Constitutional Law II – Midterm Reviewer

I. The Three Great Powers of Government:

Police Power, Power to Tax, and Power to Expropriate as limitations to enjoyment of rights
 All powers of the government are limited by the Bill of Rights
 These Inherent Powers of the State will always clash or is a conflict that surrounds with
the Bill of Rights which is a “sacred right” beyond intrusion of the State
 Inherent because they belong to the very essence of government and without them no
government can exist. A constitution can only define and delimit them and allocate their
exercise among various government agencies. A constitution does not grant them. (Fr.
Bernas)

A. Police Power
Definition:
 Police power is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables it to prohibit
all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. "Police power [...] has been
properly characterized as the most essential, insistent, and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does to all the great public needs." [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila (1967)]
 "Police power, while incapable of an exact definition, has been purposely veiled general
terms to underscore its comprehensiveness to meet all exigencies and provide enough
room for an efficient and flexible response as the conditions warrant." [White Light
Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
 “Most pervasive power”
 Police Power is found in the General Welfare Clause

MIDTERM QUESTION:
 Up to what extent can the exercise of Police Power interfere with the rights of an
individual?
 (Refer to the cases of Ermita-Malate Hotel v. Mayor of Manila & White Light v.
Manila & Villavicencio v. Lukban)

Scope and Limitations:

 "The police power of the State [...] is a power coextensive with self-protection, and is
[aptly] termed the law of overruling necessity." [Rubi v. Provincial Board (1919)]
Case Summary: Relocation of Mangyanese (Mangyans of Mindoro) is violative of
their right to abode. Mangyanese were described as savages by the US court. General
Welfare Clause & Police Power.
  The state, in order to promote the general welfare, may interfere with personal liberty,
with property, and with business and occupations. Persons may be subjected to all
kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health and
prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim of our Government, the rights of the
individual are subordinated." [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership v. Feati Bank
and Trust Co. (1979)] Case Summary:

Who exercises Police Power?

 The national government, through the legislative department exercises police power.
But Police Power is also delegated, within limits, to local governments.

Tests for Validity of Exercise of Police Power

(1) Lawful subject
(2) Lawful means
(3) General Welfare Clause – When it restricts the rights of citizens; invoked by the state
(notes in notebook)

Cases:
 Hermano Oil Manufacturing & Sugar Corporation v. Toll Regulatory Board, 742
SCRA395, G.R. No. 167290 November 26, 2014: In Mirasol v. Department of Public
Works and Highways, 490 SCRA 318 (2006), the Court has further noted that: A toll
way is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to promote the fastest access to
certain destinations, its use, operation, and maintenance require close regulation.
Public interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions on toll ways that
do not apply to ordinary roads. As a special kind of road, it is but reasonable that not
all forms of transport could use it.
 Carlos Superdrug Corp. v. Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD),526 SCRA 130 (2007): validity of the Senior Citizen's Act; it is a measure
under the general welfare clause.
 Fernando v. St. Scholastica's College, 693 SCRA 141 (2013): the LGU cannot
compel or impose restrictions of the property rights of private persons under the guise
of exercise of police powers when it is actually taking private property without just
compensation and invades the right to privacy.
MIDTERM QUESTION:
 Is an ordinance or law an exercise of police power or expropriation? (See
Fernando v. St. Scho)
 Case Summary:
- Enactment of an ordinance which regulated the height of fences of a private
property, and requiring St. Scholastica to setback their “fences” to allow use of
space generated for public parking.
- SC: Ordinance not constitutional because it was unreasonable and oppressive, it is
no longer an exercise of Police Power but already a form of eminent domain since
they ordered in the ordinance the private party to setback a portion of land for the
public to be able to make a parking space, without just compensation.
 Aquino v. Municipality of Malay, Aklan, 737 SCRA 145 (2014): a Mayor may
exercise adjudicatory powers and order demolition of a structure, which contravenes
an ordinance in his jurisdiction.
 Ferrer, Jr. v. Bautista, 760 SCRA 652 (2015): the Constitution allows local
governments to raise their own sources of revenue but the provision of a public service
is not subject to any form of tax imposition; taxes on idle lands and socialized housing
are valid but tax on garbage collection is invalid.

History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in

 Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting
Opinion in this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. He
said that while it is the "prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of
the people thru the use of police power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity
to have its property protected against unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts
accord the statewide latitude in the exercise of its police power to bring about the
greatest good of the greatest number. But when its purpose is putrefied by private
interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck down just as
every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out "
 Harmonization of Laws – Mayor Lim asked if he should follow the judgment of
Judge Pacquing on the Ordinance of Jai Alai. Lim was stubborn to follow the RTC
decision, since he knows that there is a National law on the subject matter of Jai Alai
already in effect. SC sided with Mayor Lim that he was correct in assailing the validity
of the Ordinance, as the court said that an ordinance cannot prevail over national law.

When exercise of police power may be questioned

 Possible Question: MMDA as a creature of government, does MMDA have
legislative and police power? NO.
  MMDA v. Bel Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant
of power, a government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said:
"Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the
MMDA is that given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules
and regulations in the implementation of the MMDA's functions. There is no grant of
authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the
inhabitants of the metropolis."
 MMDA not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no
police power. Police power in Metro Manila is exercised by the cities and
municipalities.
 Section 11, Article 10: MMDA is not a political subdivision because there was no
plebiscite making it as one, therefore not being a political subdivision it has no
legislative and police power. It can only coordinate basic orders.

B. Power of Eminent Domain

Definition:
 The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn private
property to public use upon payment of just compensation.

Scope and Limitations:

 It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent power of the State that need not be
granted even by the fundamental law. Section 9 of Article III of the Constitution
merely imposes a limit on the government's exercise of this power. [Republic v.Tagle
(1998)].
 The repository of eminent domain powers is lodged in the legislature, which is
exercised through the enactment of laws.
 Eminent Domain is related to the Regalian Doctrine
 Presumption: The State owns everything

MIDTERM QUESTION: Can Local Government Expropriate by Resolution?

Delegation of power to expropriate:
 Delegation of the power may be done through legislation. Thus under R.A. 7160
(The Local Government Code), the power has been be delegated to LGUs. Other
government entities through the charters creating them also enjoy the right to
expropriate. [Manapat v. CA (2007)]
  The power of eminent domain is an inherent and indispensable power of the State.
Also called the power of expropriation, it is described as the highest and most exact
idea of property remaining in the government that may be acquired for some public
purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale to the State. By virtue of
its sovereign character, the exercise of the power prevails over the non-impairment
clause, and is clearly superior to the final and executory judgment rendered by a court
in an ejectment case.
 Being inherent, the power need not be specifically conferred on the government by the
Constitution. Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, which mandates that private
property shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation, merely imposes
a limit on the governments exercise of the power and provides a measure of protection
to the individuals right to property.
 Just like its two companion fundamental powers of the State, the power of eminent
domain is exercised by the Legislature. However, it may be delegated by Congress to
the President, administrative bodies, local government units, and even to private
enterprises performing public services.
 Albeit the power partakes of a sovereign character, it is by no means absolute. Its
exercise is subject to limitations, one of which is, precisely, Section 9, Article III of the
Constitution.

Midterm Question: Memorize Requisites of Expropriation (Cite Manapat v. CA)

Elements/Requisites for exercise of the power of eminent domain
(Connect with the concept of state immunity, Manapat v. CA, -Atty. Loanzon)
(1) Forcible taking of private property
(2) Genuine necessity
(3) Taking is for a public purpose (included are those for historical and cultural purpose)
(4) Payment of just compensation
(5) Due process [Manapat v. CA (2007)]

Answer to Midterm Question (Can Local Government Expropriate by Resolution?):

- SC: LGU, cannot expropriate by way of resolution, because it has no force and
effect of law. It only expresses a sentiment. Delegated power to expropriate is
needed for the Local Government Units to condemn a land as in the case of
Manapat v. CA Delegation of the power may be done through legislation. Thus
under R.A. 7160 (The Local Government Code), the power has been be delegated
to LGUs. Other government entities through the charters creating them also enjoy
 the right to expropriate. Given that the Ordinance by LGUs to expropriate satisfies
these requisites:
1. Identify the property
2. Must identify the property owner
3. State the public for which it is being acquired
4. Authorize the mayor to either:
a. Negotiate through deed of absolute sale or;
b. Expropriate through filing file and expropriation proceeding in
the RTC
5. Certify that funds are available and have been segregated (Trust
Account) [Note: Certification done by local treasurer]

Upon payment of Just Compensation

 Definition of Just Compensation – “the just and complete equivalent of the loss which
the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation”. To
simply put “it is a payment that matches the market value” (Fr. Bernas) (See also:
DPWH v. Tecson)
 Just compensation includes not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid
to owner of the land but also the payment for the land within a reasonable period of
time from its taking (Fr. Bernas)
1. Where there is delay in payment of just compensation (penalty for damages)
2. Court may impose 6% penalty interest
3. If the property is not used for the specific public purpose of acquisition owner can ask
for reconveyance (Inverse Condemnation by Chief Justice Bersamin)

Expropriation Proceedings
 Only the government can institute action;
 Condemnation/Expropriation proceedings are exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC;
subject to review
 NOTE that Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings, which the state has
against a private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property;
requisites, how just compensation is determined; relate to the Bill of Rights.
 In all Expropriation cases, there can be a compromise agreement.

Circumstances which may warrant "taking"-

When the owner is deprived of his proprietary rights, there is taking of private property. It
may include
(1) Diminution in value;
(2) Prevention of ordinary use; and
(3) Deprivation of beneficial use.

NOTE: For Requisites of Expropriation see also the cases of Lozada, Borbon, Spouses
Tecson

Cases:
 Hacienda Luisita, Inc. v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, 670 SCRA 392
(2012): award of land under tenancy can be done through a natural person or
collectively through a juridical person; a resolution of an administrative agency has the
effect of a law and can be governed by the operative fact doctrine (Section 4, Article
13 – constitutional guarantee of “Redistribution of Wealth”; not only by land but may
also be shares such in the case)
 Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways v. Tecson, 700SCRA
243 (2013) and Resolution dated 21 April 2015, — SCRA — (G.R.No. 179334, 21
April 2015): Just compensation is "the fair value of the property as between one who
receives, and one who desires to sell, x x x fixed at the time of the actual taking by the
government." This rule holds true when the property is taken before the filing of an
expropriation suit, and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for
compensation.
 Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Lozada, Sr., 613 SCRA
618(2010): limitation on the exercise of power; right of the private property owner
 Republic v. Heirs of Saturnino Q. Borbon, 745 SCRA 40 (2015):the retirement of
the transmission lines necessarily stripped the expropriation proceedings of the
element of public use. To continue with the expropriation proceedings despite the
definite cessation of the public purpose of the project would result in the rendition of
an invalid judgment in favor of the expropriator due to the absence of the essential
element of public use.
 Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Suntay, 662 SCRA 614, G.R. No. 188376
December 14, 2011: the enactments of the Legislature decreed that the money to be
paid to the landowner as just compensation for the taking of his land is to be taken
only from the Agrarian Reform Fund As such, the liability is not the personal liability
of Land Bank but its liability only as the administrator of the ARE In fact, Section 10,
 Rule 19 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, reiterates that the satisfaction of a
judgment for just compensation by writ of execution should be from the ARF in the
custody of Land Bank
 National Power Corporation v. Heirs of Macabangkit Sangkay, 656 SCRA 60
(2011): nature of public use; when is a party entitled to just compensation despite no
apparent physical taking
 Export Processing Zone Authority (now Philippine Export Zone Authority) vs.
Pulido, 656 SCRA 315, G.R. No. 188995 August 24, 2011: compensation cannot be
just to the owner in the case of property that is immediately taken unless there is
prompt payment, considering that the owner thereby immediately suffers not only the
loss of his property but also the loss of its fruits or income. Thus, in addition, the
owner is entitled to legal interest from the time of the taking of the property until the
actual payment in order to place the owner in a position as good as, but not better than,
the position he was in before the taking occurred
 NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ELIZABETH MANALASTAS and
BEA CASTILLO (January 27, 2016, G.R. No. 196140): the effect of inflation in the
computation of just compensation.
 vda De Ouano vs. Republic (G.R. No. 168770, 2011]: In expropriation, the private
owner is deprived of property against his will; due process ought to be strictly
followed. Public use as an eminent domain concept, has now acquired an expansive
meaning to include any use that is of "usefulness, utility or advantage or what is
productive of general benefit (of the public).

3. Power of Taxation
Definition:
 Taxation is the power by which the State raises to defray the necessary expenses of the
Government. It is the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property,
levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the support of the government and
for all public needs.
 Not a contract between the government and its people, but an imposition.
 Power to tax is not unconfined as there are restrictions.

Under the lifeblood theory, taxes are imposed -

(1) To raise revenue
(2) As a tool for regulation
(3) To serve as protection of state's interest/power to keep alive
Scope and Limitations
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised only for a public
purpose.
(2) Imposition might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate beneficiaries
are private individuals.
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so unconscionable as to amount to
confiscation of property, the Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must be
exercised with utmost caution; otherwise, the State's power to legislate for the public welfare
might be seriously curtailed.
(4) Uniformity of taxation (See Equal Protection Clause – The classification of tax per
bracket are uniform)

General Rule: The power to tax operates with the same force and effect in every place where
the subject of it is found. This is known as geographical uniformity.
Exception: The rule on uniformity does not prohibit classification for purposes of taxation,
provided the requisites for valid classification are met.
IMPORTANT CASE: [Ormoc Sugar v. Treasurer of Ormoc (1968)]
Case Summary:
- Lifeblood theory
- Sugar Taxing
- SC: Local ordinance was arbitrary because it is violative of the Uniformity of
Taxation since Sugar Corporation’s tax was singled out from the other Sugar Mills
Company.
NOTE: Burden is on those who can pay more

(5) Taxes must be equitable

 As a general rule, taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their
ability to pay.

Who are subject to Taxation

 Persons: juridical persons/entity, natural persons (subject to uniformity of taxation)
 Property: kinds of use, properties used to generate profit = taxed more

Claim for Tax Exemptions

General Rule:
  Tax exemptions are frowned upon. Therefore, no law granting any tax exemption shall
be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress [Sec.
28 (4), Art VI]
 There is no vested right in a tax exemption [.] Being a mere statutory privilege, a tax
exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the granting authority. [Republic
v. Caguioa (2009)]
 As a general rule, Tax exemptions are construe strictly against the taxpayer and
liberally in favor of the taxing authority. The burden of proof rests upon the party
claiming exemption to prove that it is in fact covered by the exemption so claimed. In
case of doubt non exemption is favored. [Republic v. Caguioa (2009)]

IMPORTANT:
Exemptions may either be constitutional or statutory.
1. Constitutional exemptions [Sec. 28(3), Art. VI] (ADE-CRE)
Requisites: Actual, Direct and Exclusive Use by the following:
(a) Charitable institutions
(b) Religious organizations
(c) Educational institutions

2. If statutory, it has to have been passed by majority of all the members of Congress.
[Sec.28 (4), Art. VI]

Cases:
1. Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In
negotiating tax treaties (Check “Auto-Limitation” & Most Favored Nation clause),
the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a
part of the tar in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is
not taxed by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods.
First, it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of
the state of residence with regard to certain classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state
of source is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In
this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in
order to avoid double taxation (Look for elements) (Taxation is territorial) (
2. Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 600
SCRA 413 (2009): payment of documentary taxes and VAT by way of deficiency
 assessment by the BIR; contracts of HMO are not subject to DST and VAT since they
are insurance contracts and the companies issuing such policies are regulated by the
DOH. Subject Matter: Power to Tax by the Government
3. National Power Corporation v. City of Cabanatuan, 737 SCRA 305 (2014):
assessment of franchise tax on NAPOCOR; NAPOCOR is liable to pay franchise tax
to the LGU but LGU has the burden to specify the liability for a given period of time. .
Subject Matter: Delegated Power to Tax by the Local Government Units (Sec. 5,
Art 10)
4. Nursery Care Corporation vs. Acevedo, 731 SCRA 280, G.R. No. 180651 July 30,
2014: There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should
be taxed only once for the same purpose by the same taxing authority within the same
jurisdiction during the same taxing period, and the taxes are of the same kind or
character.
Subject Matter: LGU taxation, Restriction/Limitation to Tax
Issue: Liability of taxation of wholesale/retail

II. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

1. Concept of Sovereign Will: Preamble Art. II, Sections 1 and 3, Art V, Constitution
2. The Concept of Separation of Powers and the Three Branches of Government:
Art.VI, VII and VIII, Constitution
3. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to
liberty, property and other freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
The Bill of Rights:
 "The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the
state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private
individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some
forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder." [People
v. Marti (1991)]
 It is self-executing. Important Case [Gamboa v. Teves (2011)]
 It also imposes safeguards against violations by the government, by individuals,
or by groups of individuals.
 Bill of Rights are not legislated rather they are vested protected rights

Article III of the Constitution protects the following person's fundamental civil and
political rights.
(1) Civil rights - rights that belong to an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a state
or community.
(2) Political rights - rights that pertain to an individual's citizenship vis-à-vis the
management of the government.
(3) Social and economic rights - rights, which are intended to insure the well-being and
economic security of the individual.
(4) Rights of the accused - civil rights intended for the protection of a person accused of
any crime.

Human rights have a primacy over property rights. The rights of free expression and of
assembly occupy a preferred position, as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of
civil institutions. The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and
security "against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion
of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with
general principles."
[Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co.,
Inc. (1973)] IMPORTANT CASE.
Subject matter: Labor case; the demonstration or rally that workers initiated was not related
to their work

The Bill of Rights serves -

(1) To preserve democratic ideals.
(2) To safeguard fundamental rights.
(3) To promote the happiness of an individual.

General Rule: The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of private individuals. The
equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.
[Yrasuegui v. PAL (2008)]
MIDTERM QUESTION: FOCUS ON THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

Exception to the Rule: The Bill of Rights was invoked and applied by the Court against a
private party.
(Zulueta v. C.A., 1996)
MIDTERM QUESTION: What is the Exception to invoking the Bill of rights against
private individuals?
Subject matter:
- Validity of male spouse (Dr. Martin) to claim the right to privacy
 - Dr. Martin: Asked the trial court to exclude 157 documents obtained by his wife in
his clinic without his consent
BOR was applied to a private party in the case of Zulueta v. CA as an exception, because it
was about an allegation to the fidelity between husband and wife which is of state interest.
This is regarding the evidence obtained in violation of the right to privacy.
SC: Right to privacy, as a constitutional right, was allowed by the Court to be invoked by the
private individual (husband) against another private individual (wife). Evidence must be
proven by the wife as she has the burden of proof, and not be supplied by the husband.

MIDTERMS MEMORIZE
“Judicial Standards of Review under the Bill of Rights”
 RATIONAL BASIS TEST: This test is applicable for economic, property,
commercial legislation. [White Light Corporation v. City of Manila (2009)]
 STRICT SCRUTINY TEST: This requires the government to show an overriding or
compelling government interest so great that it justifies the limitation of fundamental
constitutional rights. The courts make the decision of whether or not the purpose of the
law makes the classification necessary.
 INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST: A third standard, denominated as heightened
or immediate scrutiny, was later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court for evaluating
classifications based on gender and legitimacy. While the test may have first been
articulated in equal protection analysis, it has in the United States since been applied in
all substantive due process cases as well. [White Light Corporation v. City of
Manila (2009)]

VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE AND OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE

VOID FOR VAGUENESS:

 An act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its
application.

On the question of the constitutionality of the Anti-Terrorism Law and the creation of
the Anti-Terrorism Council:
 A statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient
definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct
is prohibited by the statute. A 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. The statute is
repugnant to the Constitution in two respects:
1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by
it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid;
2. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
[Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council (2010)] IMPORTANT CASE
Subject matter:
On the question of the constitutionality of the Plunder Law:
 "[This doctrine] can only be invoked against that species of legislation that is
utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving
clause or by construction. The test in determining whether a criminal statute is
void for uncertainty is whether the language conveys a sufficiently definite
warning as to the proscribed conduct. It must be stressed, however, that the
vagueness doctrine merely requires a reasonable degree of certainty for the
statute to be upheld — not absolute precision or mathematical exactitude."
[Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 369 SCRA 394 (2001)]

OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE:
 The overbreadth doctrine decrees that "a governmental purpose may not be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the
area of protected freedoms." [Southern Hemisphere, supra]

General Rule: Void-for-vagueness and overbreadth doctrines are inapplicable to penal

statutes. By their very nature penal statutes have a general in terrorem effect, which are
intended to discourage citizens from committing the prohibited acts.

Exception: Said doctrines apply to penal statutes when

(1) The statute is challenged as applied; or
(2) The statute involves free speech. (Rationale: Statute may be facially challenged in
order to counter the "chilling effect" of the same.) [Disini v. Sec. of Justice (2014), on the
constitutionality of the Cybercrime Law] IMPORTANT CASE
Subject matter: Exception to question the penal law; When can you challenge a penal
law?
- Disini was able to provide pertinent provisions in the Cybercrime Law (penal law)
rendering parts of it unconstitutional, under the overbreadth doctrine.
 - Under the overbreadth doctrine, a proper governmental purpose, constitutionally
subject to state regulation, may not be achieved by means that unnecessarily sweep
its subject broadly, thereby invading the area of protected freedoms. But Section
4(a)(3) does not encroach on these freedoms at all. It simply punishes what
essentially is a form of vandalism the act of willfully destroying without right the
things that belong to others, in this case their computer data, electronic document,
or electronic data message. Such act has no connection to guaranteed freedoms.
There is no freedom to destroy other people’s computer systems and private
documents.
- All penal laws, like the cybercrime law, have of course an inherent chilling effect,
an in terrorem effect or the fear of possible prosecution that hangs on the heads of
citizens who are minded to step beyond the boundaries of what is proper. But to
prevent the State from legislating criminal laws because they instill such kind of
fear is to render the state powerless in addressing and penalizing socially harmful
conduct. Here, the chilling effect that results in paralysis is an illusion since
Section 4(a)(3) clearly describes the evil that it seeks to punish and creates no
tendency to intimidate the free exercise of one’s constitutional rights.
- Besides, the overbreadth challenge places on petitioners the heavy burden of
proving that under no set of circumstances will Section 4(a)(3) be valid. Petitioner
has failed to discharge this burden.

III. CITIZENSHIP
A. People
Different meanings of words "people":
 Art. XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2 - "People" as inhabitants
 [Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963)] Midterm
Question: What is a valid Search Warrant? (Cite Qua Chee Gan &
Section 2, Article 3)
- The state has the right to exclude aliens in its territory. The President of the
Philippines is given the discretion to deport aliens who are considered
"undesirable."
- Remedies of Article III, the Bill of Rights, are also available to aliens as long as
they are in the Philippine jurisdiction
- Only the Court can issue a warrant of Arrest.
 Article II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7 - "People" as citizens, Preamble
 Article VII, Sec. 4 - "People" as source of sovereignty
B. Citizenship under Art. IV and Right of Suffrage under Article V
Review Article IV, Citizenship, Constitution Article V, Suffrage, Constitution

Right of Suffrage, Article V

 R. A. No. 9189 — Overseas Voting Law
 Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC, 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote
under the R.A. No. 9189 need not have one year actual physical residence in the
Philippines to exercise their right of suffrage.

C. Who are protected by the rights:

1. All citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens;
2. Aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines;
3. Both natural and juridical persons.

Cases:
 Board of Medicine v. Ota, 558 SCRA 234(2008), See Art. X.11. Sec. 14, para
2: reciprocity
 Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC (2016): a foundling is a natural-born citizen;
citizenship as a qualification for government office.
 People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991: a foreigner may invoke the
right against unreasonable search and seizures.

D. Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2

Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
 President and Vice President, Article VII, Sec. 2
 Members of Congress, Article VI, Sections 3 and 6
 Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Article VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
 Ombudsman and his deputies, Article XI, Sec. 8
 Members of the Constitutional Commission, Article IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1);
and D, Sec. 1(1)
 Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Article XII, Sec. 20
 Members of Commission on Human Rights Article XIII, Sec. 17 (2)

E. Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec. 8
F. Naturalized citizens: How aliens may acquire Philippine Citizenship
  Judicial proceedings under Com. Act No. 473
1. Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
2. When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
3. Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
4. Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
5. Procedure, Sections 7-8
6. When decision is executed, Sec. 1
7. Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
8. Denaturalization, Sec. 18

 Citizenship by legislative act: Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3,
Sec. 2
 Citizenship through administrative process
1. Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 - The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
2. R.A. No. 9225 - Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003

IV. DUE PROCESS

A. DUE PROCESS: CONCEPT, REQUISITES, TYPES AND APPLICATION
a) CONCEPT -Due process of law means simply that –
 There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the
legislative department of the Government;
 This law shall be reasonable in its operation;
 It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed;
and
 It shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class.
[Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)]

B. SCOPE OF DUE PROCESS

A. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
b) Procedural due process is that aspect of due process, which serves as a restriction on
actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the
method or manner by which a law is enforced.
c) Substantive due process is that aspect of due process which inquires whether the
government has an adequate reason for taking away a person's we, liberty, or
property. [City of Manila v. Laguio (2005)]
 d) Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. It is a rule of law that before
a person may be bound by law, he must be officially and specifically informed of its
contents. Therefore notice is needed. For the publication requirement, "laws" refer to
all statutes, including those of local application and private laws. This does not cover
internal regulations issued by administrative agencies, which are governed by the
Local Government Code. Publication must be full, or there is none at all. [Tanada v.
Tuvera (1986)] Possible Question on Notice and Publication

MIDTERM QUESTIONS:
1. Which will prevail procedural or substantive?
Answer: If there is a conflict between procedural and substantive due process,
substantive will prevail.
2. Which will prevail Constitutional v. Statutory right? (People v. Marti)
Answer: A constitutional right is one enshrined in the Constitution/Fundamental law
of the land, Statutory right is one embodied in laws. Constitutional right will prevail
because of the “Supremacy of the Constitution”.
CASES:
 Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party:
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(Decision); 146 SCRA 446 (Resolution) &
Hon. Corona v. United Harbor Pilots, G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997
 Procedural Due Process
o Due process in administrative proceedings
Requisites: Cases –
 Mayor Abraham Tolentino v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 187958,
187961 and187962, April 7, 2010: Pay attention to the cardinal rules of due
process in administrative proceedings.
 SPO 1 Acuzar v. Jorolan and Hon. Apresa, PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April
7, 2010: administrative proceedings require a different degree of evidence to
establish liability while a criminal case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt
 Dr. Fernando A. Melendres, Executive Director of Lung Center of the
Philippines v. Presidential Anti- Graft Commission, et aL . G.R. No.
163859, August 15, 2012: administrative hearing does not require trial type
hearing; it is sufficient that the party has been notified of the complaint and
was accorded the opportunity to disprove the allegations
  Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004: in labor cases, the
two- notice rule must apply and actual notice must be proved

 Effect of waiver/estoppel:
 The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012:
while death may extinguish criminal liability, the presentation of evidence
during the lifetime of the accused may allow government to seize properties
established to have been acquired until questionable circumstances.
 Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC), Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT) v.
rd
Sandiganbayan (3 Division), Republic of the Philippines represented by
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), G.R. No. 174462,
February 10, 2016: effect of failure on the part of the state to implead parties
and constitutional limitation on actions involving ill-gotten wealth pursued by
the PCGG. Separate juridical identity from its stockholders. Section 26, Article
18.

 Right to Counsel:
1. Due process in judicial proceedings:
- Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, a R. No. 169253,
February 20, 2013: accused cannot question the amendment of the information when
he was given the opportunity to be heard and was duly represented by counsel in the
proceedings before the Office of the Ombudsman.
2. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings:
Midterm Question: What are the types of Due Process? (Cite Cudia Case)
- Cudia v. PMA Superintendent, G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015: right to
counsel is not mandatory in administrative proceedings.
- Rule on Unanimity: Majority vote is needed
3. Instances when no notice and hearing are required:
- Arroyo v. Rosal Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, Oct. 22, 2012:
active participation in administrative proceedings prior to an adverse decision will
negate a claim of lack of due process; requirements for membership in an organization
must be observed
-Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT
Community Bank v. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC, G.R. No.
191424, August 7, 2013: notice is not required where there is a greater public interest
to protect.
 4. Effect when due process is not observed:
- Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010:
where parties were not given the opportunity to oppose the grounds of their
suspension, the same must be declared void.
- Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Sereno and the JBC, G.R. No. 213181, August 19,
2014: due process requires the opportunity for a person to disprove the objection of
his lack of integrity to qualify as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

B. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

5. Due Process and Property Rights
 Due Process and Property Rights:
Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the Philippines, et al, G.R. No.
169913, June 8, 2011: there is ample jurisprudence holding that the subsequent
and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for the relaxation of the
rules of procedure. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the prerogative to
relax compliance with the procedural rules, even the most mandatory in
character, mindful of the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation
speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard; actual notice is
required.
 Due Process and Police Power:
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association Inc. v. City of
Manila, 20 SCRA 849(1967): valid exercise of police power as an integral
component of due process.
Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416(2009): the right to q
property and the right to privacy cannot be impaired through an ordinance
which falls within the ambit of the overbreadth doctrine.
 Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article III and Article 18. Article
XII) Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for public purpose and
just compensation
Procedural Requirement: City of Manila v. Melba Tan Te, G.R. No.
169263, September 21, 2011: answer required in eminent domain
proceedings; government has effectively waived its right to prove the nature
of the taking for failure to comply with substantive requirements of the law;
there two stages in expropriation proceedings:
 Court must determine authority of the petitioner and nature of
the public purpose;
  The court must determine just compensation.
 Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy: Concept of the Right
(Section 3, Article III, Constitution)
Spouses Hing v. Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736,
June 26, 2013: under a civil case, a party may seek relief from the court for
violation of one's right to privacy in his abode.

WHEN MAY RIGHT BE INVOKED

Anti-Wire-Tapping Act (R.A. 4200)
Privileged Communication
MIDTERM QUESTION: When to consider when right to privacy is invaded? (Cite
Navarro Case; read Salcedo & Alejano)
 Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA, Hon. Zamora: observation of exclusionary rule in an
annulment case.
 Navarro v. CA and the People of the Philippines — August 1999: right of a media
practitioner to record events as they occur in a public place.
 Alejano v. Cabuhay, 468 SCRA 188(2005): application of the concept of diminished
expectancy under the right to privacy.
 Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA (1998): protection of the right to privacy of citizens
 Bayan Muna v. NEDA Director-General, G.R. No. 167930, April 19, 2006: the
Court upheld the constitutional power of control the President directing all government
entities, in the exercise of their functions under existing laws, to adopt a uniform ID
data collection and ID format to achieve savings, efficiency, reliability, compatibility,
and convenience to the public. The President's constitutional power of control is self-
executing and does not need any implementing legislation; E0 420 does not compel all
citizens to have an ID card EO 420 applies only to government entities that under
existing laws are already collecting data and issuing ID cards as part of their
governmental functions. Every government entity that presently issues an ID card will
still issue its own ID card under its own name. The only difference is that the ID card
will contain only the five data specified in Section 3 of EO 420, plus the fingerprint,
the agency ID number, and the common reference number which is needed for cross-
verification to ensure integrity and reliability of identification.

C. RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS

(Take Note: If due process is uniform, why is there relativity? –Loanzon)
  Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure.
This requires a reasonable degree of flexibility in the applying procedural due process.
This does not apply to substantive due process. [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion
(2000)]
 A determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as
of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action must be
considered in determining the application of the rules of procedure. [Cafeteria &
Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy (1961].
 To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean that judges are at large
to apply it to any and all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been
determined that some process is due; it is a recognition that not all situations calling
for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of procedure. [Morrissey v. Brewer
(1972)] (For finals)

V. RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY: SAFEGUARDS OF DUE

PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSES
1. Right to life
 Republic v. Kagandahan, 565 SCRA 72 (2008)
 Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan, et aL, G.R. No. 193636, July 24, 2012
 Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014
- Benevolent Neutrality -

2. Due Process Clause (Section l, Article III)

Definition:
a) Due process furnishes a standard to which the governmental action should conform in
order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. x x
x It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice.
Negatively pit, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. x x x Correctly it has
been identified as freedom from arbitrariness. It is the embodiment of the sporting idea
of fairplay. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
b) A law hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial. [Darthmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518]

C. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

DEFINITION
 a) EQUAL PROTECTION requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed.
b) It does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both as to
privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. The guarantee means that no person or
class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other
persons or other classes in like circumstances. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]

MIDTERM: Memorize Equal Protection Clause

REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION (DGEM)
 It must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differences;
 It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
 It must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
 Apply equally to all members of the same class.

PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY
 All classifications made by law are generally presumed to be valid unless shown
otherwise by petitioner. [Lacson v. Executive Secretary (1999)]

BASIS FOR CLASSIFICATION:

 Age,
 Gender,
 Religion,
 Economic class,
 Ethnicity,
 Race,
 Sexual orientation,
 Residence, disability,
 Date of filing/ effectivity of the law

Cases:
 Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 569 SCRA 467 (2008)
 Garcia v. Drilon, 699 SCRA 352 (2013)
 Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, 732 SCRA 22 (2014)
  Economic Equality: Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage [Ichong v.
Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1165 (1957)]
 Political Equality: Dilution of voting rights based on residence [Aquino and Robredo
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010]
 Exclusion based on sexual orientation: [Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
19058Z April 8, 2010]
 Social Equality: Forced resettlement based on ethnicity: [Rubi v. Provincial Board
of Mindoro, 39 Phil., 660]
 Privilege based on ethnicity: [Cruz v. NC1P, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000]

B. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

MIDTERM QUESTION: Define the meaning of Contract Clause
Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10, Article III, Constitution)
 Answer to the Definition of Contract Clause: A law which changes the terms of a
legal contract between parties, either in the time or mode of performance, or imposes
new conditions, or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its satisfaction
something different from that provided in its terms, is law which impairs the obligation
of a contract and is therefore null and void.

Requisites
(1) When there is substantial impairment which
 Changes the terms of legal contract either in time or mode of performance;
 Imposes new conditions;
 Dispenses with expressed conditions; or
 Authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in the terms.

(2) When a law affects the rights of parties with reference to each other, and not with respect
to non-parties. [Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association v. Secretary, DILG,
G.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003]

(3) EXCEPTIONS to the rule when the state may impair contracts:
a) Power of Taxation: government may increase taxes covering certain transactions
b) Regulation on loans: as a matter of public interest, the government may impose
restrictions on loans:
- Concept of Vested Right
 - Waiver of Right

Cases:
Vigilar v. Aquino, G.R. No. 180388, January 18, 2011
Goldenway Merchandising Corporation v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 195540, March
13, 2013