fixed, without need of a demand private sector, a continuing program of urban land reform and
housing which will make at affordable cost decent housing and
(Public Use) basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban
centers and resettlement areas. The expropriation of private
property for the purpose of socialized housing for the
- now been held to be synonymous with "public marginalized sector is in furtherance of social justice.
interest," "public benefit," "public welfare," and "public
convenience."
- As long as the purpose of the taking is public, then the MANOSCA V. REYES
power of eminent domain comes into play.
Facts:
REYES V. NHA
Petitioners inherited a piece of land when the parcel was
Facts: Respondent National Housing Authority (NHA) filed ascertained by the NHI to have been the birth site of Felix Y.
complaints for the expropriation of sugarcane lands belonging to Manalo, the founder of Iglesia Ni Cristo, it passed Resolution No.
the petitioners. The stated public purpose of the expropriation 1, declaring the land to be a national historical landmark.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the main thesis On February 19, 1998, NPC led a complaint for eminent domain
that the intended expropriation was not for a public purpose and, with the RTC of Iba, Zambales. It sought the acquisition of an
incidentally, that the act would constitute an application of public easement of right-of-way and certain portions of
funds, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 agricultural lands owned by
Iglesia ni Cristo, a religious entity, contrary to the provision of Igmedio and Liwayway Chiong and the Heirs of Agrina 44 Angeles,
Section 29(2), Article VI, of the 1987 Constitution. as represented by Francisco Mercurio, to be used in its
Northwestern Luzon Transmission Line Project.
 Issue: In their answer, the Heirs of Agrina Angeles did not dispute the
purpose of NPC in instituting the expropriation proceedings.
Whether or not the expropriation of the land whereat Manalo However, they pointed out that NPC had already entered and
was born is valid and constitutional. taken possession of a portion of their realty with an area of 4,000
square meters, more or less (Lot "A") and wanted to occupy
another 4,000 square meters of the adjacent property (Lot "B").
Held: Respondents averred that the fair market value for both
properties was P1,100.00 per square meter or a total of
Yes. The taking to be valid must be for public use. There was a P8,800,000.00 and prayed that the trial court direct NPC to pay
time when it was felt that a literal meaning should be attached to them said amount. However, the fair market value was fixed by
such a requirement. Whatever project is undertaken must be for the court in its order on June 7, 2000 for P500.00 per sq/m and
the public to enjoy, as in the case of streets or parks. Otherwise, was affirmed by the appellate court.
expropriation is not allowable. It is not so any more. As long as the In regards to valuation, the Petitioner averred that the CA uphold
purpose of the taking is public, then the power of eminent the ruling of The RTC of the full market value of the expropriated
domain comes into play. As just noted, the constitution in at least properties when what they sought was only “easement of right-
two cases, to remove any doubt, determines what public use is. of-way”. The Petitioner pointed out that under Section 3-A of R.A.
One is the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots 6395 where only an easement of right-of-way shall be acquired,
for resale at cost to individuals. The other is the transfer, through with the principal purpose for which the land is actually devoted is
the exercise of this power, of utilities and other private enterprise unimpaired, the compensation should not exceed ten percent
to the government. It is accurate to state then that at present (10%) of the market value of the property.
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
satisfies the requirement of public use. ISSUE:
W/N CA erred in following RTC’s decision on the amount of
2 cases Constitution determined what Public use is: 500.00 per sq/m for full market value as just compensation

HELD:
1.) Expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots No. In fixing the valuation at P500.00 per square meter, the Court
for resale as to cost to individuals of Appeals noted that the trial court had considered the reports of
2.) Transfer through the exercise of this power, of utilities the commissioners and the proofs submitted by the parties. This
and other private enterprise to the government. included the fair market value of P1,100.00 per square meter
proferred by the respondents.
(Just compensation)
(Concept) The general rule is that the just compensation to which the owner
- The full and fair equivalent of the property taken; it is of condemned property is entitled to is the market value. Market
the fair market value of the property. It is settled that value is "that sum of money which a person desires but not
the market value of the property is “that sum of money compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell,
which a person, desirous but not compelled to buy, and would agree on as a price to be given and received therefor."
an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would
agree on as a price to be given and received therefor”. The aforementioned rule, however, is modied where only a part
of a certain property is expropriated. In this case, the owner is
Nat’l Power Corp V. Spouses Chiong not restricted to compensation for the portion actually taken. In
FACTS: addition to the market value of the portion taken, he is also
Petitioner is a government owned and controlled corporation, entitled to recover for the consequential damage, if any, to the
created and existing pursuant to Republic Act No. 6395, [3] as remaining part of the property. At the same time, from the total
amended, for the purpose of undertaking the development of compensation must be deducted the value of the consequential
hydroelectric power, the production of electrical power from any benefits.
source, particularly by constructing, operating, and maintaining
power plants, auxiliary plants, dams, reservoirs, pipes, mains, Taking precedes complain
transmission lines, power stations, and similar works to tap the The value would be the later
power generated from any river, creek, lake, spring, or waterfall in
the country and supplying such power to the inhabitants thereof. Expropriation under Section 18, Article XII
In order to carry out said purposes, NPC is authorized to exercise The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense,
the power of eminent domain. establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just
compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other On September 17, 2002, the workers of the international airline
private enterprises to be operated by the Government. service providers, claiming that they would lose their job upon the
implementation of the questioned agreements, filed a petition for
Section 17, Article XII prohibition. Several employees of MIAA likewise filed a petition
in times of national emergency, when the public interest so assailing the legality of the various agreements.
requires, the State may, during the emergency and under
During the pendency of the cases, PGMA, on her speech, stated
reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct
that she will not “honor (PIATCO) contracts which the Executive
the operation of any privately owned public utility or business
Branch’s legal offices have concluded (as) null and void.”
affected with public interest.

ISSUE

Whether or not the State can temporarily take over a business


Lopez vs. PIATCO affected with public interest.
FACTS: HELD:
On October 5, 1994, AEDC(Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp) Yes. PIATCO cannot, by mere contractual stipulation, contravene
submitted an unsolicited proposal to the Government through the the Constitutional provision on temporary government takeover
DOTC/MIAA for the development of NAIA International Passenger and obligate the government to pay “reasonable cost for the use
Terminal III (NAIA IPT III). of the Terminal and/or Terminal Complex.”
DOTC constituted the Prequalification Bids and Awards
Article XII, Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Committee (PBAC) for the implementation of the project and
submitted with its endorsement proposal to the NEDA, which Section 17. In times of national emergency, when the public
approved the project. interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and
under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or
On June 7, 14, and 21, 1996, DOTC/MIAA caused the publication direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or
in two daily newspapers of an invitation for competitive or business affected with public interest.
comparative proposals on AEDC’s unsolicited proposal, in
accordance with Sec. 4-A of RA 6957, as amended.   RATIONALE:
The above provision pertains to the right of the State in times of
On September 20, 1996, the consortium composed of People’s Air national emergency, and in the exercise of its police power, to
Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc. (Paircargo), Phil. Air and Grounds temporarily take over the operation of any business affected with
Services, Inc. (PAGS) and Security Bank Corp. (Security Bank) public interest. The duration of the emergency itself is the
(collectively, Paircargo Consortium) submitted their competitive
determining factor as to how long the temporary takeover by the
proposal to the PBAC.  PBAC awarded the project to Paircargo
government would last. The temporary takeover by the
Consortium. Because of that, it was incorporated into Philippine
International Airport Terminals Co., Inc. government extends only to the operation of the business and not
to the ownership thereof. As such the government is not required
AEDC subsequently protested the alleged undue preference given to compensate the private entity-owner of the said business as
to PIATCO and reiterated its objections as regards the there is no transfer of ownership, whether permanent or
prequalification of PIATCO. temporary. (Government is in exercise of its police power and
not of its power of eminent domain.)
On July 12, 1997, the Government and PIATCO signed the
“Concession Agreement for the Build-Operate-and-Transfer Anuncion vda. De Ouano V. RP
Arrangement of the NAIA Passenger Terminal III” (1997 (The case is all about the jettisoned Airport project property of De
Concession Agreement). The Government granted PIATCO the Ouano and others that is situated in Lahug, The said property
franchise to operate and maintain the said terminal during the upon agreement, was said to be repurchaseable should the
concession period and to collect the fees, rentals and other
project would not push through. Upon some time the project was
charges in accordance with the rates or schedules stipulated in
abandoned, illegal settlers started setting in. The lot owners then
the 1997 Concession Agreement. The Agreement provided that
the concession period shall be for twenty-five (25) years filed for Motion for reconveyance but was both denied in both
commencing from the in-service date, and may be renewed at the RTC and C because the state is exercising its Power of eminent
option of the Government for a period not exceeding twenty-five domain under the principle public use. Hence the Petition)
(25) years. At the end of the concession period, PIATCO shall
transfer the development facility to MIAA. ISSUE:
W/N RTC and CA erred in their ruling
Meanwhile, the MIAA which is charged with the maintenance and
operation of the NAIA Terminals I and II, had existing concession HELD:
contracts with various service providers to offer international YES. Public use, as an eminent domain concept, has now acquired
airline airport services, such as in-flight catering, passenger an expansive meaning to include any use that is of usefulness,
handling, ramp and ground support, aircraft maintenance and utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit [of
provisions, cargo handling and warehousing, and other services,
the public]." If the genuine public necessity—the very reason or
to several international airlines at the NAIA.
condition as it were—allowing, at the first instance, the
expropriation of a private land ceases or disappears, then there is
no more cogent point for the government’s retention of the limitations provided by law including restrictions on
expropriated land. The same legal situation should hold if the dividends and provisions for reinvestment. Sec. 4 (3)
government devotes the property to another public use very Art. XIV
much different from the original or deviates from the declared 3. Sec. 4 (41 Art. XIV: Subject to conditions prescribed by
purpose to benefit another private person. It has been said that law, ail grants, endowments, donations, or
the direct use by the state of its power to oblige landowners to contributions used actually, directly and exclusively for
renounce their productive possession to another citizen, who will educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
use it predominantly for that citizen’s own private gain, is 4. Where tax exemption is granted gratuitously, it may be
offensive to our laws. revoked at will; but not if granted for a valuable
consideration. See Mactan Cebu International Airport
Authority v. Marcos, 261 SCRA 667; Casanova v. Hord,
8 Phil 125; Lladoc v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, 14 SCRA 292

POWER OF TAXATION
Definition Power of taxation distinguished from Police Power
The Court made a conservative and pivotal distinction between
police power and taxation, holding that the distinction rests in the
Who can exercise the power? purpose for which the charge is made. If generation of revenue is
Primarily, the legislature; also: local legislative bodies [Sec. 5, Art. the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the
X, Constitution]; and to a limited extent, the President when imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the primary purpose, the
granted delegated tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI], fact that revenue is incidentally raised does not make the
imposition a tax. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the
Limitations: Universal Charge imposed under Sec. 34 of the EPIRA is an
 tax should not be confiscatory. exaction that invokes the State’s police power, particularly its
 Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec. 28 (1), regulatory dimension, gleaned from Sec. 34 itself which
Art. VI]. enumerates the purposes of the Universal Charge which can be
 Should be for public purpose amply discerned as regulatory in character. (In Gerochi v.
o Tax for special purpose [Sec. 29 (3), Art. VI]: Department of Energy, G.R. No. 159796, July 17, 2007)
Treated as a special fund and paid out for
such purpose only; when purpose is Gerochi v. Department of Energy,
fulfilled, the balance, if any, shall be FACTS:
transferred to the general funds of the Petitioners Romeo P. Gerochi, Katulong ng Bayan (KB), and
Government. See: Osmena v. Orbos, 220 Environmentalist Consumers Network, Inc. (ECN) (petitioners),
SCRA 703. come before this Court in this original action praying that Section
34 of Republic Act (RA) 9136, otherwise known as the "Electric
Double Taxation Power Industry Reform Act of 2001" (EPIRA), imposing the
Additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the Universal Charge, 11 and Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations
same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for the (IRR) 22 which seeks to implement the said imposition, be
same purpose. See: Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila, 95 declared unconstitutional.
Phil 46. SECTION 34. UNIVERSAL CHARGE . — Within one (1)
(Despite lack of specific constitutional prohibition, double taxation year from the effectivity of this Act, a universal charge to be
will not be allowed if the same will result in a violation of the determined, xed and approved by the ERC, shall be imposed on all
equal protection clause.) electricity end-users for the following purposes: X X X
The said universal charge shall be a non-bypassable
TAX EXEMPTION: charge which shall be passed on and collected from all end-users
Requisite: No law granting any tax exemption shall be on a monthly basis by the distribution.
passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members
of Congress [Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI, Constitution]. ISSUE:
1. Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or W/N there is undue delegation of legislative power to tax on the
convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit part of ERC (Elec. Regulatory Comm.)
cemeteries, and all lands, buildings and improvements,
actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, HELD
charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt No. The power to tax is an incident of sovereignty and is unlimited
from taxation. Sec. 28 (31 Art. VI in its range, acknowledging in its very nature no limits, so that
2. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit security against its abuse is to be found only in the responsibility
educational institutions used actually, directly and of the legislature which imposes the tax on the constituency that
exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt is to pay it. It is based on the principle that taxes are the lifeblood
from taxes and duties, x x x Proprietary educational of the government, and their prompt and certain availability is an
institutions, including those co-operatively owned, may imperious need. (without taxes, government cannot fulfill its
likewise be entitled to such exemptions subject to the
mandate of promoting the general welfare and well-being of the
people.) HELD:
On the other hand, police power is the power of the state to NO. In distinguishing tax and regulation as a form of police power,
promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of the determining factor is the purpose of the implemented
liberty and property. As an inherent attribute of sovereignty measure. If the purpose is primarily to raise revenue, then it will
which virtually extends to all public needs, police power grants a be deemed a tax even though the measure results in some form
wide panoply of instruments through which the State, as parens of regulation. On the other hand, if the purpose is primarily to
patriae gives effect to a host of its regulatory powers. regulate, then it is deemed a regulation and an exercise of the
police power of the state, even though incidentally, revenue is
The conservative and pivotal distinction between these two generated.
powers rests in the purpose for which the charge is made. If
generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is
merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the
primary purpose, the fact that revenue is incidentally raised
does not make the imposition a tax (The assailed provision is said
to be regulatory in nature and From the aforementioned
purposes, it can be gleaned that the assailed Universal Charge is
not a tax, but an exaction in the exercise of the State's police Bill of Rights
power. Public welfare is surely promoted.) Definition
- The set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental
Chevron V. Bases Conversion Development Authority civil and political rights of the individual, and imposing
FACTS: limitations on the powers of government as a means of
On June 28 2002, the Board of Directors of respondent Clark securing the enjoyment of those rights
Development Corporation (CDC) issued and approved Policy - Is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality
Guidelines on the Movement of Petroleum Fuel to and from the and security “against the assaults of opportunism, the
Clark Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) which provided, among expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
others, for the following fees and charges: encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those
Accreditation Fee who have no patience with general principles
Annual Inspection Fee - Generally, any governmental action in violation of the
Royalty Fees Suppliers delivering fuel from outside sources shall Bill of Rights is void. These provisions are also generally
be assessed the following royalty fees: self-executing
- Php0.50 per liter hp0.50 per liter — those delivering
Coastal petroleum fuel to CSEZ locators not sanctioned by CDC – CIVIL RIGHTS
Php1.00 per liter — those bringing-in petroleum fuel - Those rights that belong to every citizen of the state or
(except Jet A-1) from outside sources country, or, in a wider sense, to all its inhabitants, and
Gate Pass Fee are not connected with the organization or
administration of government. They include the rights
Herein petitioner Chevron Philippines, Inc. (who has been to property, marriage, equal protection of the laws,
supplying fuel to Nanox, a locator inside CSEZ since 2001) , freedom of contract, etc.. They are rights appertaining
claiming that nothing in the law authorizes CDC to impose royalty to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
fees or any fees based on a per unit measurement of any community. Such term may also refer, in its general
commodity sold within the special economic zone, petitioner sent sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed
a letter dated October 30, 2002 to the President and Chief in a civil action. '
Executive Ocer of CDC, Mr. Emmanuel Y. Angeles, to protest the POLITICAL RIGHTS
assessment for royalty fees. Petitioner nevertheless paid the said They refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
fees under protest on November 4, 2002. (Such imposition of establishment or administration of government, e.g., the right of
royalty fees for revenue generating purposes would amount to a suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right to petition and,
tax, which the respondents have no power to impose. Petitioner in general the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the
stresses that the royalty fee imposed by CDC is not regulatory in management of government (Simon vs. Commission on Human
nature but a revenue generating measure to increase its profits Rights, G.R. No. 100150, January 5, 1994)
and to further enhance its exclusive right to market and
Simon vs. Commission on Human Rights
distribute fuel in CSEZ)
FACTS:
Petitioner protested to BCAD (bases of conversion dev. Authority) The case all started when a "Demolition Notice," dated 9 July
about the royalty fees however Chev.Phil got denied. Petitioner 1990, signed by Carlos Quimpo (one of the petitioners) in his
appealed to President’s office but got denied for lack of merit; and capacity as an Executive Officer of the Quezon City Integrated
so does CA because The fact that revenue is incidentally also Hawkers Management Council under the Office of the City Mayor,
obtained does not make the imposition a tax as long as the was sent to, and received by, the private respondents. In said
primary purpose of such imposition is regulation. notice, the respondents were given a grace-period of three (3)
days (up to 12 July 1990) within which to vacate the questioned
ISSUE: premises of North EDSA. 1 Prior to their receipt of the demolition
W/N the said royalty fee is an imposition of tax notice, the private respondents were informed by petitioner
Quimpo that their stalls should be removed to give way to the
"People's Park". CHR, made an ocular inspection on the said as their property is concerned (Smith Bell and Co. vs.
Demolition that the petitioners carried out on the Respondent’s Natividad,)
Sari2 stores, stalls and shanties; and ordered the petitioner to
disburse the respondents not more 200k and desist the Smith Bell and Co. vs. Natividad
demolition. Petitioner made a motion to dismiss and was denied FACTS:
and hence the petition. Smith, Bell & Co. was a corporation in Philippine Islands in the
1900s. Majority of its stockholders were British subjects. It owned
ISSUE: a motor vessel known as Bato which was built for it in the
W/N CHR erred in its decision THAT THE SAID DEMOLITION IS IN Philippine Islands in 1916 with more than fifteen tons gross. The
VIOLATION OF human rights involving civil and political rights Bato was brought to Cebu to transport Smith, Bell & Company's
merchandise between ports in the Islands. It applied for a
HELD: certificate of Philippine Registry in Cebu, the home port of the
YES. The CHR theorizes that the intention of the members of the vessel, and filed it before the Collector of Customs. The Collector
Constitutional Commission is to make CHR a quasi-judicial body. refused to issue the certificate, giving as his reason that all the
This view, however, has not heretofore been shared by this Court. stockholders of Smith, Bell & Co. Ltd. were not citizens either of
It can hardly be disputed that the phrase "human rights" is so the United States or of the Philippine Islands.
generic a term that any attempt to define it.
Smith, Bell & Co. aggrieved of the action of the Collector of
Section 18, Article XIII, of the 1987 Constitution, is a provision Customs, it then filed a writ of mandamus against Joaquin
empowering the Commission on Human Rights to "investigate, on Natividad, the Collector of Customs of the Port of Cebu, to compel
its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights him to issue a certificate of Philippine Registry to their motor
violations involving civil and political rights vessel, BATO. Smith, Bell & Co. invoked the provisions of the Jones
civil rights, Law (Philippine Autonomy of 1916) saying:
- (t)o those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the That no law shall be enacted in said Islands which shall deprive
state or country, or, in wider sense, to all its any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
inhabitants, and are not connected with the or deny to any person therein the equal protection of the laws
organization or administration of the government. (however the said Jones law has been amended in Act 2761 and is
They include the rights of property, marriage, equal specified in Section 1172 for acquiring Cert. Phil. Register:
protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as - SEC. 1172. Certificate of Philippine register. — Upon
otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to registration of a vessel of domestic ownership, and of
a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or more than fifteen tons gross, a certificate of Philippine
community. Such term may also refer, in its general register shall be issued for it. If the vessel is of
sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed domestic ownership and of fifteen tons gross or less,
in a civil action. the taking of the certificate of Philippine register shall
Political rights be optional with the owner.)
- said to refer to the right to participate, directly or
indirectly, in the establishment or administration of ISSUES:
government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold whether the Government of the Philippine Islands, through its
public office, the right of petition and, in general, the Legislature, can deny the registry of vessel in its coastwise trade
rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the to corporations having alien stockholders.
management of government.
(In the particular case at hand, there is no cavil that what are HELD:
sought to be demolished are the stalls, sari-sari stores and To justify that portion of Act no. 2761 which permits corporations
carinderia, as well as temporary shanties, erected by private or companies to obtain a certificate of Philippine registry only on
respondents on a land which is planned to be developed into a condition that they be composed wholly of citizens of the
"People's Park". More than that, the land adjoins the North EDSA Philippine Islands or of the United States or both, as not infringing
of Quezon City which, this Court can take judicial notice of, is a Philippine Organic Law, it must be done under some one of the
busy national highway.) exceptions here mentioned This must be done, moreover, having
(The "order to desist" (a semantic interplay for a restraining particularly in mind what is so often of controlling effect in this
order) in the instance before us, however, is not investigatorial in jurisdiction — our local experience and our peculiar local
character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does conditions. The Government has thus assumed to act for the all-
not possess). Thereby the petition of prohibition from further sufficient and primitive reason of the benefit and protection of
proceeding CHR Case No. 90-1580 and from implementing the its own citizens and of the self-preservation and integrity of its
P500.00 fine for contempt. dominion.

Due Process of Law. Sec. 1. Art. Ill: Villegas V. Hiu Chiong


“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without FACTS: This case involves an ordinance prohibiting aliens from
due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal being employed or engage or participate in any position or
protection of the laws. “.] occupation or business enumerated therein, whether permanent,
temporary or casual, without first securing an employment permit
Who are Protected? from the Mayor of Manila and paying the permit fee of P50.00.
Private respondent Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho who was employed in
- Universal in application to all persons, without regard Manila, filed a petition to stop the enforcement of such ordinance
to any difference in race, color or nationality. Artificial as well as to declare the same null and void. Trial court rendered
persons are covered by the protection but only insofar judgment in favor of the petitioner, hence this case.
ISSUE: WON said Ordinance violates due process of law and equal
protection rule of the Constitution. The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers
of the PBMEO were found guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their
HELD: Yes. The Ordinance The ordinance in question violates the motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the Court
due process of law and equal protection rule of the Constitution. of Industrial Relations for being filed two days late. 
Requiring a person before he can be employed to get a permit ISSUE:
from the City Mayor who may withhold or refuse it at his will is
W/N the workers who joined the strike violated the Collective
tantamount to denying him the basic right of the people in the
Bargaining agreement
Philippines to engage in a means of livelihood. While it is true that
the Philippines as a State is not obliged to admit aliens within its
territory, once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life HELD:
without due process of law. This guarantee includes the means of No. While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the
livelihood. The shelter of protection under the due process and primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized.
equal protection clause is given to all persons, both aliens and Because these freedoms are "delicate and vulnerable, as well as
citizens. supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of sanctions
may deter their exercise almost as potently as the
actual application of sanctions," they "need breathing space to
survive," permitting government regulation only "with narrow
specificity." Property and property rights can be lost thru
Meaning of life, liberty or property
prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. In the
a) Life includes the right of an individual to his body in its
completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends to the use hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights to freedom of expression and
of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable [Justice Malcolm, of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to
Philippine Constitutional Law, pp. 320321]. See: Buck v. Bell, 274 the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions;
U.S. 200. and such priority "gives these liberties the sanctity and the
b) Liberty includes “the right to exist and the right to be free from sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.
arbitrary personal restraint or servitude, x x x (It) includes the
right of the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful
x x x” [Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660], assembly and of petition for redress of grievances are absolute
c) Property is anything that can come under the right of when directed against public officials or "when exercised in
ownership and be the subject of contract. It represents more than relation to our right to choose the men and women by whom we
the things a person owns; it includes the right to secure, use and shall be governed.”
dispose of them [Torraco v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197]. i)
Constantino Nunez V. Averia
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization vs. Philippine
Blooming Mills Co., FACTS:
FACTS: Petitioner is the protestant in Election Case No. TM-470 of
Philippine Blooming Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to respondent court contesting the November 8, 1971 election
stage a mass demonstration in front of Malacañang to express results in certain precincts for the mayoralty of Tarnate, Cavite on
their grievances against the alleged abuses of the Pasig Police. the ground of fraud, irregularities and corrupt practices. Original
protestee was the proclaimed mayor-elect Edgardo Morales, who
After learning about the planned mass demonstration, Philippine was ambushed and killed on February 15, 1974 in a barrio of
Blooming Mills Inc., called for a meeting with the leaders of the Tarnate2 and hence was succeeded by then vice-mayor Rodolfo de
PBMEO. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was Leon who as the incumbent mayor is now substituted in this
confirmed by the union. But it was stressed out that the action as party respondent.
demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in
fact an exercise of the laborers' inalienable constitutional right to Respondent court had in its questioned order of January 31, 1974
freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom for granted protestee's motion for dismissal of the election protest
petition for redress of grievances.  on the ground "that this court has lost its jurisdiction to decide
this case for the reason that the same has become moot and
The company asked them to cancel the demonstration for it academic," citing the President's authority under General Order
would interrupt the normal course of their business which may No. 3 and Article XVII, section 9 of the 1973 Constitution to
result in the loss of revenue. This was backed up with the threat remove from office all incumbent government officials and
of the possibility that the workers would lose their jobs if they employees, whether elective or appointive.
pushed through with the rally. 
ISSUE:
A second meeting took place where the company reiterated their Whether or not the election protest against the respondents be
appeal that while the workers may be allowed to participate, dismissed
those from the 1st and regular shifts should not absent
themselves to participate, otherwise, they would be dismissed. HELD:
Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took place and The Court sets aside respondent court’s questioned order of
the officers of the PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a dismissal of the pending electoral protest before its authority of
its recent decision (Paredes, Sung, Valley), ruling that Courts of
violation of the ‘No Strike and No Lockout’ clause of
First Instance “should continue and exercise their jurisdiction to
their Collective Bargaining Agreement. 
hear, try and decide election protest”
meeting, but unfortunately, inspire of the time allowed for the
The courts in its unanimous decision en banc in the above-cited counsel for the petitioner mayor to appear as requested by him,
cases has already been declared such dismissal as “clear error”, he failed to appeal.
ruling that “It must be emphasized that the “right” of the private
respondents to continue in office indefinitely arose not only from In Azul vs. Castro, this Court said:
the New Constitution but principally from their having been
proclaimed elected to their respective positions as a result of the
From the earliest inception of instutional government
1971 elections”
in our country, the concepts of notice and hearing
Crespo V. Provincial Board have been fundamental. A fair and enlightened system
FACTS: of justice would be impossible without the right to
notice and to be board. The emphasis on substantive
due process and other recent ramifications of the due
On 15 February 1971, without notifying petitioner or his counsel, process clause sometimes leads bench and bar to
public respondent Provincial Board conducted a hearing of the overlook or forget that due process was initially
aforecited administrative case. During the hearing, private concerned with fair procedure. Every law student early
respondent Pedro T. Wycoco was allowed to present evidence, learns in law school definition submitted by counsel
testimonial and documentary, ex parte, and on the basis of the Mr. Webster in Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
evidence presented, the respondent Provincial Board passed Woodward (4 Wheat. 518) that due process is the
Resolution No. 51 preventively suspending petitioner from his equivalent of law of the land which means "The
office as municipal mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. 3 general law; a law which hears before it condemns,
which proceeding upon inquiry and renders judgment
In this petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with only after trial ... that every citizen shall hold his life,
prayer for preliminary injunction, petitioner seeks to annul and liberty, property, and immunities under the protection
set aside Resolution No. 51 of public respondent Provincial Board, of the general rules which govern society.
preventively suspending him from office and to enjoin public A sporting opportunity to be heard and the rendition
respondent from enforcing and/or implementing the order of of judgment only after a lawful hearing by a coldly
preventive suspension and from proceeding further with the neutral and impartial judge are essential elements of
administrative case. procedural due process

According to petitioner, the order of preventive suspension The petition, however, has become moot and academic. Records
embodied in Resolution No. 51 issued by the Provincial Board is do not show that in the last local elections held on 18 January
arbitrary, high-handed, atrocious, shocking and grossly violative of 1988, petitioner was elected to any public office. Petitio is
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185 which requires a hearing and dismissed
investigation of the truth or falsity of charges before preventive
suspension is allowed. In issuing the order of preventive Republic vs. Rosemore Mining and Development Corporation
suspension, the respondent Provincial Board, petitioner added FACTS:
that it has grossly violated the fundamental and elementary The four (4) petitioners, namely, Dr. Lourdes S. Pascual, Dr. Pedro
principles of due process. De la Concha, Alejandro De La Concha, and Rufo De Guzman, after
having been granted permission to prospect for marble deposits
ISSUE: in the mountains of Biak-na-Bato, San Miguel, Bulacan, succeeded
W/N Petitioner was denied due process in discovering marble deposits of high quality and in commercial
quantities in Mount Mabio which forms part of the Biak-na-Bato
HELD: mountain range.
Yes Petitioner was denied due process. Court ruled in a decision
in Callanta V. Carnation Phils., Inc. that “It is a principle in Having succeeded in discovering said marble deposits, and as a
American jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well-recognized in result of their tedious efforts and substantial expenses, the
this jurisdiction that one's employment, profession, trade or petitioners applied with the Bureau of Mines, now Mines and
calling is a "property right," and the wrongful interference Geosciences Bureau, for the issuance of the corresponding license
therewith is an actionable wrong. The right is considered to be to exploit said marble deposits.
property within the protection of a constitutional guaranty of due
process of law.” After compliance with numerous required conditions, License No.
33 was issued by the Bureau of Mines in favor of the herein
Undoubtedly, the order of preventive suspension was issued petitioners.
without giving the petitioner a chance to be heard. To controvert
the claim of petitioner that he was not fully notified of the Shortly after Respondent Ernesto R. Maceda was appointed
scheduled hearing, respondent Provincial Board, in its Minister of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources
Memorandum, contends that "Atty. Bernardo M. Abesamis, (DENR), petitioners License No. 33 was cancelled by him through
counsel for the petitioner mayor made known by a request in his letter to ROSEMOOR MINING AND DEVELOPMENT
writing, sent to the Secretary of the Provincial Board his desire to CORPORATION dated September 6, 1986 for the reasons stated
be given opportunity to argue the explanation of the said therein. Because of the aforesaid cancellation, the original
petitioner mayor at the usual time of the respondent Board's
petition was filed and later substituted by the petitioners provided by Ord. No. 36, he has acquired a right which cannot be
AMENDED PETITION dated August 21, 1991 to assail the same. taken away from him, which was subsequently approved.

RTC confirmed the cancellation and Proc. No. 84 as Ex post facto ISSUE:
law and violated Sec. 3 of Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. W/N the cockpit license falls under property rights.
However Petitioners now Respondents raised it to CA
HELD:
CA ruled that herein respondents was authorized by law, wherein No. The court held that 1) a license authorizing to operate and
it is covered in PD No. 463 under its limitation that it would not go exploit a cockpit is not a property right which the holder may not
beyond 100 Hectares (Respondent has 4 applications of 81 be deprived w/o due process of the law, but a mere privilege
hectares) and is supplanted by RA 7942 which increased mining which may be revoked when the public interest so require; 2) the
area allowed in PD 463. It is also ruled that the cancellation of the work entrusted by a municipal council to a sanitary committee to
said license without due notice and hearing tantamount to a make a study of sanitary effects upon the neigbourhood of the
deprivation of property without due process of law. establishment of the cockpit, is not legislative in character, but
only informational, and may be delegated; 3) and that ordinance,
HELD: approved by the municipal council duly constituted, w/c suspends
The court found merit in the petition. PD 463 pertained to the old the effect of another w/c had been enacted to favor the grantee
system of exploration, development and utilization of Natural of a cockpit license, is valid and legal.
resources licenses, concessions or leases. While these
arrangements were provided in the previous Constitution, it has Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal
been omitted by the new one, shifting the constitutional policy Chavez vs. Romulo
towards “Full control and supervision of the state” over the
natural resources. RA 9742 or the Phil. Mining Act of 1995 Aspects of due Process
embodies a new constitutional mandate, repealing all previous 1. Substantive due process
laws that are inconsistent of its provisions. a. This serves as a restriction on
government's law- and rule- making
Moreover, the lower courts ruling is evidently inconsistent with powers. The requisites are:
the fact that QLP No. 33 was issued solely in the name of i. The interests of the public, in
Rosemoor Mining and Development Corporation, rather than in general, as distinguished from
the names of the four individual stockholders who are those of a particular class,
respondents herein. It likewise brushes aside a basic postulate require the intervention of the
that a corporation has a separate personality from that of its State
stockholders. ii. The means employed are
reasonably necessary for the
In line with the foregoing jurisprudence, respondents license may accomplishment of the purpose,
be revoked or rescinded by executive action when the national and not unduly oppressive on
interest so requires, because it is not a contract, property or a individuals.
property right protected by the due process clause of the 2. Procedural due process
Constitution. a. This serves as a restriction on actions of
judicial and quasi- judicial agencies of
Jura regalia- Reserves to the state ownership of all natural government. The requisites are
resources (also known as Regalian doctrine) i. An impartial court or tribunal
clothed with judicial power to
Pedro vs. Provincial Board of Rizal hear and determine the matter
FACTS: before it
Gregorio pedro argues for the nullity of Ord. No. 36 series of ii. Jurisdiction must be lawfully
1928, approved on Dec. 29 1928, by the temp. councilors acquired over the person of the
appointed by the provincial government of Rizal, Elgio Naval, on defendant and over the property
the ground that it impairs the acquired rights of the appellant; it which is the subject matter of
was enacted on account of prejudice, because it was intended for the proceeding.
a special and not a general purpose, namely to prevent, at any iii. Jurisdiction must be given an
cost, the opening, maintenance, and exploitation of cockpit of the opportunity to be heard. Due
said petitioner-appellant; and it provides for special committee process is satisfied as long as the
composed persons who are not members of the council, vested party is accorded the
them with powers which their very nature, cannot be delegated opportunity to be heard. If it is
by said council to that committee. not availed of, it is deemed
waived or forfeited without
He further contends that, having obtained the proper permit to violating the constitutional
maintain, exploit and open to the public the cockpit in question, guarantee [Bautista v. Court of
having paid the license fee and fulfilled all the requirements Appeals]
US vs. Toribio White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila
Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro FACTS:
Agcaoili vs. Felipe In 1992, Mayor Alfredo S. Lim signed into law the Ordinance No.
BANAT vs. Comelec 7744 that prohibits  hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, pension
houses and similar establishments from offering short-time
People V. Siton admission, as well as pro-rated or “wash up” rates or other
FACTS: similarly concocted terms, in the City of Manila.
Evangeline Siton, Sacil &Krystel Sagarano & Mefania were charge
with vagrancy pursuant to ART. 202 (which defines a vagrant and The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not eliminate
prostitutes). Instead of sending their counter-affidavits the the use of the covered establishments for illicit sex, prostitution,
respondents filed separately fo a motion to quash assailing that drug use and alike.
Article 202 ( subd. 2 Any person found loitering about public or
semi-public buildings or places or tramping or wandering about Petitioners White Light Corporation (WLC) et. al. filed a petition
the country or the streets without visible means of support;) is on the ground that the Ordinance directly affects their business
UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it is vague thus the vagueness interests as operators of drive-in-hotels and motels in Manila.
doctrine should apply (Vagueness doctrine does not apply to the
validity of the statute but only to free speeches) RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner.

MTC however dismissed their motion on the grounds that the law CA reversed the decision and asserted that the Ordinance is a
is hemmed in line with the State’s police power to regulate valid exercise of police power.
property and liberty.
ISSUE:
RTC however reversed the decision of the MTC and hereby W/N the Ordinance is Constitutional
granted the petition of the respondents stating that the
vagueness doctrine equally applies to testing the validity of penal
statutes
HELD:
ISSUE: NO.The ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon
W/N RTC erred in reversing the ruling about Art. 202 individual liberty. It also violates the due process clause which
serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or
HELD: seizure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not
The RTC erred. Court ruled that the power to define crimes and all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really
prescribe their corresponding penalties is legislative in nature and there for obscene purposes only. Some are tourists who needed
rest or to “wash up” or to freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought
inherent in the sovereign power of the state to maintain social
to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less subjected only
order as an aspect of police power.
to a limited group of people. The SC reiterates that individual
However, in exercising its power to declare what acts constitute a rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly
crime, the legislature must inform the citizen with reasonable be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public
precision what acts it intends to prohibit so that he may have a welfare.
certain understandable rule of conduct and know what acts it is
his duty to avoid.15 This requirement has come to be known as the Hence, Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals
void-for-vagueness doctrine which states that "a statute which is REVERSED
either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential
of due process of law."

Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause;
neither does it discriminate against the poor and the unemployed.
Offenders of public order laws are punished not for their status,
as for being poor or unemployed, but for conducting themselves
under such circumstances as to endanger the public peace or
cause alarm and apprehension in the community. Being poor or
unemployed is not a license or a justification to act indecently or
to engage in immoral conduct.

It should be presumed valid and constitutional (Art. 202). It is


elementary that the court must approach it with grave care and
considerable caution bearing in mind that every statute is
presumed valid and every reasonable doubt must be resolved in
favor of its constitutionality. To doubt is to sustain

Potrebbero piacerti anche