Constitutional Law II

PPI vs COMELEC If the necessity for the taking is not shown, then the same cannot be allowed Filstream International vs Ca Expropriation of private lands for socialized housing purposes must be the last resort and can only be resorted to when other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. City of Mandaluyong vs Francisco

Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health, safety, the environment and in sum, the general welfare. The public character of housing measures does not change because units in housing projects cannot be occupied by all but only by those who satisfy prescribed qualifications Province of Camarines Sur vs CA The law that delegated the power of eminent domain to the local government did not require the prior approval of the DAR. Neither did the CARL require LGUs to first seek DAR approval before they expropriate

Even if the private land has been identified as Manosca vs Court of Appeals priority areas for urban land reform, still the law requires that all other modes of acquisition must have To recognize the distinctive contribution of been resorted to before expropriation can be exercised. Felix Manalo to Philippine culture qualifies as public use that can justify the taking of private property Lagcao vs Judge Labra Estate of Jimenez vs PEZA the fact that petitioners small property was singled out for expropriation for the purpose of The leasing of the expropriated land to private awarding it to no more than a few squatters indicated enterprises does not diminish the public use if the manifest partiality against petitioners, and operation of these private enterprises will make banking and transportation facilities accessible to the ordinance failed to show that there was a people working in the export processing zones. reasonable relation between the end sought and the means adopted. While the objective of the NHA vs Heirs of Guivelondo City of Cebu was to provide adequate housing It is arbitrary and capricious for a government to slum dwellers, the means it employed in agency to initiate expropriation proceedings, seize a pursuit of such objective fell short of what was persons property, allow the judgment of the court to legal, sensible and called for by the become final and executory and then refuse to pay on circumstances. the ground that there are no appropriations for the JIL vs Mun. Of Pasig property earlier taken and profitably used When the condemnor failed to prove that the public road to be built is best in the land to be condemned and not elsewhere, expropriation is not proper. Heirs of Juancho Ardona vs Reyes Public use is no longer restricted to uses that the public will actually enjoy. Instead, whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. Thus, development of a tourist area is considered public use. Sumulong vs Guerrero NPC & Pobre vs CA In expropriation cases, there is no such thing as the plaintiff's matter of right to dismiss the complaint precisely because the landowner may have already suffered damages at the start of the taking. ATO vs Gapuco When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned or the land may be devoted to a different

use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner

EPZA vs Dulay

A law cannot dictate the amount of just Republic vs Lim compensation to be determined by a judge. It may only provide a guideline but the determination of the just When the Republic has refused to pay the just compensation is a judicial prerogative that may not be compensation for 57 years, reversion to the owner is in encroached upon order. NAPOCOR vs Tiagnco Mun. Of Meycauayan vs Lim As a general rule, just compensation must be When the Municipality failed to prove genuine determined at the time of the filing of the complaint. necessity, as when the evidence shows that there are four other possible access roads, the expropriation Ansaldo vs Tantuico must not be upheld. When the taking of the property was done more De Knecht vs Bautista than 40 years before the suit was instituted, the, just compensation must be determined at the time of When the condmenor fails to justify the change taking. in the original road plan, or the choice of property to be expropriated, the same cannot obtain judicial City of Cebu vs Sps. Dedamo approval. although the general rule in determining just Republic vs De Knecht compensation in eminent domain is the value of the property as of the date of the filing of the complaint, A change in the factual situation and the the rule admits of an exception: where this Court fixed expression of the legislative will justifies the the value of the property as of the date it was taken and continuation of the expropriation proceedings not at the date of the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Dela Paz Masikip vs Pasig Assoc. Of Small Landowners vs DAR A sports development facility for a particular homeowners association does not create a genuine Payment of just compensation is not always necessity specially since a similar facility available to required to be in full, particularly in a revolutionary the public is nearby. case of agrarian reform. However, title shall not pass until full payment is made. Eslaban vs De Onorio DAR vs CA Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law expropriator. In this case, this simply means the requires the deposit of cash or Land Bank bonds and propertys fair market value at the time of the filing the DAR cannot merely earmark, reserve or of the complaint, or "that sum of money which a deposit in trust the compensation due the landowner. person desirous but not compelled to buy, and an owner willing but not compelled to sell, would Meralco vs Pineda agree on as a price to be given and received In an expropriation case such as this one where therefor." It also requires prompt payment. the principal issue is the determination of just RP vs IAC compensation, a trial before the Commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to present evidence The appraisal made at the time of the taking is on the issue of just compensation. Contrary to the the best indication of the just compensation for the submission of private respondents, the appointment of taking. at least three (3) competent persons as commissioners

to ascertain just compensation for the property sought to be taken is a mandatory requirement in expropriation cases. NPC vs Henson

A law that allows the National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority (NAWASA) to take over a Citys waterworks system without providing for just compensation is unconstitutional.

Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga The court must conduct a hearing on the commissioners report in order to give the parties the Patrimonial property of a province cannot be chance to contest the findings, and/or adduce evidence. taken by the state without just compensation. Thus, the properties of the province given to the city must be NAPOCOR vs Sps Dela Cruz paid for by the city in the amount and manner defined under the law. In addition to the ocular inspection performed by the two (2) appointed commissioners in this case, NIA vs Rural Bank of Kabakan, et.al, GR No. they are also required to conduct a hearing or hearings 185124 (Jan. 25, 2012) to determine just compensation; and to provide the parties the following: (1) notice of the said hearings The National Irrigation Authority expropriated and the opportunity to attend them; (2) the opportunity land for the building of irrigation canals to introduce evidence in their favor during the said Upon entry, NIA excavated the soil, and hearings; and (3) the opportunity for the parties to apparently used the soil it dug too argue their respective causes during the said hearings Leca Realty vs Republic Paid advertisements are not sufficient to determine the just compensation required. NPC vs Angas The interest due on the just compensation is 6%. The Central Bank Circular on the rate of interest for forbearance of money does not apply to expropriation cases. Wycoco vs Judge Caspillo In some cases, the court may authorize the imposition of a 12% interest, but this is in the nature of damages for delay in payment which in effect makes the obligation on the part of the government one of forbearance. It follows that the interest in the form of damages cannot be applied where there was prompt and valid payment of just compensation City of Manila vs Serrano The issuance of a writ of possession is not yet condemnation. Further proceedings will still be held to determine whether or not the property should be condemned. City of Baguio vs NAWASA The trial court awarded compensation for the land, the improvements and the excavated soil Was the trial court correct in ordering the payment of the value of the soil excavated? No, the fact the NIA will use the soil is of no moment. The land expropriated is not limited to the surface area

Spouses Yusay v CA GR No. 156684 The Sangguniang Panglungsod of Mandaluyong passed a resolution authorizing the Mayor to initiate expropriation proceedings against the land of Sps. Yusay Sps. Yusay filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to stop the expropriation Was the resolution enough to iniitiate expropriation proceedings? No, the authority ot the chief executive to initiate expropriation must be by virtue of an ordinance authorizing him to do so. A Resolution is not an Ordinance Requisites before an LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:

Injunction issued by another An ordinance is enacted by the the local court legislative council authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to exercise the Collector of Customs has exclusive jurisdiction power of eminent domain or pursue over seizure proceedings so that the governments expropriation proceedings over a particular drive to collect taxes due will not be hampered. private property. Besides, there was no conflict of jurisdiction 2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use, purpose or welfare, or YMCA vs CIR for the benefit of the poor and the landless. The City of Manila taxed the

3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under Section 9 Article III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws. 4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not accepted.

land and building of YMCA It paid under protest

the Young Men's Christian Association is exempt from taxation on the ground that it is a combination of religious, charitable, and educational institutions and not founded and conducted for profit Abra Valley College vs Aquino School director and his family are housed in the second floor of the building First floor leased to a commercial enterprise

CIR vs Algue 75,000 as promotional fees was declared as business expenses Disallowed by the CIR, allowed by the CTA Taxes are what citizens pay for a civilized society. In turn, it creates an obligation on the part of the government to provide tangible and intangible benefits that will improve the lives of the people. This symbiotic relationship is the rationale of taxation and should dispel the erroneous notion that it is an arbitrary method of exaction by those in the seat of power. Commissioner vs Makasiar (Johnny Walker) Whisky, bottles, caps etc were seized pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge in connection with a criminal case Customs commissioner subsequently learned that these were imported and ordered its seizure Private complainant objected to continuation of seizure proceedings as it would allegedly hamper the criminal proceedings

When the first floor of a school building is leased to a commercial enterprise, that portion is no longer used for educational purposes and hence, must be taxed. American Bible Society vs City of Manila The selling of bibles, and other religious pamphlets cannot be taxed as it would impair the free exercise of religion. Punzalan vs Municipal Board of Manila Under the NIRC, professionals are already taxed Municipal Board of Manila imposed occupation taxes on professionals practicing in the municipality

There is no double taxation when the same kind of licence fee or tax is imposed by the state and a political subdivision thereof Physical Therapy Org vs Municipal Board

The Municipal Board of Makati passed an ordinance regulating massage clinics in the Municipality Massage clinic owners questioned the imposition of permit fee in the amount of P100 claiming it to be unreasonable and unconscionable

Manila passed an ordinance requiring aliens to secure an employment permit, regardless of the nature of employment Said ordinance also required the payment of a permit fee

The amount of the fee or charge is properly considered in determining whether it is a tax or an exercise of the police power. The amount may be so large as to itself show that the purpose was to raise revenue and not to regulate, but in regard to this matter there is a marked distinction between license fees imposed upon useful and beneficial occupations which the sovereign wishes to regulate but not restrict, and those which are inimical and dangerous to public health, morals or safety. In the latter case the fee may be very large without necessarily being a tax. Article III, Section 1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Article III, Sec 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Hurtado vs California Charged with murder, accused questioned the constitution of California that allowed the prosecutions for felonies by information and without indictment by a grand jury

An ordinance that does not classify properly in imposing a tax measure violates the equal protection clause. an ordinance that gives the Mayor unlimited discretion to grant or deny a permit is likewise violative of the due process clause Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro Liberty exercised by those who do not understand it is not liberty. Thus, a law that restricts the movement of Mangyans so that they may be educated and civilized is consistent with due process for how can they claim to have been deprived of liberty without due process when they do not understand what it is? Ople vs Torres The executive cannot pass a law in the guise of an administrative order. More importantly, a law that is over broad and vague must be struck down on its face when it threatens the peoples right to privacy. Estrada vs Sandiganbayan Void for vagueness doctrines: statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects - it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. Such is not the case however, in the case of the law on plunder. The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in

Due process is essential to protect the rights and liberties of the people against the encroachments of power delegated to their governments. They are limitations upon all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial. Different procedures may be adopted as long as it preserved the fundamental principles of liberty and justice. Villegas vs Hu Chong Tsai Pao Ho

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."

David vs Arroyo

A facial challenge cannot be sustained against a law that "reflects legitimate state interest in maintaining comprehensive control over harmful, The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand decrees constitutionally unprotected conduct." Undoubtedly, that "a governmental purpose may not be achieved by lawless violence, insurrection and rebellion are means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby considered "harmful" and "constitutionally unprotected invade the area of protected freedoms." conduct A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe speech and no readily apparent construction suggests itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no requirement that the person making the attack demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity." The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the protected speech of others may be deferred and perceived grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of overly broad statutes. General rule: "one to whom application of a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it might also be taken as applying to other persons or other situations in which its application might be unconstitutional On the other hand, "on its face" invalidation of statutes results in striking them down entirely on the ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are constitutionally protected. It constitutes a departure from the case and controversy requirement of the Constitution and permits decisions to be made without concrete factual settings and in sterile abstract contexts Ong vs Sandiganbayan A case was filed by Boni Gallego vs Ong, alleging the latter accumulated ill gotten wealth Forfeiture proceedings were later initiated

The law on forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth is not vague as it defines with particularity unlawfully acquired property as that which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property Tanada vs Tuvera Publication of laws prior to its effectivity is an essential element of due process because people are presumed to know the law. PITC vs Angeles An Administrative Order that seeks to enforce and implement and existing law must be published in full. Without such publication, it cannot be deemed to have taken effect. Republic vs Extelcom When the rules of procedure have not been published, it cannot, until published, govern the rules of procedure. Tanada vs PAEC The Philippine Atomic Energy Commission who have publicly endorsed the Philippine Nuclear Power Plants safety cannot hear and decide on the safety of the said plant. Having previously endorsed the safety of the said plant, it no longer is an impartial judge.

Anzaldo vs Clave Due process of law means fundamental fairness. When Presidential Executive Assistant Clave reviewed the decision of Civil Service Commissioner Clave and denied Anzaldos appeal, the latter was deprived of due process of law. Tejano vs Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, as Special Prosecutor reviewed the case and took the position that it should be filed Later, on Motion for Reconsideration, as Ombudsman, he reviewed the same case and disapproved the recommendation to dismiss

Sheppard vs Maxwell The murder case was much publicised Newsmen were allowed in the courtroom, and the accused and counsel could not even have a private conversation Media came out with stories, even those not produced during trial Possible jurors names were published Jurors were not isolated

Where the circumstances do not inspire confidence in the objectivity and impartiality of the judge, such judge should inhibit voluntarily or if he refuses, he should be prohibited from handling the case. A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial as an assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. His actuation must inspire that belief. This is an instance when appearance is as important as reality Tumey vs Ohio A judgment rendered by a Mayor, acting as a judge, in a case where he may potentially have a pecuniary gain, for himself and for his town, is void for want fo due process. People vs Court of Appeals A judge who has previously enjoined the preliminary investigation of a crime cannot be deemed to be impartial to hear and decide the very criminal case he sought to enjoin. Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan The "cold neutrality of an impartial judge" requirement of due process was certainly denied Tabuena and Peralta when the court, with its overzealousness, assumed the dual role of magistrate and advocate

The massive, pervasive and prejudicial publicity attending the accuseds prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial

Webb vs De Leon To be able to claim that prejudicial publicity has deprived an accused of due process, one must prove that the judge has been influenced by such publicity in rendering a decision. Nonetheless, judges must ensure that they remain neutral and that they remain silent and impartial while the case is going on. People vs Sanchez Without clear allegation and proof that the publicity generated by the case has influenced the judge, the judgment cannot be annulled on the ground of prejudicial publicity. Summary Dismissal Board vs Torcita A dismissal board cannot find the accused guilty of an offense that was not charged. Secretary of Justice vs Lantion A person subject of a request for extradition has no right to request copies of the extradition documents during the evaluation phase of the request. People vs Estrada

To try and convict a person who is insane is a When the administrative function of rate fixing violation of due process. The sanity of the person must is quasi-judicial in character, notice and hearing would therefore be determined by the proper medical experts be indispensable to due process. before he is brought to trial. Suntay vs People Lim vs Court of Appeals No hearing is required for the cancellation of a A Mayors power to suspend or cancel a passport. The law allows the Secretary of Foreign license or withhold the issuance of one is premised on Affairs to cancel such passport if in his discretion it a previous violation of the conditions of the permit and would be to for the nations interest. Making the in determining whether one has violated such petitioner face a criminal charge he tried to evade is a conditions, the business establishment has the right to valid reason. a hearing to prove otherwise. De Bischop vs Galang Budiongan vs Dela Cruz No notice or hearing is required to decide on an Petitioners were not deprived of due process aliens petition for extension of stay. It is but an because they were afforded the opportunity to refute administrative procedure, and a preliminary step at the charges by filing their counter-affidavits. The that. modification of the offense charged did not come as a surprise to the petitioners because it was based on the Var Orient Shipping Co. vs Achacoso same set of facts and the same alleged illegal acts. Due process simply means an opportunity to be Moreover, petitioners failed to aver newly discovered heard. Even without a hearing, due process is observed evidence nor impute commission of grave errors or if the parties were given the opportunity to present serious irregularities prejudicial to their interest to their side thru a memorandum. warrant a reconsideration or reinvestigation of the case as required under Section 8, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman Roxas vs Vasquez After being dropped from the charges, the petitioners were no longer parties to the criminal case. Consequently, any re-investigation that sought to review their participation in the alleged crime must allow them to be heard on the re investigation. Marohombsar vs Judge Adiong The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense. In the present case, complainant was able to move for a reconsideration of the order in question, hence her right to due process was not in anyway transgressed. We have ruled that a party cannot claim that he has been denied due process when he has availed of the opportunity to present his position Philcomsat vs Alcuaz