BCSM DIGESTS 1 Constitutional Law II

MMDA vs. BEL-AIR VILLAGE ASSOC. Neptune Street / Police Power The MMDA sent a Notice to the Bel- Air Village Association (BAVA) ordering for the opening of Neptune Street (privately-owned by BAVA) to public vehicular traffic and that the perimeter fence separating said street from Kalayaan Ave. was to be demolished. The order was claimed to be in the exercise of police power. The powers of the MMDA are administrative in nature, and the MMDA Law (RA No. 7924) grants the MMDA neither police power nor legislative power. It is only a development authority organized for the purpose of laying down policies and with coordinating w/ the various government organizations for the delivery of basic services w/in the metropolitan area. Police Power is lodged in the National Legislature and was delegated to the Local Government Units through the Local Government Code. Police power was not conferred by Congress to the MMDA. PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS CASE Hierarchy of Rights Human Rights are imprescriptible and hold primacy over property rights. These include the right to free speech, religion, free assembly, the press, and the right to petition. A law that restricts the exercise of property rights is valid as long as it is reasonable and not arbitrary. However, a law restricting the basic human rights must satisfy a very strict criterion namely that there must be a grave and immediate evil that the state has the right to prevent. It must also pass the balancing of interest test. Duncan Assoc. v. Glaxo Wellcome Phils. glaxo wellcome philippines is a drug company that has a policy prohibiting its employees to marry persons employed in a competing company to avoid conflict of interests. Pedro tecson a medical representative of glaxo married an employee of astra which is a competitor company. Tecson claimed that such policy of glaxo violates the right to marry. The court finds no merit. glaxo company has the right to guard its trade secrets and in this case there is a reasonable necessity for the prohibition. wherefore, petition is denied. Star Paper Corp. v. Simbol A corporation engaged in trading papers promulgates a policy banning spouses from working in the same company. This violates the rights of the employees under the Constitution and is not a valid exercise of management prerogative. There is no reasonable business necessity in the case at bar unlike in Duncan. N O SP O vs P N due process / notice by mail Actual Notice need not be sent to the absentee-owner of a mortgaged property subject to foreclosure. It is not absolutely necessary under the law. Rationale: property is presumed to be in the possession of the owner or his agents, and it is his duty to be vigilant and aware when his property is called to requisition. If he fails to gain notice through the ordinary publications, then it is his misfortune and he must abide by the consequences. The requisites of Due Process in Judicial Proceedings: 1. Court or tribunal clothed w/ judicial power to hear & determine the matter before it 2. Jurisdiction acquired over the person or property subject of the proceedings 3. Defendant must be afforded the opportunity to be heard 4. Judgment must be rendered after lawful hearing Fabella v. CA RALLYING TEACHERS Facts: Public school teachers participated in strikes and talk outs on various dates. The secretary of DECS then filed an administrative case. Issue: WON in the course of the investigation of the alleged proscribed activity, the teachers' right to due process has been violated. Before they can be investigated and meted out any penalty, due process must be first observed. (under the case book, case wasnt given decision) The requisites of Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: 1. The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect rights; 2. A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; 3. A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; 4. A finding by said tribunal supported by substantial evidence. NON vs. JUDGE DAMES rallying students / school discipline Ariel Non and 12 other students of the Mabini College participated in unruly mass actions within school premises. They violated their rally permits w/c only allowed them to rally in the school basketball court. It resulted to the disruption of classes. They were thus denied reenrollment for the next semester. The following are the requisites for due process in school disciplinary actions: 1. students must be informed in writing of the nature & cause of the accusations 2. they shall have the right to answer the charges, w/ counsel should they so choose 3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them 4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf 5. school authorities must decide based on evidence 6. penalty imposed must be PROPORTIONAL The penalty of denying Non and the other petitioners re-enrollment is clearly excessive and disproportionate to the offenses committed. LAO GI alias CHIA Jr. vs. CA due process / deportation Deportation proceedings must be conducted in accordance w/ the principles of due process. There must be a preliminary investigation to determine the existence of probable cause. The alien must be informed of the specific grounds for deportation. Hearing must be in accordance w/ the rules prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration. The Rules of Criminal Procedure govern the issuance of search warrants, warrants of arrest, bail, motion to quash, and the trial. Private prosecutors cannot intervene in deportation proceedings in order to avoid harassment and oppression, hence there are special prosecutors tasked to prosecute deportation. PEOPLE vs. NAZARIO vague law / fish ponds case Nazario was charged for violating certain municipal ordinances w/c he assails as vague. The said ordinances impose a P 3.00 tax per square hectare of fishpond, w/c starts 3 years from the approval by the Bureau of Fisheries, or starting from the year 1964 in case it was opened beyond the said year. He likewise claims that, being a lessee, he is neither owner nor manager w/in the scope of the definition of the law. In order for a law to be vague, its obscurity must be evident on its face such that it cannot be clarified by a saving clause or by construction. It is distinguished

from laws couched on imprecise language or laws that are fairly ambiguous but nevertheless applicable. In the case at bar, the ordinances are not vague and merely poses a simple mathematical problem as to the dates of the payment w/c may nevertheless be computed. Being the one who benefits and profits from the fishponds, the petitioner likewise falls squarely w/in the coverage of the term operator or manager of the said fishpond for the purpose of the tax. CORONA vs. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS occupation / property rights The Phil. Ports Authority (PPA), in the exercise of its control power, enacted an Admin. Order, ordering that all appointments to harbor pilot positions shall be for a term of only 1 year, subject to renewal or cancellation yearly after rigid evaluation of performance. The Office of the President, through Exec. Sec. Corona, affirmed the validity of the said resolution. However, it was nullified by the trial court. Procedurally, the Admin. Order is valid despite the lack of notice & hearing prior to its enactment, because it was enacted through the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. However, substantially, it is unreasonable and superfluous and amounts to deprivation of property w/o due process of law because it restricts the harbor pilots from enjoying their profession before their compulsory retirement. The right to ones occupation is a vested property right and can only be restricted or denied with due process of law. ARMY & NAVY CLUB vs. CA property rights / historical landmarks The City of Manila attempts to evict the Army & Navy Club for its failure to comply w/ contractual obligations. The latter asserts that it is a historical landmark for being so declared by the Natl Historical Commission and thus, its existence allegedly cannot be undermined by a simple ejectment suit. When properties are classified into historical treasures, it imposes limits on ownership hence it must be done in accordance w/ due process. As an exercise of the police power, such authority is lodged in the legislature and the governing laws are RA No. 4846 and PD No. 374 providing the manner by w/c said properties are to be classified. Hence, it must follow the prescribed procedure first before being so classified. Therefore, the recognition of the Army and Navy Club as a historical wealth is plausible. SUMMARY DISMISSAL BOARD vs. TORCITA conduct unbecoming of officer / notice & hearing PO Torcita was charged w/ several counts of conduct unbecoming of an officer, grave threats, and abuse of authority. All charges were dismissed. However, he was instead convicted of Simple Irregularity in the

Performance of Duty for w/c he was not specifically charged. Petitioners allege that the offense of Simple Irregularity (w/c includes being drunk during duty hours) is covered by the more serious offense of Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer. A person cannot be found guilty of an offense for w/c he was neither notified nor charged. It violates the rudimentary requirements of due process. ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN plunder law / vague law / series or combination Former Pres. Estrada is prosecuted under the Plunder Law (RA No. 7080) as amended by RA No. 7659. He challenges the constitutionality of the said law for being vague claiming that the words combination and series in the phrase combination or series of obvert and criminal acts are vague. A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. Words in a statute are understood in their plain and common meaning, unless the legislature otherwise intended. It can very easily be understood that what the law punishes is the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least P 50 million through the series or combination of c riminal acts. It is, in fact, clear and free from ambiguity. The concept of overbreadth, peculiar to free expression cases, is not applicable to the case at bar. GONZALES vs. NLRC & ATENEO DE DAVAO removal of teacher / due process Lorlene Gonzales, a teacher, was investigated pursuant to complaints from 2 parents alleging that she resorted to corporal punishment to discipline students. She called for the amendment of some school rules, particularly that w/c limited the participation of her counsel to advice only w/o direct participation. She was terminated upon notice; the NLRC sustained the termination. Opportunity must be afforded the accused to defend herself either personally or through counsel, to be informed of the nature and causes of the accusations against her, and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses. The adamant refusal of the committee to accede to the demand to amend the rule and allow her counsel to participate has led to her failure to successfully confront and cross-examine the accusers ultimately vitiating the investigation. UNITED STATES vs. TORIBIO slaughter of carabao / restraint on property use The appellant was prosecuted for slaughtering or causing to be slaughtered a carabao, against the provisions of Act No. 1147 w/c is now assailed either as an invalid exercise of eminent domain or police power. The legislature may regulate and restrain the use of property as would be inconsistent or injurious to the

rights of the public. Great discretion is vested upon the State to determine not only what the interests of the public require but also what measures are reasonably necessary to such interests. It does not amount to taking of private property for public use. YNOT vs. IAC carabeef / valid purpose, invalid means Ynot transported 6 carabaos from Masbate to Iloilo and was caught and penalized under EO No. 66-A prohibiting the inter-provincial transport of carabaos and carabeef & authorizing the immediate confiscation of the said carabaos & distribution of the same to deserving farmers (charitable institutions in the case of carabeef) as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit. The purpose of the law was to protect carabaos as a national energy resource given the prevailing energy crisis. Take note that the carabao is said to be the poor mans tractor. There is no connection between prohibiting inter-province transport of carabaos / carabeef & preventing their slaughter. They can be slaughtered nevertheless w/o having to transport them. It is an unreasonable exercise of the police power. It orders the immediate confiscation and forfeiture of the said property w/o due process and w/o affording the defendant the opportunity to be heard. The objective may be valid, but the means amount to deprivation of property w/o due process of law. The EO also encroaches upon the powers of the judiciary in violation of the principle of the separation of powers by allowing the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission to dispose of the confiscated properties as he may see fit. CHURCHILL vs. RAFFERTY billboards regulation Act No. 2339 allows the Collector of Internal Revenue, after due investigation, to decide that any sign or billboard exposed to the public view is offensive to the sight or is otherwise a nuisance and empowers him to summarily order its removal. If not complied with in 10 days, he may cause the removal himself. The plaintiffs contend that it constitutes deprivation of property w/o due process of law. The regulation of billboards falls squarely w/in the police power of the State. Things offensive to the senses, such as sight, smell, or hearing, may be suppressed by the State especially those situated in thickly populated districts. The people are entitled to protest against the indiscriminate and wholesale use of the landscape by advertisers especially if they are offensive to the senses under certain conditions. The State has the duty to promote a healthy social and economic condition and the comfort and convenience of the people fall squarely w/in its coverage. The prevailing public sentiment likewise militates against the erection of billboards w/c are offensive to the sight.

BCSM DIGESTS 3 Constitutional Law II

DD: Aesthetics may now be regulated by the police power of the State, although usually justified by the public interest and safety. PEOPLE vs. FAJARDO view of the plaza / deprivation of property Juan Fajardo was convicted for having constructed a building, w/o permit from the Municipal Mayor, that obstructs the view of the Plaza from the Highway, contrary to an Ordinance enacted for that matter. Fajardo was then refused issuance of a building permit. The ordinance is unreasonable and oppressive. The purpose of the law may be valid; however, the means employed is arbitrary. An ordinance w/c permanently restricts the use of property such that it can no longer be used for any reasonable purpose, is beyond regulation and constitutes taking of property. It clearly oversteps the boundaries of the exercise of police power and amounts to confiscation and deprivation of property w/o just compensation. The use and enjoyment of the property is an element of ownership. DD: If the State will restrict the use of private property such that it can no longer be used for any reasonable purpose or for the purpose for w/c it is intended then it amounts to taking of the property. In this case, the State must expropriate the property and pay the owner just compensation. ACEBEDO OPTICAL vs. CA business permit vs professional license Acebedo Optical applied w/ the City Mayor of Iligan for a business permit w/c was granted, anent opposition from local optometrists, but subject to various burdensome condition such that it is limited to a commercial store, that it cannot examine or prescribe reading glasses & cannot sell the same w/o prescription of independent optometrists, that it can only advertise Ray Ban and similar frames. Although police power is vested in the legislature and is granted to local government units (including the power to issue permits), a business permit cannot be equated w/ a license to practice a profession, the issuance of w/c is lodged in a board of commissioners tasked specifically to regulate the said profession in this case, the Board of Examiners in Optometry. The local government does not have authority to regulate the profession or practice of Optometry. Further, a corporation such as Acebedo has all the contractual rights of a person and may employ qualified optometrists it is not against public policy or the law. LAWRENCE vs. TEXAS sodomy / form of liberty The Houston police, responding to a weapons disturbance report, entered Lawrences apartment and saw him and another man engaging in sexual acts. They were thus prosecuted under a Texas Law prohibiting sodomy. The fact that the majority perceive something to be immoral is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a law prohibiting the same. Furthermore, individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships are a form of liberty protected by the due process clause. The case involves two consenting adults, not minors or persons that may be injured or coerced, or prostitution, such that would warrant the States interference. DD: The State has no business meddling w/ the sexual preferences of consenting adults for as long as they pose no danger to the public health or interest. It is guaranteed by their right to liberty. ERMITA-MALATE HOTEL & MOTEL OPERATORS vs. CITY OF MANILA hotel regulation To address the increase of prostitution and other activities offensive to the public morals, the City of Manila enacted an Ordinance burdening the hotel / motel operators (petitioners) with certain regulations such as that lessees are to be required to fill up registration forms, imposing a prohibition against the lease of rooms to minors, or for more than twice w/in 24 hours, that the said establishments must be open for inspection by the Mayor of Chief of Police, and classifying said establishments into 2 classifications (1st class & 2nd class) and imposing certain minimum requirements therefor. Petitioners assail the Ordinance for invading their right to privacy. Police power is the power of the State to enact regulations to promote the health, morals, peace and order, and welfare of the society. The said ordinance is enacted precisely for that purpose: to prevent the deterioration of the public morals. The standard for the validity of its exercise is its responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. It must not be arbitrary and oppressive. The additional taxes imposed are reasonable and may be imposed as an exercise of police power for so long as it is just and uniform. In the absence of a clear showing of infirmity, the presumption of constitutionality prevails. City of Manila v. Judge Laguio

establishments, and it is considered insupportable and baseless to bring within that classification the establishments prohibited by the said ordinance. These establishments do not have the same accepted definitions as the ill reputed establishments. They cannot generalize them as offensive to public morals Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila
Facts: On 3 Dec 1992, then Mayor Lim signed into law Ord 7774 entitled An Ordinance prohibiting short time admission in hotels, motels, lodging houses, pension houses and similar establishments in the City of Manila. White Light Corp is an operator of mini hotels and motels who sought to have the Ordinance be nullified as the said Ordinance infringes on the private rights of their patrons. The RTC ruled in favor of WLC. It ruled that the Ordinance strikes at the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution. The City maintains that the ordinance is valid as it is a valid exercise of police power. Under the LGC, the City is empowered to regulate the establishment, operation and maintenance of cafes, restaurants, beerhouses, hotels, motels, inns, pension houses, lodging houses and other similar establishments, including tourist guides and transports. The CA ruled in favor of the City. ISSUE: Whether or not Ord 7774 is valid. HELD: The SC ruled that the said ordinance is null and void as it indeed infringes upon individual liberty. It also violates the due process clause which serves as a guaranty for protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. The said ordinance invades private rights. Note that not all who goes into motels and hotels for wash up rate are really there for obscene purposes only. Some are tourists who needed rest or to wash up or to freshen up. Hence, the infidelity sought to be avoided by the said ordinance is more or less subjected only to a limited group of people. The SC reiterates that individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. BALACUIT vs. CFI half-priced seats for kids / no public interest served The City Board of Butuan enacted Ordinance No. 640 mandating that admission seats for children between 7-12 years old should be sold for half the price, apparently to lessen the economic burden of parents whose kids are lured by the so-called attractive nuisances. It provides for penalties for violators. Police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare. A reasonable relation between end and means must exist. No public interest at all is served by the

The city of manila passed an ordinance which disallows the operation of sauna parlors, karaoke bars, massage parlors, beerhouses, and night clubs in the ermitamalate area. The issue is WON this was valid. It was held that it was not valid. What the city can prohibit are ill repute

ordinance. Ascertaining the ages of children for the purpose of the discount is likewise difficult. It is not at all practicable, as the Council asserts, to require children to present birth certificates while purchasing theater tickets. MAGTAJAS vs. PRYCE PROPERTIES legal gambling / LGU police power Because of the success of its Casino business, the PAGCOR planned to establish a casino in Cagayan de Oro City. They leased a portion of a building from Pryce Properties for that purpose. A wave of strong protest from the local officials, organizations, and other citizens followed w/c led the local Sanggunian to enact the assailed Ordinance prohibiting the establishment of casinos w/in its territory. While it is generally considered illegal, the Constitution does not prohibit gambling outright. It is up to Congress to decide, based on its own wisdom, whether or not to prohibit the same outright or some forms of it. Although the local governments are imbued w/ police power, they may only prohibit gambling that is illegal, but not forms of gambling allowed by law in this case by the PAGCOR Charter. The following are the requisites for a valid ordinance: 1. It must not contravene any law or the Constitution 2. It must not be unfair or oppressive 3. It must not be partial or discriminatory 4. It may not prohibit but may regulate trade 5. It must be general and consistent w/ public policy 6. It must not be unreasonable BENNIS vs. MICHIGAN confiscated car / deterrent against illegal use The car jointly owned by the Bennis spouses was confiscated by the Michigan Court as a public nuisance because the husband, John, used it to engage in sexual activity with a prostitute along a Detroit City street. He was convicted of gross indecency. The wife, Tina, claims that, being the co-owner and innocent spouse without knowledge or consent to her husbands illegal activity, she has been deprived of her property w/o due process of law. It is a well settled rule in jurisprudence that the acts of the possessor bind the interests of the owner, whether he is innocent or not. It is a defense of the State against forbidden use and the evasion from liability by dispensing with the necessity of conducting judicial inquiry regarding possible collusion. The government is NOT required to compensate the owner of the property it has lawfully taken unless the taking was done in the exercise the power of Eminent Domain. In this case, the forfeiture was exercised through the police power of the State. The confiscation of the said property is in the nature of a penalty, hence no compensation is due. The purpose of the law is to deter illegal activities leading to the deterioration of the neighborhood and to unsafe streets.

CRUZAN vs. MISSOURI DIRECTOR OF DOH euthanasia / State interest to protect life Nancy Cruzan, due to an automobile accident, is in persistent vegetative state. The state trial court authorized the termination of death-delaying procedures at the instance of her close family but the State Supreme Court reversed. Generally, a competent person has the constitutionally-protected right to refuse life-saving hydration and nutrition. However, it does not follow that the same applies to an incompetent person. The State has a general interest in the protection and preservation of human life. It must guard against potential abuses by surrogates who may not act according to the interests of the patient. For this reason, the State of Missouri can apply a clear and convincing evidence standard to determine whether or not the proposed termination of the death-delaying mechanisms is in accordance w/ the will of the patient. In this case, the evidence adduced in trial (based on the testimony of her friend that she once remotely expressed not wanting to live further in a vegetative state) does not suffice to meet the said standard. The Due Process Clause does not require the State to accept the substituted judgment of close family members in the absence of clear proof that they reflect the same views of the patient. Beltran v. Sec. of Health a study evaluating the safety of the Philippine blood banking system revealed that the Philippines relied heavily on commercial blood banks. These commercial blood banks are more prone to infections due to the sources of blood. Thus, ra 7719 was passed phasing out commercial blood banks. Petitioner contends that ra 7719 unduly discriminates against commercial blood banks in a manner not germane to the purpose of the law. The court deems the classification to be valid and reasonable because 1. it is substantial 2. germane to the purpose of the law 3. it was intended for general application 4. applies to all members of all commercial blood banks. wherefore, petition denied.