Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5


GR NO. L-63419
FACTS: The petitions arose from cases involving prosecution of offenses under Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22. The defendants in those cases moved seasonably to quash the
informations on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute an offense, the statute being
unconstitutional. The motions were denied by the respondent trial courts. The parties adversely
affected have come to the Supreme Court for relief. For the purpose of resolving the
constitutional issue presented here, the Supreme Court do not find it necessary to delve into the
specifics of the informations involved in the cases which are the subject of the petitions before
Those who question the constitutionality of BP 22 insist that: (1) it offends the
constitutional provision forbidding imprisonment for debt; (2) it impairs freedom of contract; (3) it
contravenes the equal protection clause; (4) it unduly delegates legislative and executive
powers; and (5) its enactment is flawed in that during its passage the Interim Batasan violated
the constitutional provision prohibiting amendments to a bill on Third Reading.
ISSUE: Whether the enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of the police power and is not
repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
RULING: It may be constitutionally impermissible for the legislature to penalize a person for
non-payment of a debt ex contractu But certainly it is within the prerogative of the lawmaking
body to proscribe certain acts deemed pernicious and inimical to public welfare. Acts mala in se
are not the only acts which the law can punish. An act may not be considered by society as
inherently wrong, hence, not malum in se but because of the harm that it inflicts on the
community, it can be outlawed and criminally punished as malum prohibitum. The state can do
this in the exercise of its police power.
MAIN POINT: The police power of the state has been described as "the most essential, insistent
and illimitable of powers" which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety and
welfare of society. It is a power not emanating from or conferred by the constitution, but inherent
in the state, plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely defined, rooted in the conception
that man in organizing the state and imposing upon the government limitations to safeguard
constitutional rights did not intend thereby to enable individual citizens or group of citizens to
obstruct unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures to ensure communal peace,
safety, good order and welfare."


G.R. NO. 202943
FACTS: PMPMI, by virtue of Article 1164 of Republic Act No. (RA) 73945 or the Consumer Act
of the Philippines, applied for a sales promotion permit before the BFAD, for its Gear Up
Promotional Activity (Gear Up Promo). However, PMPMI was verbally informed of the existence
of a Memorandum issued by the DOH purportedly prohibiting tobacco companies from
conducting any tobacco promotional activities in the country.
Eventually, the BFAD denied PMPMIs Gear Up Promo application in accordance with
the instructions of the Undersecretary of Health for Standards and Regulations, directing that
all promotions, advertisements and/or sponsorships of tobacco products are already
prohibited, based on the provisions of RA 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003.
PMPMI filed an administrative appeal before the DOH Secretary, assailing the BFADs
denial of its Gear Up Promo application. In its appeal, PMPMI maintained that under RA 9211,
promotion is not prohibited but merely restricted, and that while there are specific provisions
therein totally banning tobacco advertising and sponsorships, no similar provision could be
found banning promotion.
ISSUE: Whether BFAD has no authority to deny the PMPMIs Gear Up Promo application.
RULING: The declared policy of RA 9211 where promotion is defined includes the institution of
a balanced policy whereby the use, sale and advertisements of tobacco products shall be
regulated in order to promote a healthful environment and protect the citizens from the hazards
of tobacco smoke. Hence, if the (Inter-Agency Committee) IAC-Tobacco was created and
expressly given the exclusive authority to implement the provisions of RA 9211 in accordance
with the foregoing State policy, it signifies that it shall also take charge of the regulation of the
use, sale, distribution, and advertisements of tobacco products, as well as all forms of
promotion which essentially includes sales promotion. Therefore, with this regulatory power
conferred upon the IAC-Tobacco by RA 9211, the DOH and the BFAD have been effectively and
impliedly divested of any authority to act upon applications for tobacco sales promotional permit,
including PMPMIs.


G.R. No. 221318
FACTS: President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law RA 10367 entitled An Act Providing for
Mandatory Biometrics Voter Registration. COMELEC issued several resolutions stating that
(Election Registration Board) ERBs shall deactivate the (voters' registration records) VRRs of
those who failed to submit for validation despite notice on or before October 31, 2015.
Herein petitioners filed the instant petition assailing the constitutionality of the biometrics
validation requirement imposed under RA 10367, as well as the COMELEC resolutions that are
related thereto. They contend that: (a) biometrics validation rises to the level of an additional,
substantial qualification where there is penalty of deactivation; (b) biometrics deactivation is not
the disqualification by law contemplated by the 1987 Constitution; (c) biometrics validation
gravely violates the Constitution, considering that, applying the strict scrutiny test, it is not
poised with a compelling reason for state regulation and hence, an unreasonable deprivation of
the right to suffrage; (d) voters to be deactivated are not afforded due process; and (e) poor
experience with biometrics should serve as warning against exacting adherence to the system.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 10367, as well as COMELEC Resolution Nos. 9721, 9863, and
10013, all related thereto, are unconstitutional.
RULING: The act of registration is an indispensable precondition to the right of suffrage. For
registration is part and parcel of the right to vote and an indispensable element in the election
process. Thus, contrary to petitioners argument, registration cannot and should not be
denigrated to the lowly stature of a mere statutory requirement. Proceeding from the
significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the right to vote, the State undoubtedly, in
the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to safeguard and regulate the act
of voters registration for the ultimate purpose of conducting honest, orderly and peaceful
election, to the incidental yet generally important end, that even pre-election activities could be
performed by the duly constituted authorities in a realistic and orderly manner one which is not
indifferent and so far removed from the pressing order of the day and the prevalent
circumstances of the times.


G.R. No. 211356
FACTS: Boracay West Cove applied for a zoning compliance with the municipal government of
Malay, Aklan. The application sought the issuance of a building permit covering the construction
of a three-storey hotel over a parcel of land which is covered by a Forest Land Use Agreement
for Tourism Purposes (FLAgT) issued by the DENR in favor of Boracay West Cove.
Through a Decision on Zoning the Municipal Zoning Administrator denied petitioners
application on the ground that the proposed construction site was within the no build zone.
Subsequently, a Cease and Desist Order was issued by the municipal government, enjoining
the expansion of the resort and the Office of the Mayor of Malay, Aklan issued the assailed EO
10, ordering the closure and demolition of Boracay West Coves hotel.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent mayor committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued
EO 10.
RULING: Respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion. We find in this case that the
LGU may properly order the hotels demolition. This is because, in the exercise of police power
and the general welfare clause, property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints and
burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the government
may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and
occupations to promote the general welfare.


G.R. No. 210551
FACTS: Petitioner alleges that he is a registered co-owner of a residential property in Quezon
City and that he paid his realty tax which already included the garbage fee in the sum of
Php100.00. The petitioner seeks to declare unconstitutional and illegal the ordinance on the
Socialized Housing Tax and Garbage Fee.
Petitioner asserts that the protection of real properties from informal settlers and the
collection of garbage are basic and essential duties and functions of the Quezon City
Government. By imposing the SHT and the garbage fee, the latter has shown a penchant and
pattern to collect taxes to pay for public services that could be covered by its revenues from
taxes as well as the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) from the National Government.
Moreover, the imposition of the SHT and the garbage fee cannot be justified by the
Quezon City Government as an exercise of its power to create sources of income under Section
5, Article X of the 1987 Constitution. According to petitioner, the constitutional provision is not a
carte blanche for the LGU to tax everything under its territorial and political jurisdiction as the
provision itself admits of guidelines and limitations.
ISSUE: Whether the imposition of the SHT and the garbage fee are proper exercises of police
RULING: Police power, which flows from the recognition that salus populi est suprema lex (the
welfare of the people is the supreme law), is the plenary power vested in the legislature to make
statutes and ordinances to promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety
and general welfare of the people.Property rights of individuals may be subjected to restraints
and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government in the exercise of police power. In
this jurisdiction, it is well-entrenched that taxation may be made the implement of the states
police power.