CAYAT VS PEOPLE

Facts/Issue: Accused Cayat, a native of Baguio,

Benguet, Mountain Province, and a member of the nonChristian tribes, was found guilty of violating sections 2
and 3 of Act No. 1639 for having acquired and
possessed one bottle of A-1-1 gin, an intoxicating
liquor, which is not a native wine. The law made it
unlawful for any native of the Philippines who is a
member of a non-Christian tribe within the meaning of
Act 1397 to buy, receive, have in his possession, or
drink any ardent spirits, ale, beer, wine or intoxicating
liquors of any kind, other than the so-called native wines
and liquors which the members of such tribes have been
accustomed to prior to the passage of the law. Cayat
challenges the constitutionality of Act 1639 on the
grounds that it is discriminatory and denies the equal
protection of the laws, violates due process clause, and
is an improper exercise of police power.
Held: It is an established principle of constitutional law
that the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is
not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
classification. (1) must rest on substantial distinctions;
(2) must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) must
not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) must
apply equally to all members of the same class.
Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. The
classification rests on real or substantial, not merely
imaginary or whimsical distinctions. It is not based upon
accident of birth or parentage, as counsel for the
appellant asserts, but upon the degree of civilization and
culture. The term non-Christian tribes refers, not to
religious belief but in a way, to the geographical area
and more directly, to natives of the Philippine Islands of
a low grade of civilization, usually living in tribal
relationship apart from settled communities. (Rubi vs.
Provincial Board of Mindora, supra.) This distinction is
unquestionably reasonable, for the Act was intended to
meet the peculiar conditions existing in the nonChristian tribes.
The prohibition enshrined in Act 1397 is designed to
insure peace and order in and among non-Christian
tribes. It applies equally to all members of the class
evident from perusal thereof. That it may be unfair in its
operation against a certain number of non-Christians by
reason of their degree of culture, is not an argument
against the equality of its application.

Dela Cruz v Paras

G.R. No. L-42571-72 July 25, 1983
Facts:
1. Assailed was the validity of an ordinance which prohibit
the operation of night clubs. Petitioners contended that
the ordinance is invalid, tainted with nullity, the
municipality being devoid of power to prohibit a lawful

business, occupation or calling. Petitioners at the same

time alleging that their rights to due process and equal
protection of the laws were violated as the licenses
previously given to them was in effect withdrawn
without judicial hearing.
2. RA 938, as amended, was originally enacted on June 20,
1953. It is entitled: "An Act Granting Municipal or City
Boards and Councils the Power to Regulate the
Establishments, Maintenance and Operation of Certain
Places of Amusement within Their Respective
Territorial
Jurisdictions.'
The first section reads, "The municipal or city board or
council of each chartered city shall have the power to
regulate by ordinance the establishment, maintenance
and operation of night clubs, cabarets, dancing schools,
pavilions, cockpits, bars, saloons, bowling alleys,
billiard pools, and other similar places of amusement
within
its
territorial
jurisdiction:
On May 21, 1954, the first section was amended to
include not merely "the power to regulate, but likewise
"Prohibit ... " The title, however, remained the same. It
is worded exactly as RA 938.
3. As thus amended, if only the said portion of the Act was
considered, a municipal council may go as far as to
prohibit the operation of night clubs. The title was not in
any way altered. It was not changed one bit. The exact
wording was followed. The power granted remains that
of regulation, not prohibition.
4. Petitioners contended that RA 938 which prohibits the
operation of night clubs would give rise to a
constitutional question. The lower court upheld the
constitutionality and validity of Ordinance No. 84 and
dismissed the cases. Hence this petition for certiorari by
way of appeal.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ordinance is valid
NO. It is unconstitutional. It undoubtly involves a
measure not embraced within the regulatory power but
an exercise of an assumed power to prohibit.
1. The Constitution mandates: "Every bill shall embrace
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title
thereof. "Since there is no dispute as the title limits the
power to regulating, not prohibiting, it would result in
the statute being invalid if, as was done by the
Municipality of Bocaue, the operation of a night club
was prohibited. There is a wide gap between the
exercise of a regulatory power "to provide for the health
and safety, promote the prosperity, and improve the
morals, in the language of the Administrative Code,
such competence extending to all "the great public
needs.

2.

In accordance with the well-settled principle of

constitutional construction that between two possible
interpretations by one of which it will be free from
constitutional infirmity and by the other tainted by such
grave defect, the former is to be preferred. A
construction that would save rather than one that would
affix the seal of doom certainly commends itself.

3. Under the Local Govt Code, it is clear that municipal

corporations cannot prohibit the operation of night
clubs. They may be regulated, but not prevented from
carrying on their business. It would be, therefore, an
exercise in futility if the decision under review were
sustained. All that petitioners would have to do is to
apply once more for licenses to operate night clubs. A
refusal to grant licenses, because no such businesses
could legally open, would be subject to judicial
correction. That is to comply with the legislative will to
allow the operation and continued existence of night
clubs subject to appropriate regulations. In the
meanwhile, to compel petitioners to close their
establishments, the necessary result of an affirmance,
would amount to no more than a temporary termination
of their business.
4. Herein what was involved is a measure not embraced
within the regulatory power but an exercise of an
assumed power to prohibit.

the rules and regulations now complained of is not to

determine what public policy demands but merely to
carry out the legislative policy laid down by the
National Assembly in said Act, to wit, to promote safe
transit upon and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets
designated as national roads by acts of the National
Assembly or by executive orders of the President of the
Philippines and to close them temporarily to any or all
classes of traffic whenever the condition of the road or
the traffic makes such action necessary or advisable in
the public convenience and interest.
The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the
determination of what the law shall be, but merely the
ascertainment of the facts and circumstances upon
which the application of said law is to be predicated.
To promulgate rules and regulations on the use of
national roads and to determine when and how long a
national road should be closed to traffic, in view of the
condition of the road or the traffic thereon and the
requirements of public convenience and interest, is an
administrative function which cannot be directly
discharged by the National Assembly.
It must depend on the discretion of some other
government official to whom is confided the duty of
determining whether the proper occasion exists for
executing the law. But it cannot be said that the exercise
of such discretion is the making of the law.

Topic: Sec 10 (Art. II, 1987 Const.),"Promotion of

social justice"
CALALANG vs. WILLIAMS
70 pHIL 726

Rubi, et al. vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro

G.R. No. L-14078. March 7, 1919
Facts:

Facts:
In pursuance of Commonwealth Act 548 which
mandates the Director of Public Works, with the
approval of the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, shall promulgate the necessary rules
and regulations to regulate and control the use of and
traffic on such roads and streets to promote safe transit
upon, and avoid obstructions on, roads and streets
designated as national roads, the Director of Public
Works adopted the resolution of the National Traffic
Commission, prohibiting the passing of animal drawn
vehicles in certainstreets in Manila.
Petitioner questioned this as it constitutes an undue
delegation of legislative power.
Issues:
Whether or not there is a undue delegation of legislative
power?
Ruling:
There is no undue delegation of legislative power.
Commonwealth Act 548 does not confer legislative
powers to the Director of Public Works. The authority
conferred upon them and under which they promulgated

Rubi and various other Manguianes in the

province of Mindoro were ordered by the provincial
governor of Mindoro to remove their residence from
their native habitat and to established themselves on a
reservation at Tigbao in the province of Mindoro and to
remain there, or be punished by imprisonment if they
escaped. Manguianes had been ordered to live in a
reservation made to that end and for purposes of
cultivation under certain plans. The Manguianes are a
Non-Christian tribe with a very low culture. These
reservations, as appears from the resolution of the
Provincial Board, extend over an area of 800 hectares of
land, which is approximately 2000 acres, on which
about 300 Manguianes are confined. One of the
Manguianes, Dabalos, escaped from the reservation and
was taken in hand by the provincial sheriff and placed in
prison at Calapan, solely because he escaped from the
reservation. An application for habeas corpus was made
on behalf of Rubi and other Manguianes of the province,
alleging that by virtue of the resolution of the provincial
board of Mindoro creating the reservation, they had
been illegally deprived of their liberty. In this case the
validity of section 2145 of the Administrative Code,

reading: With the prior approval of the Department

Head, the provincial governor of any province in which
non-Christian inhabitants are found is authorized, when
such a course is deemed necessary in the interest of law
and order, to direct such inhabitants to take up their
habitation on sites on unoccupied public lands to be
selected by him and approved by the provincial board,
was challenged.

Police power
Police power is the state authority to enact legislation
that may interfere with personal liberty or property to
promote the general welfare. It consists of (a) an
imposition of restraint upon liberty or property; (b) in
order to foster the common good. It is not capable of an
exact definition, but has been, purposely, veiled in
general terms to underscore its all comprehensive
embrace. [1]

Issue:
Whether or not the said law is not in line with the
constitutional provision of freedom of religion.

Held:
No. By a vote of five to four, the Supreme
Court sustained the constitutionality of this section of
the Administrative Code. Among other things, it was
held that the term non-Christian should not be given a
literal meaning or a religious signification, but that it
was intended to relate to degrees of civilization. The
term non-Christian it was said, refers not to religious
belief, but in a way to geographical area, and more
directly to natives of the Philippine Islands of a low
grade of civilization. On the other hand, none of the
provisions of the Philippine Organic Law could have
had the effect of denying to the Government of the
Philippine Islands, acting through its Legislature, the
right to exercise that most essential, insistent, and
illimitable of powers, the sovereign police power, in the
promotion of the general welfare and the public interest.
when to advance the public welfare, the law was found
to be a legitimate exertion of the police power, And it is
unnecessary to add that the prompt registration of titles
to land in the Philippines constitutes an advancement of
the public interests, for, besides promoting peace and
good order among landowners in particular and the
people in general, it helps increase the industries of the
country, and makes for the development of the natural
resources, with the consequent progress of the general
prosperity. And these ends are pursued in a special
manner by the State through the exercise of its police
power. The Supreme Court held that the resolution of
the provincial board of Mindoro was neither
discriminatory nor class legislation, and stated among
other things: . . . one cannot hold that the liberty of the
citizen is unduly interfered with when the degree of
civilization of the Manguianes is considered. They are
restrained for their own good and the general good of
the Philippines. Nor can one say that due process of law
has not been followed. To go back to our definition of
due process of law and equal protection of the laws,
there exists a law; the law seems to be reasonable; it is
enforced according to the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and it applies alike to all of a class.

It is characterized as "the most essential, insistent and

the least limitable of powers, extending as it does to all
the great public needs." Negatively, it is defined as "that
inherent and plenary power in the State which enables it
to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety, and
welfare of society." The most frequent cited definition,
however, has been Chief Justice Shaw's classic
statement which calls police power "the power vested in
the legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws,
statutes, and ordinances, either with penalties or
without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall
judge to be for the good and welfare of the
commonwealth, and of the subjects of the same. [2]"
Exercise of Police Power
Police Power is primarily vested in the National
Legislature -- The Congress of the Philippines, but may
also be exercised by the President of the Philippines and
administrative boards by virtue of a valid delegation of
legislative power.

The tests to determine the validity of legislative

enactments are:
1.

2.

The interests of the public generally, as

distinguished from those of a particular class,
require the exercise of police power; and
The means employed are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals.