Constitutional Law Reviewer

Prelims

A. Case Questions

1. Ynot v. IAC
[POLICE POWER]
Q: Executive Order 626-A prohibited the inter-provincial movement of carabaos and
carabeef in the interest of protecting and conserving these beasts of burden for small
farmers who need them to do work. Thus, the law called for the government to
confiscate and forfeit transported carabaos and carabeef for distribution to charitable
institutions. Is this a valid exercise of police power of the State?
A: NO. The test for the valid exercise of police power requires that there be a (a)lawful
subject and (b)lawful means. Indeed, there is a need to protect carabaos from slaughter,
as they are the primary workhorses of our country’s struggling farming industry—as
such, there is lawful subject. However, EO 626-A punishes the movement, and not the
slaughter of carabaos, a prohibition whose object escapes even the Supreme Court.
“We do not see how the prohibition of inter-provincial transport of carabaos can prevent
their indiscriminate slaughter, considering that they can be killed anywhere, with no less
difficulty in one province than in another.” Therefore, EO 626-A violates the requirement
for lawful means, and as such is NOT a valid exercise of police power.

2. Beltran v. Secretary of Health

[POLICE POWER]
Q: Republic Act 7719, or the National Blood Services Act of 1994, in attempting to
regulate blood donations and ensuring an adequate supply of safe and quality blood in
hospitals, sought to phase out commercial blood banks, as research has found that paid
blood donors are more likely to lie about their age and medical condition than voluntary
donors, thus tainting the quality of blood donations offered by commercial
establishments. Is the phase-out plan a valid exercise of police power of the State?
A: YES. In testing whether RA 7719 is a valid form of police power, it is important to note
that there is little question as to its lawful subject. Regulating the quality of donated blood
affects every citizen who might need transfusions for whatever purpose. It is the interest
of the general welfare, and not just of a particular class, that it at stake, therefore the
interference of the State is required. Moreover, the means employed are reasonably
necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In the visors of police power,
deprivation of property is valid when done for the good of the totality of the populace.

3. PRC v. De Guzman
[POLICE POWER]
Q: The PRC withheld the registration and induction of some graduates of the Fatima
College of Medicine after its investigative body determined that the students have gained
early access to test questions for two of the most difficult subjects in the Physician
Licensure Examination. The students revolted and asked in a petition for mandamus to
have their names registered as physicians, as is their right. Is the contention of the
students correct?
A: NO. It is the duty of the State to ensure that its professionals, particularly those in the
medical field, are subject to a high standard of competency and proficiency. Regulating
the quality of physicians through licensure examination is a valid exercise of police
 power, and thus the State is well within its power to deny license to an individual whose
compliance of the essential requirements is shrouded in doubt.

4. MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association

[POLICE POWER]
Q: May the MMDA compel Bel-Air Village Association to open Neptune Street, a private
street within a private subdivision, to the public pursuant to its exercise of police power?
A: NO. The Supreme Court held that the MMDA does not have the authority to exercise
police power on behalf of the State. Police power is delegated from the National
Legislature to some of its agents, including Local Government Units. Republic Act 7924
declared Metro Manila as a special development and administrative region and created
the MMDA as a special development authority to administer metro-wide basic services
affecting the region. However, no syllable in this law expressly confers police power, let
alone legislative power, to the MMDA. In the immediate case, it is the City of Makati that
possesses the police power capable of compelling the opening of a private street for
public use, as long as there is a lawful subject, and that it be enacted by lawful means.

5. Binay v. Domingo
[POLICE POWER]
Q: The Municipality of Makati enacted Resolution No. 60, which gave financial
assistance of five hundred pesos to a bereaved family within the locality whose gross
income does not exceed two thousand pesos a month. The law further states that the
funds therein will be taken from unappropriated funds from the municipal treasury. The
Commission on Audit assailed the resolution, claiming that an ordinance must have a
real, substantial, or rational relation to public health, morals, or general welfare for it to
be a valid exercise of police power. Is the contention correct?
A: NO. According to the Supreme Court, while COA correctly noted the delegation of
police power to local governments through the general welfare clause, it erred in
confining the definition of such power to “public safety and general welfare”. Public
purpose is not unconstitutional merely because it benefits a limited number of persons.
The care for the poor is a public duty, and thus financial support for the less fortunate
has long been expected as a valid exercise of police power aimed at the promotion of
the common good.

6. City of Manila v. Judge Laguio

[POLICE POWER]
Q: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No. 7783, which prohibits the establishment or
operation of certain forms of businesses like sauna parlors, karaoke bars, inns and
hotels in the Malate area for the purpose of protecting the general welfare and morals,
as these places are often the fonts of illicit activities within the locality. Malate Tourist
Development Corporation contends that this is an invalid exercise of police power, as it
unnecessarily includes inns, hotels, lodging houses, and motel in the classification. Is
this contention correct?
A: YES. An ordinance, to be a valid exercise of police power, needs to conform to the
following substantive requirements:
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) Must be general and consistent with public policy
6) Must not be unreasonable
 In the case above, it is clear that the ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive, as it
substantially divests the respondent of the beneficial use of its property. Moreover, it
does not specify the rules and regulations to be observed, rather, it exercises an
assumed power to prohibit trade. For violating these two essential requirements, the
ordinance is deemed an invalid exercise of police power.

7. White Light Corporation v. City of Manila

[POLICE POWER]
Q: Through Ordinance No. 7774, the City of Manila prohibited short-time admission and
wash-up rates for the same in hotels, motels, inns, lodging houses, and similar
establishments, in order to minimize the use of these establishments for illicit
activities. Malate Tourist Development Corporation contends that this is an invalid
exercise of police power, as it unreasonably interferes with their business. Is this
contention correct?
A: YES. The fact that the ordinance deprives patrons of a product and the petitioners
with a lucrative business places the validity of the exercise of police power in this case.
According to the Supreme Court, aside from the requirements of lawful subject and
lawful means, there should also appear a reasonable relation between the purposes
of the measure and the means employed for its accomplishment, otherwise, what
would ensue is arbitrary invasion of private rights and deprivation of property in the guise
of police power.

8. Acebedo Optical v. CA
[POLICE POWER]
Q: A city mayor, at the behest of local optometrists, imposed special conditions on the
release of a business permit for Acebedo Optical within the locality. In setting such
conditions, he sought to prevent the latter from opening up an optical clinic and from
prescribing and selling reading or optical eyewear. Is this a valid exercise of police
power?
A: NO. In general, the issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city
is essentially regulatory in nature. The authority of local government units to issue or
grant such licenses or permits is in the exercise of the police power of the State.
However, a business permit is issued to regulate the mere conduct of business within
the city, therefore the mayor cannot regulate the practice of a profession, a power vested
exclusively within the Professional Regulation Commission and the Board of Examiners
in Optometry. The mayor could instead have required the optometrists in petitioner’s
business to produce a valid certificate of registration or license.

9. City Government of QC v. Ericta

[POLICE POWER & EMINENT DOMAIN]
Q: Section 9 of Ordinance No. 6118 requires that at least 6% of the total area of the
memorial park cemetery be set aside for charity burial of deceased persons who are
paupers and have been citizens of Quezon City for at least five years prior to their death.
Is this a valid exercise of police power by the city government?
A: NO. If an owner is deprived of his property by virtue of police power, the property is
generally summarily destroyed in order to promote the general welfare, as in the case of
a nuisance per se. In this case, the lots are instead converted to public use, which is not
an exercise of police power but rather, of eminent domain, as there is a taking of
property, without just compensation to boot.

10. ABS-CBN v. PMSI

 [POLICE POWER]
Q: Is the mandate of Memorandum Circular 4-08-88, which mandated that all cable
television operators operating within the Grade A or B contours to carry out television
signals of authorized television broadcast stations a valid exercise of police power?
A: YES. This circular is in consonance with the principles of Executive Order 436, which
states that “The Filipino people must be given wider access to more sources of news,
information, education, sports events, and entertainment programs to attain a well
informed, well-versed, and culturally refined citizenry and enhance their socio-economic
growth.” Moreover, it is declared that radio and television waves are mere franchises or
privileges, thus subject to such regulation, amendment, alteration, or repeal as the
Congress may deem necessary in the furtherance of the common welfare.

11. OSG v. Ayala Land

[POLICE POWER]
Q: May the State regulate privately owned parking facilities and prevent the same from
collecting parking fees as a matter of public welfare under its police power?
A: NO. Firstly, preventing the collection of fees by mall parking lots is not a regulation of
trade, but rather a prohibition, and an encroachment of the right of private entities over
their property. Secondly, police power cannot degrade to arbitrary or whimsical
prohibition, as it should first pass the test of lawful means and lawful subject. Police
power does not involve taking of property, unless there is a need to destroy the same for
the protection of peace and order, and the protection of public welfare.

12. MIAA v. City of Pasay

[TAXATION]
Q: Should the City of Pasay impose real estate tax on the Manila International Airport
Authority for the operation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport?
A: NO. MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to efficiently
perform its function. Therefore, it retains the governmental powers of eminent domain,
police authority, and levying of fees and charges. As such, MIAA is not a government-
owned and controlled corporation, and therefore beyond the taxing power delegated to
local government units.

13. Ouano v. Republic / MCIAA v. Inocian

[EMINENT DOMAIN]
Q: What are the limitations on the power of eminent domain? Discuss the importance of
public use as a concept of eminent domain.
A: Eminent domain is subject to two mandatory limitations:
1) That the property be taken for public use
2) That private owner be given just compensation
Public use now means that there should be a genuine necessity that calls for the
expropriation of the private property. Should this necessity disappear or cease, or if the
public use deviates from the declared purpose to benefit another private person, it
should behoove the condemner to return the property to its rightful owner, and the latter
in turn should return just compensation already paid.

14. ATO v. Spouses Ramon

[EMINENT DOMAIN]
Q: In what function is the principle of eminent domain exercised?
A: Eminent domain is the taking of private property for public use upon payment of just
compensation, as in the taking of land for conversion into a public airport. As such, it is
 an exercise of the State’s jus imperii, making it an official, public act, as opposed to a
proprietary function or jus gestionis.

15. Heirs of Moreno v. Mactan Cebu International Airport

[EMINENT DOMAIN]
Q: What legal effects ensue when the public purpose for which the eminent domain was
exercised no longer exists? In case of repurchase by the private owner, which price
should be applied; the prevailing market price, or the price at the time of expropriation?
A: A) When the public purpose for which private property was taken disappears or
ceases, the former owner gains the right to repurchase the property by returning the just
compensation paid by the State. The Supreme Court ruled that this right does not have
to be expressly stated in the contract between the parties, nor shall the absence of such
express stipulation defeat the right of the owners to reconveyance.
B) The Supreme Court held that the State should not profit from sudden appreciations in
land values, therefore any increase or decrease in market value due to the proposed
improvement may not be considered in determining the final repurchase amount.
Reconveyance should be for the exact price that the former owner was paid by the
government.

16. Mactan Cebu International Airport v. Lozada

[EMINENT DOMAIN]
Q: In case of repurchase or reconveyance of a private property taken for public use,
what factors should be considered by the former owner when computing the amount to
be returned to the State or its agent in exchange for ownership?
A:
1) The exact amount the owner received as just compensation for expropriating his
property
2) Legal interest to be computed from default, which runs from the time the State
complied with its obligation to the owner
3) Expenses incurred (by the State) or monetary value of services in maintaining the
property, to the extent that the former owner has been benefited

17. Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance

[TAXATION]
Q: Using the example of RA 7716, or the E-VAT law, describe the limitations of the taxing
power of the State in relation to the Constitutional guarantees of press freedom and
religious liberty.
A: A) As a general rule, the press is not exempt from the taxing power of the state. What
freedom of the press prohibits are laws which single out or discriminate against
members of the media. Moreover, whenever the government grants tax exemptions to
the press, it is a matter of privilege, not right, and therefore may be waived without
offense to the constitution.
B) In terms of religious freedom, the VAT is not a license tax, nor one imposed on the
exercise of a privilege (as in selling religious merchandise). Instead, it is imposed on the
sale, barter, lease, or exchange of goods or services purely for revenue purposes. The
resulting burden on the exercise of religious freedom is so incidental as to make it
difficult to differentiate it from any other economic imposition that might make the right to
disseminate religious doctrines costly.

Q: Explain the rule that taxation should be ‘uniform and equitable’.

 A: Equality and uniformity of taxation means that all taxable articles or kinds of property
of the same class shall be taxed at the same rate. The taxing power has the authority to
make reasonable and natural classifications for purpose of taxation. To satisfy this
requirement, it is enough that the statute or ordinance applies equally to all persons,
forms, and corporations placed in similar situations.

18. City Government of QC v. Bayantel Communications

[TAXATION]
Q: The city government of Quezon City imposed real property taxes on all real properties
in the locality, by virtue of Congress’ delegation of its taxing power through the Local
Government Code. Subsequently, Congress enacted a statute that granted real property
tax exemptions to all telecommunications franchises. Bayantel, being one such
franchise, in firm belief of its exempted status, refused to pay the taxes assessed against
it by the city government. The Quezon City Treasurer on the other hand, sent out notices
of delinquency and eventually, several warrants of levy against Bayantel’s properties in
preparation for their sale at a public auction. Decide the case.
A: The power to impose taxes is primarily lodged in Congress, and may be exercised by
local government units under mandate of the Local Government Code. However, this
grant of power to local governments does not affect the power of the National
Legislature to grant exemptions to certain persons, pursuant to a declared national
policy. In a previous case (PLDT v. City of Davao), the Supreme Court upheld the power
of Congress to grant exemptions over the power of the LGUs to impose taxes.

19. Film Development Council of the Philippines v. Colon Heritage Realty Corp.
[TAXATION]
Q: What are the limitations on the exercise of the taxing power?
A:
1) Taxes must be equitable and based as far as practicable on the taxpayer’s ability to
pay.
2) Taxes must be levied and collected only for public purposes.
3) Taxes must not be unjust, excessive, oppressive, or confiscatory
4) Taxes must not be contrary to law, public policy, national economic policy, or in the
restraint of trade

20. Batangas City, et al v. Pilipinas Shell

[TAXATION]
Q: How does the taxing power delegated to the Local Governments differ from that
which emanates from Congress itself?
A: The power of the National Legislature to impose taxes is inherent in its functions, as
defined by the 1987 Constitution. While the same charter grants LGUs fiscal autonomy
and the power to levy and collect taxes, this power is not all encompassing and is in fact
subject to the explicit limitations of Section 5, Article X of the same constitution, to wit:
“Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues
and to levy taxes, fees, and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the
Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy.”

21. Nursery Care Corporation v. Anthony Acevedo and the City of Manila
[TAXATION]
Q: What is double taxation?
A: There is double taxation when the same taxpayer is taxed twice when he should only
be taxed once (a) for the same purpose (b) by the same taxing authority (c) within the
 same jurisdiction (d) during the same taxing period, and (e) the taxes are of the same
kind or character.

22. People v. Marti

[UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SIEZURES]

Q: Is there a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and

seizure when a third person (not in authority, a private individual) discovered the illegal
drugs?
A: Does not govern relationships between individuals. Thus, the argument is untenable.
A petitioner cannot use the violation of the Bill of Rights agains another person. Bill of
Rights is the relationship existing between the State and the individual.

At the case at bar, the petitioner cannot claim that the Respondent violated the rights of
Petitioner because the action performed by a third person is not subject to the prohibition
under Section 2 of the Bill of Rights

23. Zulueta v. CA
[PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE]

24. Yrasuegui v. PAL

[DUE PROCESS]

25. Ang Tibay v. CIR

[DUE PROCESS]