Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JUDICIAL SELF-LIMITATION
Angara vs. Electoral Commission P. 1060 Tanada vs. Cuenco
Angara opposes late protest of Ynsua o The courts are called upon to say, on the one hand, by whom
12/3 Angara confirmed certain powers shall be exercised, and on the other hand, to
determine whether the powers thus possessed have been
12/8 Ynsua protest
validly exercised. In performing the latter function, they do not
12/9 – EC set last day for filing protest encroach upon the powers of a coordinate branch of the
Angara: confirmation/resolution set limit for deadline of filing protests government, since the determination of the validity of an act is
2 bodies have conflicting/opposing acts not the same thing as the performance of the act. In the case
SC can resolve conflict we are seeking to ascertain upon whom devolves the duty of
Judicial Supremacy – power of judicial review; review conflicts between the particular service. In the other case we are merely seeking
constitutional commission to determine whether the Constitution has been violated by
EC acted within its power (setting deadline and accepting protest) anything done or attempted by either an executive official or the
EC: Constitutional legislative.
Respect for co-equal branches
Ü TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON Ü
1
Judiciary is to uphold the constitution
Self-restraint Law in the case: Act to regulate retail business – exercise of police
DOES IT CONTRADICT JUDICIAL SUPREMACY? No Why? power
Constitution: Provides general pattern or norm of official action It doesn’t violates rights
Political Question Doctrine Inherent in the state thus no need to express it in the Constitution
o Question answerable by people in their primary political SC Delved on factual background of the case (ratio discussed the
capacity circumstances of the retail trade) – IS THIS ALLOWED? ISN’T THE
o Tasks delegated to some other department/office with POWER INHERENT TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY?
discretionary power to act
Question: Characteristics of Police Power (as presented in the case)
What is judicial self-limitation? How is it practiced? Does it contradict judicial Police power is said to be the most positive & active of all governmental
supremacy? processes, and as such is essential, insistent & illimitable.
The Constitution does not define the scope of police power, but only
Mutuc vs. Comelec
imposes limits in the form of due process & equal protection of the laws.
Ejusdem Generis – general/same kind in this case in same class
Unconstitutional – abridges right to free speech Equal protection of the laws does not demand absolute equality among
Comelec – purely administrative act residents so long as there is like treatment under like circumstances. If it
Judiciary – interpreting the fundamental law of the land applies to all members of the same class, there is no infringement so
long as the distinction is reasonable
Osmena vs. Comelec
RA 7056, desynchronization of elections, unconstitutional bec: June 28, 2004
Violates constitutional provision on synchronization
Extended incumbent’s term Rubi vs. Provincial Board
Shorten next officer’s term History: To establish state right to segregate
Extended campaign period 3 uses of “non-Christian”
o Religious belief
1. People ordain the constitution (consti – yardstick; fundamental and supreme o Geographical
law of the land) o Degree of civilization
2. The constitution is written – not immutable but it can’t be changed in ordinary Assailed validity of resolution no. 25 by provincial board of Mindoro
manner applied to that of statutes which required segregation of Mangyan based on Admin code sec. 2145
The Constitution is superior to statutes and it governs the conduct of Petitioner Rubi and other Mangyans
government. Resolution prohibits Mangyans from leaving the reservation
Intent in using the term “non-Christian”: uncivilized and they should be
Constitutional Supremacy is exercised by the judiciary (the judiciary endures given more attention
what the consti says in enforced) Purpose: to civilize and localize Mangyans for their own tribe and to
benefit Christians too; to protect them from nomadic and destructive
Ichong vs. Hernandez activities of the Mangyans
Police Power Within the police power to promote health, peace, morals, education and
Scope can’t be defined but we can set limitations (due process and good order of people
equal protection clause) Is the admin code a valid exercise of police power? YES
Should always be justified by public/general welfare/interest Admin Code = Act. No. 2711
Belongs to legislative body but can be delegated to executive/local o Constitutional
government o Requisites of police power (according to Malcolm)
Due Process: Test of Reason
Public purpose for public welfare
Ü TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON Ü
2
Reasonable means related to purpose, reasonable Police Power – least limitable, usually vested on the legislative but
enough to achieve law. [law a. purpose b. means/acts president also has this power since he had legislative power
accomplishment of the purpose]
Petitioners’ ground for assailing validity: US vs. Gomez
o Religious Discrimination – Non-Christian =Civilization License was revoked (due to dishonourable conduct) but continued
o Due Process to practice
o No Slavery Errors p. 220
Judicial proceeding is not always necessary
Equal protection Characteristics of Police power per case:
o Provincial Board had the right to issue such ruling The state has the general power to enact laws in relation to persons and
Valid delegation of power property to promote public health, morals, safety and welfare.
Police power cannot be deprived from the state – to deprive it from the
People vs. Ferrer state would be to destroy the purpose of the state
RA 1700 Anti-subversion act
June 30, 2004
Purpose: Cope with menace of subversion which presents clear, present
Ermita Malate Hotel-Motel vs. City Mayor of Manila
and grave danger.
Purpose of stature as seen in Astorga’s note: increase in clandestine
Issue: WON it’s unconstitutional
operations such as prostitution, adultery and fornication (should be
o Bill of attainder – No, you should be knowing and act. Mem
controlled)
o Due Process – Observed since the act is reasonable
Not question on wisdom, they just want to make sure its reasonable
enough
US vs. Pompeya
General Provision: Regulation of Hotels & Motels, give detailed info, limit
Statute: Penal
use to 2x per day
Valid:
Out of necessity
o History – State protects us thus we should protect state too
Petitioner questioned constitutionality
o It’s within the police power of the state to require people’s
SC: It’s constitutional
responsibility of state
o Police power to prevent prostitution, etc.
But they failed to prove that he met certain conditions
o Not vague
Characteristics of Police power per case:
o City government has power to enact rules for their cities since
Police power is inherent on this power of the state and cannot be limited
they are more aware of the necessities in their jurisdiction
in the interest of presuming public order and preventing conflict of rights.
Questions
Police power is so extensive that the courts have not been able to define
Should the court resort to explanatory note? WON these facts exists?
it, such that each case is decided on its merits
Court can’t inquire into wisdom/necessity of a law unless they need to
Agustin vs. Edu prove reasonableness of law which is under jurisdiction
Issue: WON LOI 229 is unconstitutional
Notes per case
Issued by president in his capacity as president with legislative power
Police power, being the most essential, insistent and least limitable of
Requires all motor vehicle owners to own EWD, Failure to do such
powers aims to safeguard public morals, and must be respected until
/present EWD upon registration, they won’t be able to get a license/won’t
clearly shown to violate constitutional rights
be registered
There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It is the
Constitutional
standard to which governmental action must conform in order that life,
o Police power – promotes public safety
liberty or property deprivation is valid.
o Adheres to 1968 Vienna convention which senate ratified into
treaty
Ü TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON Ü
3
Buck vs. Bell – shows the depth and scope of police power or the extent of Toribio’s defense: it only governs acts in municipal slaughterhouse, he
police power. based it on his own interpretation
No problem in procedural due process (steps in fling petition) If SC accepted Toribio’s defense:
Supt. Doesn’t have unbridled discretion o Anyone can slaughter anywhere where there’s no mun.
Substantive due process: reason in meeting goal slaughterhouse
Constitutional: sterilization gives them lib. Because they are o Will defeat the purpose of the law
institutionalized to prevent reproduction
Purpose of statue: to prevent feeble-minded from furthering their race Additional notes per case:
(coz it’s hereditary) A large discretion is vested in the legislative to determine public interests
Police power can require citizens to give up their life so sterilization is and the measures necessary for their protection.
valid (lesser sacrifice) The justifications of police power exercise are:
State just wants to prevent proliferation of feeble-minded people who o the interests of the public (versus a specific class) require
might be producing offspring who can be criminals later on interference
Valid purpose – for public welfare o must be through reasonable means, and not oppressive. The
determination of proper exercise of police power is subject to
Rutter vs. Esteban the court’s supervision.
RA 342: Moratorium on debts for 8 years from time of claim from Phil.
war damage commission. Eminent Domain and taxation: part of police power but not entirely
Assailed constitutionality for violating constitutional provision on
impairment of contracts JM Tuason vs. LTA
Moratorium: Postponement of fulfilment of obligations decreed by state Issue on expropriation of Tatalon estate
thru med of court/legislature – application of sovereign power JM Tuason contests fact that occupant are being considered as owner
Moratoriums are not invalid in general they don’t impair contracts when ED: State right in taking property of privilege owners with just
in exercise of police power compensation to owners. With sufficient safeguards to owners.
Test of reasonableness of moratorium: determination of period of Purpose of ED: right of government to take private property; purpose of
suspension of remedy – should be definite and reasonable the taking – for public purpose; owners of the property should be
Main issue: WON 8 years is a reasonable remedy? compensated
SC: No. It’s oppressive and unreasonable
US vs. Causby
Per case details re: police power (police power is limited by:) Flight = taking of the land when______
impairment (only remedy, never the substantive right) – determinate and There was no physical entry of the taking
reasonable suspension Complaints are planes passing over their property
justified by emergency situation, temporary and reasonable conditions o Noise
o Chicken business closed, chickens died
US vs. Toribio o Glaring night light
Act. No. 1147: regulate slaughter of cattles o Deprived sleep with flight
Purpose Court of claims: $2K easement for Causby
o Prevent theft and make easy recovery and return of lost, There’s taking even if there’s no actual and physical invasion of property
strayed, stolen cattle to proper owners (primary) US defense: air space is within public domain
o Prevent slaughter of cattle fit for agricultural work or those unfit Case remanded: SC didn’t see description of the nature of the easement
for human consumption Effect of absence of a contract – contract is NOT a prerequisite for the
Toribio asked for permit but denied since carabao’s still fit for agricultural exercise of ED (inherent power of the state)
work Is there necessarily a compensable taking? YES
Ü TRINA JOY A. SOLIDON Ü
4
Is the local government allowed to expropriate?
QUESTIONS May Congress set the price for just compensation?
1. Difference between police power and eminent domain Can congress provide a formula?
2. requisites of eminent domain May the government take property without paying just compensation?
3. Power of ED? Who’s vested with it? May it provisionally take property?
4. Conditions that qualify elements of ED
5. What is “taking”? Is this upheld by SC or should lower court further prove or Guido vs. RPA
classify taking?
Is the local government allowed to expropriate?
6. Factual determination of taking in Causby? Is it affected by the effects on the
chickens? Can congress set the price for just compensation? No they can just
provide for a formula
July 5, 2004 Taking before payment is possible… ex. US vs. Causby