GOROSPE BILL OF RIGHTS FIRST DAY Now let us continue what we are doing in the past, enjoying.

For many students, the study of law is just asking what burdens they are to carry in their backs. But for those who are really decided to take up law and to become lawyers, they enjoy it just like their mothers carrying their milk in front of them. And you are proud of what you have. What is the usual passing grade? 65. That is the usual grade given by Dean Aligada, isnt it? Lets start with constitutional law Lets talk about bicycles. I assume that all of you know what is a bicycle. And you must know that in order for you to ride that bicycle, you must have BALANCE. You cannot lean so much on one side because you will fall. And the same is true on the other side. The same thing with constitutional law, there is some balancing act. You must have remembered in your 1st year class the case of CALALANG V. WILLIAMS where it is said that there should be a balance between authority and liberty. You cannot have too much of liberty, otherwise, you will have license and anarchy; likewise, you cannot have too much authority, otherwise you will have tyranny. You have to maintain this optimum balance in order that you can have a viable society. And constitutional law is all about balancing between the needs of society as well as the requirements for the safeguarding of liberty and freedom. We cannot have people seeking to do what they want because by then, you would have disorder. But you cannot also have people simply following what the government says especially if theres too much lies otherwise you will just have strings. The same thing more often with your study of law, isnt it? You dont simply follow what your professor says because sometimes they are wrong or at least you think theyre wrong. But for some radical they would insist that they be followed. I always keep on telling my students to go to law school not to be trained as marines. You are to be trained as lawyers. As lawyers, you must have independent thinking, independent minds capable of looking at things. But even as there is this balancing, you must also have to consider that there are times that the choice is not about which is right and wrong but between the 2 which are both right. And that would make for more difficult choices. How do you explain that? Lets talk about your personal experiences. Let us talk about things up close and personal. Let us say that there are 3 guys interested in you. You like them all, isnt it? That is really the problem. But somehow, you have to make a choice. You cannot have all of them. The same thing when it comes to constitutional law. There are times when the court would have to make a choice. Going back to our analogy, there is some guy who is interested to several women. That is also a problem, isnt it? He would simply take all of them. Even in the case of

DAVID V. GMA: The SC again highlighted the myth between the temperaments of liberty with the need for law. And again, you may have noticed that in that case, the SC carefully weighed the values and interests of society in order that we can have a viable government and at the same time, respecting the rights, liberties and freedom of its peoples. So before we go to BOR proper, we have to consider the things with which the BOR has developed. We cannot appreciate beauty, for instance, if you have never seen ugliness. Because you will never know what is ugly from what is beautiful. So if you have seen one, then you can contrast it with the other. Or what could the world be if everyone is a man. So the same way, the BOR is all about rights, liberties and freedom but why do we need this? The fundamental importance of this can only be realized by talking about the INHERENT POWES OF THE GOVERNMENT The 3 INHERENT POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT 1. Police power 2. Power of eminent domain 3. Power of taxation Q: HOW ARE THEY INHERENT? They are inherent in the sense that they come into being with the fact that the state has come to its existence. So they do not need the constitution for their existence. Q; WHAT IS THEN THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION? It provides limitations otherwise these powers could just be abused and we will have a very repressive society. POLICE POWER Talking about police power, this is the most pervasive, plenary and inevitable of the 3 powers. But even as it is that powerful, it is not really without limits. So for the proper purpose on how PP could be utilized, there should be LAWFUL ENDS, accomplished by LAWFUL MEANS. Or one way of putting it is that the END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Q: LAWFUL END In accomplishing lawful ends, the interest of the society in general must be taken into consideration and not just of a particular class Q: LAWFUL MEANS

1. They should not be unduly repressive of individuals 2. They should be reasonable An illustration of lawful ends and lawful means would be the case of _______ regarding carabaos at the time when the Philippines still worship carabaos? So even if you own the carabaos, you cannot just slaughter it because there were other more important societal considerations in maintaining the life of the carabao at the time when they were much needed in the countryside. So If there are problems in agriculture, you would normally need the carabaos to cultivate. You would not be expecting individuals cultivating the farms so you need the carabaos for the purpose. So if you need the carabao to be eaten, you cannot just slaughter it because it might be needed in the farm. In this case, the SC said that this is A VALID LIMITATION ON PROPERTY RIGHTS. But another example of another measure intended to protect carabaos but which was done in an improper and invalid manner is that case of YNOT v. ___. The SC said that the ends may be lawful but the means adopted were not because they were arbitrary and they violated due process Police power is not something that is stagnant. It is not static. It is like you. You may have stayed in the College of Law for 4 years but somehow, you have changed for the worse (giggles) So just like people or individuals, PP is also something that CHANGES THROUGH TIME. A good illustration for this is one where the SC said in the case of BENGZON V. DRILON where the court said that what was considered as robbery in 1874 is now known as social justice. You can just see how things change through time Another case would be BINAY V. DOMINGO. Something like an old maid syndrome but nowadays, we dont have such syndrome, isnt it? We now have the term career women. It makes a lot of difference on how you package things, isnt it? In this case, the municipality of Makati had this burial program for the less fortunate in Makati. The COA said, no we cant do that because you will only be benefiting a few of the residents of the community. This is not a valid use of public funds. The SC said, COA wake up because youre living in the past. In the past, this is true that the greater number of people should benefit from the public funds but that is not the case now. As a result of the implementation of social justice to help the poor and to advance the interests of society, a few may have this kind of program which will benefit only a few but is still considered as a valid exercise of governmental powers. By providing assistance to the poor to bury the poor, you are actually advancing the interest of the whole society. So the SC said, adjust your manner of looking at things.

PP vis--vis Electoral process Lets talk about electoral process and police power. If you have a beautiful face or better skilled then that gives you an opportunity to sell your assets, isnt it? So you can use your face or your hot body in billboards along EDSA or even along highways. And for some, this also provides an opportunity to be known better by the people. So what happens when they file for a COC running for a public position? In CHAVEZ V. COMELEC, COMELEC filed a resolution which required that those who had contracts for advertisements for commercial products and who files a COC should immediately have those ads taken out or their continued broadcast discontinued. Chavez, had such contracts for advertisements of 7 products so he questioned the validity of this resolution saying that this will affect his interest HELD: The SC held that this is a valid exercise of PP. It is part of the manner by which the electoral body can meddle with the plaintiff. Because it would not be fair for other candidates whose print ads are limited in size while those who have advertisements would have their faces and names printed in big sizes in billboards. Remember that Pacquaio has a number of endorsements. So when he ran for Congressman in Gen San, he was also asked to discontinue such advertisements because it would be unfair to his opponents as the latter would only have limited time in radio and television as well as limited printed materials. So the court said that this is a valid exercise of PP. Many of you are owners of cars, right? You love driving or being driven around. The car is very important because you can go anywhere and you can do things using it. So you may want to Tagaytay, Baguio or some other places. You may also go to Manaoag every now and then. What is in Manaoag? Why do you have to go there? When you go to the South or you go to the North, normally you will pass through the expressways. Did you notice that the expressways do not have 2 field vehicles passing to them? And this is as a consequence of RA 2000 or the Limited Access Highway Act. MIRASOL V. DPWH In the case of MIRASOL, owners of motorcycles questioned the validity of the Act and their inability to use the expressways using motorcycles. HELD: Valid exercise of PP intended to insure the safety of the public. You can just imagine what will happen if a motorcycle will drive simultaneously with 4-wheeled vehicles. If in ordinary streets we see the consequence, how much more in areas where the traffic is at a fast phase. The SC said that when it comes to the exercise of the PP, the STANDARD IS REASONABLENESS. It is not scientific exactitude and it could not even be one which is the best available. So whether it is the best way to

prevent accidents, it does not really matter for as long as what the government does is REASONABLE under the circumstance. FRANCISCO V. FERNANDO One of the controversial figures nowadays is Bayani Fernando, isnt it? Premature advertisements. Did you notice that his tarpaulins have the message which is smaller than that part showing his face? So why is it that the people spend just to show his face if the message can be cut without his face? Anyway, this is BFs plan to run in 2010. So its one way of being seen by the people. Bayani Fernando has several schemes designed to make travelling supposed to be convenient. Even the urinals are pink? Why would macho men use pink in the urinals? One of the schemes that he has adopted before was the WHITE FLAG SCHEME, remember that? So this is the scheme whereby a white wet cloth is hung in an MMDA vehicle designed to drive out the people who might be occupying the road and part of the sidewalks. If you just wait in the sidewalks, chances are, you might get wet even before getting to your office or to your houses. So you can find a way to ride as fast as possible or you have to follow the people in the road otherwise if you will be left behind youll get wet. If you get to the office earlier, all the more that youll constrict the flow of traffic because you would be occupying parts of the road which are supposedly traversed by vehicles. So MMDA came up with the wet cloth. By moving this cloth, the people would have to move out of the sidewalk. But Francisco questioned this policy claiming that it infringed on the rights of the people. What if certain people would be reached by the cloth then they would have to go back to their houses to change, and so on. Or that this policy is violative of due process, oppressive and so on. HELD: Pursuant to the ordinances passed by the cities and municipalities in Manila, MMDA can implement this kind of scheme. What about the concern of Francisco as regards the effect of this on pedestrians or commuters? SC said those are mere speculations. The SC is not a trier of facts and since that there is no showing that these are really what happened, these are mere conjectures and therefore, the SC cannot decide cases based on unfounded fears or imagined effects SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY V. ATIENZA On 7/11, Im referring to the 9/11, anyone here from Pandacan? Following the 9/11, the city of Manila came up with an ordinance reclassifying the Pandacan area where the oil depots are found from industrial to commercial. The oil depot must be moved from that place to somewhere else. Somehow, however, the city Mayor and the oil companies were able to strike a modus Vivendi by which even if they are supposed to be out of it, they still remain to be there in several years. So knowing how Atty. Alcantara thinks, he came up with a brilliant idea of having a case against the Mayor for the purpose of obliging him to abide by the ordinance.

HELD: In 2007, that was last year, the SC came up with a decision such that the City Mayor can be compelled by mandamus to comply with the ordinance and he has no discretion whether to abide by or not. He is under obligation to enforce the ordinance. The court said the ordinance was a valid PP exercise. An MR was filed together with a Motion to Interfere filed by the oil companies. A decision was rendered by the SC whereby it came up with a reso which is 5x longer than the original decision. What do you expect? The court just affirmed its earlier decision at the same time it discussed how the zoning ordinance was part of the exercise of the police power by the municipality. It also affirmed its findings that the oil depot in Pandacan which is a representation of western interests in the Phil. Would be something which would attract the interest of westerners. The SC also had a history of the Pandacan area. So the court said, you have to comply with the ordinance. Move out those tanks in Pandacan because they pose a threat in the safety of the inhabitants in the area. You can just imagine what will happen if those oil depots were blown up. Towards the end of the reso, there was even a reference where the depot exploded here in UST, isnt it? If that happened in a delivery tank, how much more in an oil depot in Pandacan?

Now let us talk about Security of Tenure. It is something that is guaranteed by the LC as well as by the Consti. What happens if security of tenure comes with the other interests of society? It used to be that those who take up X-ray technology simply graduate from college would already be employed in the x-ray dept. of hospitals. But in the 1990s congress came up with a law which requires that those engaged in this technology must secure an appropriate license from the Senate. When this law took effect, there was an X-ray technologist in St. Lukes. It is the hospital for the rich and famous. He is a permanent employee but because of this new law, he was required to comply. She tried but she failed. So since she could not comply, St. Lukes said he has to go. Hence, there is a conflict between 2 valuable interests of society security of tenure and at the same time the need to protect and promote the health of the people. Which should prevail? HELD: SC said that compliance by St. Lukes with the law is imperative. St. Lukes cannot continue to employ this person who has not complied with the law, that is to secure the license. Perhaps, you can relate this case to GARCIA V. SALVADOR Involving a Medical Technologist who is misdiagnosed a person who is trying to get a medical certificate for regularization in his employment. So she went to this medical establishment and the Medtech screening what he saw said that the person had Hepa-B. When this was given to the employer, the latter did not regularize the

employee. And when he reported this to his father, the latter had heart attack. So he stayed in the hospital for some time and when the father was in the hospital, this person sought a second opinion. And it turned out that he was not really sick. So with this clearance, he was regularized. And when his father went out of the hospital, the father and this person now sought damages from this Medtech. HELD: The SC sustained the award of damages for the negligence of this Medtech. So there could be interference with the rights of people if there is a conflict with an equally valuable interest, that is, the health of the people. Now let us talk about blood, sweat and tears. For those who are English Majors, perhaps you are familiar with it, speech of Winston Churchill during WWII. If you dont know, its normal. Im not expecting so much from you. BELTRAN V. SEC. OF HEALTH It has nothing to do with Churchill its just that it has an appropriate catch phrase to identify the case. It has something to do with blood banks. It has something to do with the law which called for the coping up of this blood banks. So if this is a commercial blood bank, sweat, time and money are invested in it, right? And if youre called to close this shop, this is the time that you cry in tears, right? So why is this? Before the law, there were 4 types of blood banks in the Philippines one, maintained by the Red Cross, two, maintained by government hospitals, three, by private hospitals and finally, this commercial blood banks. When the law was enacted, it was only for the purpose of directing the closure of this commercial blood banks. This is not fair, is it? There are 4 types, so why single out the latter? They are all blood banks. SO they questioned the validity of the law HELD: SC held that this was a valid exercise of PP for the purpose of safeguarding the health of the people. Although they are all blood banks, they are not the same. They are different. Before the law, there were findings that the blood coming from the commercial blood banks (compared with that from the Red Cross) indicated that they were 3x more chances of contracting Hepa-B, syphilis, malaria and aids if the blood came from the commercial ones compared to the other 3. How is that? Why is there a greater chance if they are all blood banks? Perhaps, we can go to your personal experiences to explain this matter. Lets say that there is somebody interested in you. Would you be willing to expose everything to him? Or you rather certain things to yourself? So it is the same way that happens in this case. Why? The Red Cross gets its blood from donors. Commercial blood banks obtained the blood by paying those who are willing. So what difference would this make? If you are donating your blood, you do not care much about disclosing everything about you. Such that certain illnesses that might not be infective may be disclosed by you.

It doesnt really matter whether you give it or not. But if you are selling your blood, it is like selling your liver, then you look for something to have it sold, right? Such that if the program is for the purpose of detecting the acceptability of your blood does alarm you. Therefore if you are expecting money from your blood, you will not expose histories of yours. So you might have been sick by this or that, you are given clearance by the commercial blood banks to sell your blood. Therefore, you would just keep quiet. Just like when you get your examination booklets. SO you can see how the court can reason out certain things. Are there any mothers here? I see 2. And the rest are potential mothers or donors. If youre thinking of becoming mothers, then you might as well remember the case of PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOC. OF THE PHILIPPINES It has something to do with the milk code (EO 51) and the revised implementing rules. There were certain regulations with re to breast milk and breast milk substitutes. Because under EO 51, the best milk for infants is breast milk. Those who are manufacturing breast milk substitutes questioned the validity of the implementing rules because these would affect their businesses. HELD: SC said that the milk code is a valid exercise of PP designed to promote the interest of the society especially with the fact that mothers should be educated that there is really no substitute for breast milk. Substitutes are not superior and not even equal to breast milk. There are other aspects of this case involving international law doctrine of incorporation and doctrine of transformation as well as on admin law re what law can be implemented re this implementing rules but this is no longer a part of our discussion. It is enough that there are other things aside from being mothers So if at one end of spectrum there are infants, on the other side, you would have people like Atty. Alcantara. You better enjoy your life now while you are young. For infants, they would have to be cared for by their parents or nannies but when they grow older, you would have no parents to take good care of you. You might have children but again, they would have to be busy with their own lives. So if nobody else can take care of Senior citizens, the state provides certain amenities for the latter like in the form of senior citizens discounts especially when it comes to medicines. The more you grow old, the more you get dependent on med. The more you rely on med, the lesser resources you would have to buy other meds. When youre still young, you can still earn but if youre already old, you would just be expecting your pensions. But when you are a lawyer, you never retire, you just die.

When the government requires the drugstores to give 20% discount, that necessarily means that they are telling the drugstores not to get what they normally should be getting for what they are selling. Their medicines might cost P100. If the senior citizens get their meds, therefore that drugstore will just be selling it for P80. In the process, they would already be losing P20. Is this fair? Is this not taking? Under the original Senior Citizens Law this discount would be recovered by means of tax credit. Meaning when the drugstore would already pay its income tax, it can claim as tax credits or part of the payment for whatever is due (for the 20% discount). Through the years, it gave a discount of P2, 000 and at the end of the year, it computed its income tax and it turned out that it is P4, 000. What the store would do is to deduct the P2, 000 for the P4, 000 that is due. So in effect, they would not lose anything in giving the discount. However, in the amendatory law, it was not considered as a tax deduction. And as such, it is not a one-on-one basis on the value given. So lets say the discount of 20%=P20 as a tax deduction, it can translate only to P16. In effect, there would already be a loss of P4. Is this not a violation of the right of the drugstores? Because it was already recognized in the case of Central Luzon Drug Corporation that this is a form of taking for which the government compensates the drugstores thru tax credit. Is this constitutional? In the case of Carlo Superdrug Corporation, the SC said that this is valid because now, were not talking of ED but more of PP. Under the latter, the state may require persons to subsidize certain programs of the govt. And assisting the government in promoting the interest of society is something that is within PP. Under the amendatory law, the deduction must be paid within the year in which it was given unlike in Central Luzon Drug Corporation where the tax credit can still be used in some other years if they are not utilized (in the year when they were earned). Have you seen those streamers in the trees where they are saying like Ibagsak ang kuryente ng El Presidente. Is that your project? Where is Lozada now? There is no need to kill him for so long as the people are not listening to what he is saying, right? What is this saying? HEROCHI V. DEPT OF ENERGY What is involved here is the so-called universal charges imposed pursuant to EPIRA. This is an additional charge both those who are using and distributing electricity and the issue is, is it justified. If it is mere taxing, it might not be but HELD: The SC said that it is part of the PP of the state. It is one way by which we can have a more efficient electrical system by allowing additional charges in order to pay for other charges that have not been settled. But you must have noticed that society becomes more complex, there is a need for a greater availability of PP. If you were to live in the province where your neighbor is 1 km apart, you would practically do everything in your house, isnt it? You can burn your house? But if you

do that in Manila, try to do that and you might obliterate the whole are. So there is a greater need for regulation as society becomes more complex. But just the same, the SC has cautioned in the case of VILLACORTA that there must be some limits also otherwise you will sacrifice a priced value in society, that is, INDIVIDUALISM or the right to be left alone. So how do you want it if everyone sees what you are doing? In so far as PP is concerned, just like the other powers, it is INHERENT. It is lodged in the Congress. But it may be exercised by other entities thru a VALID DELEGATION. It may be delegated to: 1. President 2. Administrative agencies 3. LGUs General Welfare Clause (Sec. 16) But the exercise of a delegated power by the agencies necessarily mean that they cannot do it in the same way that the Congress can. Being mere delegates, they do not have the same extent of power because it may be subject to certain limitations in the delegation itself. Lets talk about the good old days. Whether it is better than the present is really relative. In the present, it is hard to study, right? You have so many diversions which ask for your attention. In the olden days, life is so much simpler. Let us take the case of TV. There are only black and white TV sets then, limited channels broadcasting in the night and in the morning. So if you are insomniac, then you would have a problem. There are only about 6-7 channels. Contrast that to what you have now. The TV sets that you have now is conducive to indolence. You can just lie down, slouch and change channels courtesy of the remote control. And you also have 24/7 programming courtesy of cable TV. So you arent limited to local but also to other programs which you dont even understand. How did cable TV came about? We have the case of BATANGAS CATV Which would illustrate how problems could present opportunities. Like the bar exam, you consider it as something as a beckoning call to greatness. It is something that which you should dread or something which you would embrace. How would you feel if you are made lawyers simply by graduating? Will you be happy with that? So take a look at the bar as something like men separated from boys and the ladies from the girls. Learn here the trivia that the court introduced thru this case. How cable TV come about? In the 1940s, there was an appliance dealer who could not sell as many TVs

as he wished. Instead of crying, he looked for the reasons why he could not sell. It should be the right attitude for you, right? Like when you are dumped by someone, cry for a while and then try to find out the reason and become a better person. What did this appliance dealer find out? He found out that the reception in that area is not good. And if you were a customer, why would you buy a TV set when you cant see anything except yourself? So, this dealer hit on a brilliant idea. He said, what if he build an antenna on the top of the mountain and connect his subscriber thru a cable. That idea lightened up. The people now started to buy TV because they could now see the program Legal issue: Exercise of PP by the City of Batangas because there was a restriction as re the increase in the subscriber rates being subjected to approval by the city itself. Batangas CATV increased the rates without seeking the approval. So this case reached the SC HELD: SC said that it is not within the power of the city government to grant franchises when it comes to cable TV. That is a power that is reserved to the National Government thru the NTC. If the LGU does not have the power to grant franchises, then it also does not have the power to regulate the rates that may be charged by the cable operators. So what then is the extent of the PP that the city government may exercise? SC said that the LGU may still regulate the manner by which the cables are strung out across the streets but not in so far as the business of cable TV is concerned. Then, there is another beneficial effect that this case had in re to a criminal case. Did you notice that law is something like the internet? Hyper linking? Have you ever come across cloud computing? Why do I seem to be talking to aliens? BENEFIT OF BATANGAS CATV IN A CRIMINAL CASE ZOMZAT V. PEOPLE: It involves the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Butuan City. The Sanggunian Members were charged for violating the Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act particularly in favoring one cable operator as against another in the same locality. If there is undue preference for one, then there is a violation of such act. How did Batangas CATV benefit the accused in this case? HELD: The SC said if as held in BATANGAS CATV it was held that the LGU has no authority over cable operators, then, it cannot give franchise to anybody. If it cannot provide franchise to anybody, then it cannot favor anyone. Therefore, it could not be possibly guilty of unduly favoring anybody because it is not within its

power to unduly favor any. So here you can see how certain decisions can have some other consequence in some other instances. LTO CASE Regarding the licensing for tricycle drivers as well as the registration of tricycles. The city passed an ordinance saying that these functions should now be exercised by the city itself. LTO complained and the SC sustained it HELD: SC said that what is only devolved to the LGU is the regulatory function of the LTFRB but not the registration and licensing of the latter. So when it comes to giving of licenses to tricycle drivers, that is still within the jurisdiction of the LTO as well as the registration of the their vehicles Anybody here from Lucena? From Manila? We have this case of LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL V. JACK LINER involving an attempt on the part of the city to minimize traffic congestion by coming up with a central terminal at the outskirts of the city. So under this scheme, provincial buses are to load and unload their passengers in this terminal so that they would not be going to the city itself. The passengers would then have to be transported to the city proper thru some other means. The problem with this is JACK LINER already has an existing terminal in the city proper. SO if this city ordinance would be implemented, it would have to close its terminal within the city HELD: The SC sustained Jack liner. The SC said the ordinance here suffers from overbreadth. There is no showing that the presence of the city terminals in the city is the cause of traffic congestion. Instead, it appears that this is caused by drivers indiscriminately loading and unloading passengers. Therefore, if this is the reason, then, the solution should only be directed to the cause and not to some other aspects which would not be causing the problem. Otherwise, it would be suffering from overbreadth. It would be repressive and oppressive and unreasonable. And just recently in the case involving MMDA, the SC said that the closure of bus terminals along major thoroughfares in MM such as EDSA would also be considered as unreasonable under the circumstances because it does not appear that they are the ones causing the traffic problems. But this case involves the question of the power of the MMDA itself rather than that aspect about closing bus terminals. As we said, PP is something that is delegated and in 3 cases, the SC said that the MMDA has NO police power therefore it cannot implement certain ordinances that it may want to do if the component cities and municipalities have not come up with those necessary ordinances. So it is the latter who have the PP that may be implemented

by the MMDA but the latter cannot come up with its own ordinance for that purpose. And this is also the same problem confronting MMDA with re to the single-ticketing scheme. Lets talk about vices. Falling in love, is it a vice? Smoking or drinking? Gambling? Q: CAN POLICE POWER BE UTILIZED TO SOMEHOW ADVANCING A VICE? If you were a bishop receiving from someone, is gambling a vice? Anyway it is relative. If you are winning, why consider it as a vice? Have you come across the description of a diplomat by Justice Paras? It is in this book of Intl Law. He described a diplomat as a man who is bound to lie for his country abroad. We can just see how relative certain things are. There are times when you have to lie, to same your presidency, for instance, right? Q: HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY THE USE OF PP FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADVANCING A VICE LIKE GAMBLING? Well, we have to take a look at the benefits that we get from regulated gambling. The purpose for which is the funds. By regulated gambling, you can have money flowing in the coffers of the government which can be utilized for the social amelioration programs of the government. If you dont regulate gambling, it would just happen just the same, isnt it? And who would benefit from unregulated gambling? The protectors, right? So instead of benefiting the politicians and the policemen and other protectors, you might as well make more advantageous use of such money by regulating gambling. We have the PAGCOR which is the cash cow for the government. What other thing can you get from regulated gambling? Well to have it done in a certain place rather than conducting it in every street corner. But if it is the way by which the PP can be utilized to regulate gambling, can it also be used to validate prostitution? PP vis--vis Prostitution Prostitution is supposed to be a crime? But it is older than the legal profession. So could it possibly be regulated by the PP? Theoretically, it may but considering the kind of society that we have, it may be impractical. There would be a lot of people opposed to it. If there are a lot of people opposed to gambling, how much more to prostitution? So if you have to do it, just hide it. In so far as gambling is concerned we have the case of GONZALES V. PAGCOR

Where Gonzales tried to assail the constitutionality of BP 69 which is the PAGCOR CHARTER saying that it violates the provisions of the constitution HELD: SC said that we have utilized BP 69 in several cases in the past and recognized its constitutionality. It is too late in the day to turn around and say something else. But what is arresting in this case is the statement of the court that even with its expanded power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite history. It can rewrite doctrines but not history. LETS TALK ABOUT ED Eminent Domain A good way by which we can illustrate ED is by relating it to courtship. If a woman is interested in a guy, the normal way by which she can get him is by courting him, is that right? The same way when it comes with the government when it is interested in acquiring something. The normal and first step is to try to negotiate or try to negotiate to buy that something. If the owner refuses but the government really needs it then it may come up with its coercive power of ED and compel the unwilling owner to part with its property. But it cannot be done in so far as relationship between a man and woman is concerned. Because if the woman insists, youll just acquire a useless man. The woman may now be found guilty of rape, right? Sexual assault? SO that basically simplifies how ED is. If the government needs something and the owner says no, the owners chances are to receive the exercise of the power of ED. He would only have in exchange of the property taken by the government JUST COMPENSATION. ERICTA CASE It has something to do with an ordinance passed by the QC government requiring private cemetery owners to set aside 6% of their land area for the burial of paupers. Nayon Pilipino questioned the ordinance and the city said that it is a valid exercise of PP. Himlayan said that it is an invalid exercise of the power of ED and the city trial judge agreed with Himlayan. HELD: SC favored Himlayan. SC said that this is not an exercise of PP. Rather it is an invalid exercise of ED> When it comes to the exercise of PP there is taking but what is taken is noxious or dangerous to the society and it is destroyed; in the case of ED what is taken is what is useful. Therefore, there is a need for the payment of just compensation. Requiring the private cemetery owner to set aside 6% of the

land area cannot fall under PP because as you can see, the property will be used and not destroyed. ACFA V. PIATCO The SC said that the provision in a contract which provides for the payment of just compensation in case the state exercised the power under Sec. 17, Art. 12 of the Constitution, the court said that that exercise is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The government cannot be made to pay compensation or a temporary take over of terminal 3 in case of national emergency. There is no transfer of ownership. There is a mere temporary management of the airport terminals. Therefore to provide Just compensation would be unconstitutional. The Court said that when the government takes over temporarily, that is the exercise of PP and not ED. As such there is no need for just compensation. TAXATION It is something that is quite unavoidable nowadays. Even children are subjected to its overreaching consequences. So if a child were to go to Jollibee and assuming that he knows how to read his receipt, he would see that there is a tax that is imposed on what he ate. So it is quite unavoidable. But it is a problem to see how your tax is being wasted or being given to somebody elses pockets. What is the SOP now for the government projects? IF the SOP is 50% you can just imagine how much is being wasted. You must have learned in your taxation that the SC once said that the POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO DESTROY. But it was also the same SC that the power to tax will not be the power to destroy so long as this court sits. Related to that is the fact that the power to tax is subject to constraints of the BOR. Almanzor case Is the PRIEST Laws still in effect? It has been renewed over and over since the time of Marcos. Or is it something that you dont learn anymore? Under the PRIEST Law, land owners are prevented from increasing the rentals of their property if they were covered under that law. It happened that Reyes was a landowner and he had several debts. Then Manila came up with a new assessment for properties. Under such, Reyes would be paying higher real estate taxes compared to what he would realize from rents. So quite obviously, this is not fair. Why would you be subsidizing your tenants? Youre paying more from what you are getting from your properties HELD: SC sustained Reyes. That kind of a system would be oppressive. You cannot equate a property covered by a PRIEST RENTAL LAW with those which are not similarly equated even if they are just next door. Those which are not covered by

the priest rental law will have a much higher tax compared to these properties. Therefore if you assess those properties which are not covered by the priest rental law or under the comparable sales approach then you have to make use of another approach dealing with the priest rental law. The court said that the income approach should be used. This would be more reasonable LLAMANE V. GA GAPANTO CORP. Decided by this years chairman. There are certain things that you have to remember about Justice Tinga. He has an intellectual flair and sometimes, he can play with words and he is also up to date when it comes to the internet. In this case, he is making reference to Google. Why did he make a reference to Google? This was a term used by the City Treasurer of Makati to describe the position of a business tax of a condominium. The phrase fair appreciative living value. Justice Tinga said what is that? It is incapable of having an explanation in English language and you cannot even find a meaning in Google. He ended up by saying that a business tax cannot be imposed on a condominium because it is not being operated for profit. Whatever fund it is getting from its members is for its upkeep and not for a purpose of a business undertaking. So the court having reference to taxation being reasonable said that you cannot justify the imposition of taxes on terms which you cannot understand. QC V. BAYANTEL HELD: While the LGU had been delegated the taxing power pursuant to the constitution, we must still remember that this is subject to guidelines and limitations that may be set out by Congress. The power reserved in Congress enables the latter to exempt certain properties or persons from taxes. And this came about in the case of Bayantel when its franchise was amended by Congress in order to exempt the properties that it is directly, exclusively and actually using for its franchise telecommunications. PILIPINAS SHELL CORPORATION V. CIR The tax credit certificates these are certificates which represent credits which can be transferred from tax payer to another tax payer for the purpose of settling tax liabilities. The problem with this is that it has been attended by fraud. It has been subsequently found out that some of the tax credit certificates of Shell have been the result of fraudulent machinations within the government. HELD: The SC said that you cannot penalize Shell for using this tax certificates if it acquired them in good faith and FOR value. If it is not shown that it is part of this fraudulent machination then Shell cannot be penalized by having to pay again what

it has already paid thru tax credit certificates. That would be oppressive to require another payment on the part of Shell. Now lets talk about romance. Law is never far away from romance, isnt? In no time youll find your classmates having relationships with other persons within the College of Law. When you read and discuss cases together, youll realize that there is something that attracts you. So it may happen that 2 guys who are repeatedly together Its not anymore embarrassing to admit that they are gays, isnt it? Q: So how could the INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE SHOW SOME FORM OF ROMANCE? If you are to go now to baywalk or lets just say the beach So when you see couples holding hands xxx and you see their silhouette xxx its simply romantic holding hands is a sign of romance, isnt it? How can the fundamental powers at the same time hold hands and move towards the same direction? Normally there is not alone powers. PP, ED, Taxation. But there are times that they collaborate. Just like your group studies, thinking that you may learn more that way, realizing thereafter that your group mates are mere disturbances. They only need what you know but they do not contribute anything. So how do you illustrate the fundamental powers moving hand-in-hand? Lets talk about PP and Taxation ERMITA MALATE HOTEL AND MOTEL OPERATIONS INC. Well, you know these establishments? They are attractive nuisance, right? But in the City of Manila, they are not welcome in so far as the City was concerned. They were just convenient places where people can do certain things which they shall rather not do but its very hard to prevent them from what they want doing. So what the city government can do is to make it more inconvenient or difficult. Or if it cannot do it that way at least it can get something from it. So what did the City do? The city enacted this ordinance which made it more transparent. So if you were to go to this establishment, you are supposed to register which is open to public or identify yourself. Or if they do not require your ID you may place the name of your professors, right? This is a measure which to some is dissuading. There is also a requirement that the room should not be occupied more than twice in a day. In addition there was also the imposition of higher license fees. So how would this illustrate the collaboration of PP and Taxation? HELD: In so far as they required the customers to register in the manner by which they are required to do it, that would be PP regulation. Ordinarily, license fees are in the nature of the exercise of PP because they regulate and fees that are collected as a consequence of this would just be considered as a manner of paying off the

admin costs. So if you spend about P100 and you impose a license fee of P100, that is just 1:1. However, if you make the license fee higher than the cost of regulating, then that becomes TAXATION. So in this case the SC said that this is an instance where taxation comes to assistance for the purpose of implementing a policy of the city which is to discourage access to these establishments or to prevent more acts of immorality. ED + PP CARP CASE Under the CARP, landowners are limited in the area that they may retain in so far as agricultural lots are concerned. They are limited to 5 hectares. That is PP. What happens to the excess? The government cannot simply confiscate the same. So there is a need to pay for the excess surrendered to the government. Therefore, again, that is where ED comes in. PP in limiting the area that may be retained and ED in having to pay for the area that was taken Taxation + ED Central Luzon Drug Corporation In that case, even as drug stores are mandated to give 20% discount, which means that they are surrendering 20% of the properties which they should have, they are allowed to recover the equivalent of the property taken by means of the tax credit given to them at the end of the day. So taxation coming to assist ED and vice versa for the purpose of allowing the government program to push through. Now, lets go to the other side, the counter way. So far weve been talking about the fundamental powers of the state, now, let us go to the BOR If on one side you have the powers of the government, you have on the other side the guarantees that are intended to protect the freedom, rights and liberties of the people as v. the power of the government. The BOR is basically directed against the government so if it works against the government, so if your neighbor for instance is prying into your privacy, you cannot invoke the BOR. You shall look for other remedies under the Civil Code or the RPC but not under the BOR. People v. Marti Regarding a Swiss national who wanted to have packages delivered to a friend of his in Switzerland. He wanted to have this delivered by means of a private

forwarding company. When these packages were presented, the proprietor wanted to open the boxes but Marti said that these were just books and cigars. So the proprietor allowed Marti to just deliver them to them. But when Marti gave the box, the proprietor opened the box and found that they contained not tobacco but marijuana. So Marti appealed and said that it was a violation of his right against unreasonable searches and seizure because there was no warrant when those boxes were opened. HELD: The SC said that that guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures under the BOR would apply to acts of government agents and not to private persons. Since the proprietor was just a private person, then that guarantee may not be invoked People People was an employee of the Treasurers office of Baguio. His task is to deposit the collections of the Treasurers office in the bank. Then, one time, he was absent. So somebody was asked, a utility worker, to look at his drawer for certain documents. In the process of looking for such documents, he came across certain deposit slips which indicated that People did not deposit the amount in those slips. He was subsequently prosecuted for malversation and he claimed that there was a violation of his right under Sec. 2 HELD: In so far as the utility worker is concerned, he is considered only as a private person and therefore the provision under Sec. 2 may not apply. What is the moral of the story? Never be absent or if youre absent, take your things with you Lets talk about Superferry Boncaraoan Case A passenger in the Super Ferry complained that he couldnt find his jewelry and he suspected his fellow passenger, Boncaraoan to have taken it. The security personnel of Super Ferry looked for the latter and found him and subsequently searched his luggage. Instead of finding the jewelry, they found drugs. Perhaps, Boncaraoan already learned from the case of Marti. So they did not claim what the latter has said. And he claimed now that the security personnel of Super Ferry just like policemen were armed or they should be treated as such. Hence, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizure should apply to them. HELD: The SC said even if they are armed they are not within the ambit of Sec. 2 of the BOR. Policemen are agents of the state and they discharge sovereign functions of maintaining peace and order in the country. The same could not be said of the security guards of the Super Ferry. They are merely private armed persons.

How old are you in 1986? So defensive about your ages EDSA REVOLUTION With the EDSA Revolution, there was a change in the government and that was not in accordance with the constitution, instead it was a revolutionary one. As a consequence of such revolution, aside from Marcos fleeing to Hawaii, those closely identified with him also cam tumbling down. One of those was Gen. Ramas who was then the Commanding General of the Philippine Army. Then, as now, it appears that those in government positions somehow amass wealth not justified by their legal income. And just like so many other times, the wealth may not necessarily be with the spouse that bears his name but somebody else like a secretary. Too much dictation may lead to some other dictations, right? During the 1 st week of March 1986, a search warrant was applied for and implemented the search of the residence of the alleged paramour of Gen. Ramas. It was for the search and seizure of firearms and ammunitions. When the search was done, the raiding team not only came up with firearms but also came up with cash-dollars, peso as well as jewelry. Thats a womans best friend, right? As well as land titles. They were all taken together with the guns and ammunitions. Subsequently, a case was filed against Gen. Ramas as well as his paramour for the forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth. The case was filed before the SB by the PCGG. Eventually, the SB dismissed the cases without prejudice. Why? SB said that the PCGG has no authority to prosecute Gen Ramas because his case does not fall under the cases under EO 1, 2 and 14. Ramas was not shown to be a close associate of Marcos as he was only the Commanding General of the Philippine Army therefore if he is prosecuted, it should be done by the Office of the Ombudsman and not by the PCGG. SB also said that the items that were not included in the search warrant should be returned to Ramas and the GF. This was elevated to the SC and the Republic said that in so far as the items not included in the warrant is concerned, the same should be reversed. Why? The republic said when the raid was conducted, they were under a revolutionary government. As such, there is no constitution. If there is no constitution then there is no BOR. If there is no BOR there is no Sec. 2. But as you may have found out, logical doesnt necessarily mean legal. So what did the SC said? HELD: SC said, yes, we agree with you. From Feb 25 March 25 1986, there is no constitution. What we have is a revolutionary government. What happened to the 1973 constitution? It was abrogated when the revolutionary government took seat because the policy of the latter is inconsistent with the 1973 constitution. Accordingly with the success of the revolutionary, there was no more 1973 constitution to talk about. So for one month, the Philippines was in an interregnum. No constitution. We have only the Freedom constitution in March 25. When the raid was conducted, there was no constitution. But, the exclusionary rule is still available. How can this be if there is no constitution to talk about in the first place?

The SC said even as the revolutionary government abrogated the 1973constitution, it does not repudiate its international commitments. The Philippines is a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and these international instruments carry the same guarantee as the exclusionary rule found in the constitution. So even without the latter, we are still bound by our international commitments and therefore the exclusionary rule was still available. Accordingly, those properties not included in the search warrant should be returned to Gen. Ramas. Any body here from Cebu?