CHAPTER I – INTORDUCTION *the constitution is the basic and paramount

law to which all other laws must conform and

*constitutional law - “the study of the to which all persons including the highest of
maintenance of the proper balance between the land must defer.
authority as represented by the three inherent
powers of the state and liberty as guaranteed Note: art. 7 civil code
by bill of rights”
- CLASSIFICATION: "WCR"
*purpose: equilibrium between authority and
liberty WRITTEN UNWRITTEN

*tyranny - ascendancy of authority over liberty

one whose percepts consists of rules w/c
*anarchy – ascendancy of liberty over authority are embodied in one have not been
document or set of integrated into a
*fundamental powers of the state: PET (police documents single concrete form
power, eminent domain, taxation) but scattered in
various resources
such as statutes,
CHAPTER II – NATURE OF THE judicial decisions,
CONSTITUTION commentaries,
customs and
Constitution - “that body of rules and maxims
traditions common
in accordance with w/c the powers of
sovereignty are habitually exercised” (Cooley) law principles

Constitution of the Philippines by Justice ENACTED EVOLVED (UN

Malcolm - “The written instrument enacted by (CONVENTIONAL) CONVENTIONAL)
direct action of the people. By which the
fundamental powers of the government are
established, limited and defined. And by which it is "formally struck result of the political
those powers are distributed among the off" at a definite time evolution "not
several departments for their safe and useful and place following a inaugurated at any
exercise for the benefit of the body politic” conscious or specific time but
deliberate effort taken changing by accretion
*purpose: PAE
by a constitute or rather than by any
a) To prescribe the permanent framework of a ruler systematic method
system of government
RIGID FLEXIBLE
b) To assign to the several departments their
respective powers and duties
Ca be amended only Can be changed by
c) To establish certain fixed principles, on w/c by a formal and ordinary legislation
government is founded usually difficult
process
*the constitution merely recognizes and
protects these rights and does not bring them
into existence.

*"the constitution is not the origin of private Constitution of the Philippines – written,
rights, it is not the fountain of law nor the conventional and rigid.
incipient state of government, it is not the
cause but the consequence of personal and
political freedom" (Watson, 108.)
*ESSENTIAL QUALITIES: (BBC)

Broad – because it is supposed to embody the

- SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION past, to reflect the present and to anticipate
the future.
Brief – and confine itself to basic principles to
be implemented w/ legislative details more
adjustable to change and easier to amend.
Clear – or definite lest ambiguity in its provision
result in confusion and divisiveness among the
people and perhaps even such physical conflict
Exception: where the rules are worded in a
vaguely manner, like the due process clause to
make them more malleable to judicial
interpretation in the light of new conditions and
circumstances.
*ESSENTIAL PARTS (LI-GO-S)
a) constitution of liberty – sets the
fundamental civil and political rights of
citizens and imposing limitations on the
powers of government (Art III, II, IV, V
and XII)
b) Constitution of government – outlining
the organization of government,
enumerating its powers, laying down
certain rule relative to its
administration and defining the
electorate (art. VI,VII,VIII,IX,X,XI)
c) Constitution of sovereignty – the mode
or procedure in accordance w/ w/c
formal changes in the fundamental law
may be brought about (art. XVII)
*PERMANENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION
− advantage of WRC - “permanence”
− “a constitution must be firm and
immovable, like a mountain amidst the
strife of storms or a rock in the ocean
amidst the raging of waves” (vanhorne
vs. dorrance)
*INTERPRETATION
“Should be interpreted in such way as to give
effect to the intendment of the framers”
*must change with the changing times - “the
political or philosophical aphorism of one
generation is doubted by the next and entirely
discarded by the third. The race moves forward
constantly, and no Canute can stay in its
progress” ( Borgnis vs. falk co.)
*in case of doubt, the constitution should be
considered self executing rather than non self
executing; mandatory rather than directory;
and prospective rather than retrospective”
(Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2007, p. 8)
*self executing provision – a rule that by itself
is directly or indirectly applicable w/o need of
statutory implementation.
Example: bill of rights (art. III) and executive
(art. VII)
Case: collector of custom vs. villaluz
*non self executing provision - one that
remains dormant unless it is activated by the
legislative implementation.
Example: state policies (art. II) Citizenship (art.
IV)
*as a rule therefore, whenever the language
used in the constitution is prohibitory, it is to
be understood as intended to be positive and
unequivocal negation and whenever that
language contains a grant of power, it is
intended as a mandate, not a mere direction
(Black, constitutional Law, pp. 20-21)
AMENDMENT OR REVISION
*iron rules – provisions of the constitution w/c
are not as malleable to judicial interpretations,
they cannot be altered except by formal
amendment (Cooley)
AMENDMENT REVISION
Isolated or piecemeal A revamp or rewriting
change only of the whole
instrument
PROCEDURE:
Q: what are the steps in the revision or
amendment of the constitution?
A: proposal and ratification
1. proposal – the motion of initiating
suggestions or proposals on
amendment or revision, w/c may be
either by:
a) Congress (¾ votes of all its members)
b) Constitutional convention (can be called by
either :)
B.1 congress 2/3 votes of all its members
B.2 or submit to the people w/n to call for a con − is the most applied theory, has been
con, by majority vote of all its members. observed since mabanag vs. Lopez Vito
c) The people through initiative (12% vote of all *JUDICIAL REVIEW OVER AMENDMENTS
registered voters, 3% votes representing each
congressional district) *the question of validity of the adoption of
amendments to the constitution is regarded as
2. Ratification – is the sovereign act subject to judicial review
vested in the Filipino either to reject or
approve the proposals to amend or Case: mabanag vs. Lopez Vito (to the effect
revise the constitution. Majority votes that the question of w/n the parity proposal
cast in a plebiscite had been validly adopted in congress. The
contention that it is political in nature has been
Q; how may amendment be effected? rejected by the courts)
A: by a) congress b) constitutional convention Case: tanada vs. cuenco (the present doctrine
c) people through initiative allows the court to inquire into w/n prescribed
procedure for amendment has been observed.)
Q: what is people’s initiative?
*therefore the courts may invalidate a proposal
A: a method whereby the people themselves adopted if the requirements for the procedure
can directly propose amendments or revision were not complied
of the constitution
*HISTORY OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
Q: if the proposal is made by the constitutional
convention, what is the required vote? 1. 1935 commonwealth constitution
A: once organized, the con con is free to decide 2. 1973 constitution (Marcos regime)
the vote required to carry a proposal.
3. February 25 1986 (freedom
Case: Santiago vs. comelec (RA 6735 was constitution)
struck down because of lack of implementing
laws, it provided for a local initiative only and 4. proclamation no. 9 (to call for a
not national initiative which required for constitutional convention)
proposing constitutional changes)
5. Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma con con
− initiative applies only to amendments pres.
not to a revision
6. Oct 15 1986 – final draft
Case: PIRMA vs. comelec (same)
7. Feb. 2 1987 – plebiscite
*POSITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION 8. 76.29 % of the electorate ratified with
27.74 against
Case: Loomis vs. Jackson (constitutional
convention is supreme over the other
departments of the government because the
powers it exercises are in the nature of CHAPTER III THE CONSTITUTION AND THE
sovereign powers this is called the theory of COURTS
conventional sovereignty)
Art. VIII sec 4 –en banc cases:
Case: wood’s appeal (considers the
constitutional convention inferior to other
departments of the government since it is 1935 1973 1987
merely a creation of legislature) constitution constitution constitution
“treaty and “treaty, “treaty,
Case: Frantz vs. autry (declares that as long as law” executive international
it exists and confines itself within the sphere of agreement, or or executive
its jurisdiction, the constitutional convention law” agreement,
must be considered independent of and co law,
equal w/ other department of the government) presidential
decree,
 proclamation,
order,
instructions,
ordinance and
other
regulations”
“Concurrence of majority of the members who
actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon”
REQUISITES OF A JUDICIAL INQUIRY
a) Actual case or controversy
b) Proper party (locus standi)
c) Earliest opportunity
d) Necessity of deciding constitutional
question
A.) ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY – involves
a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of
opposite legal claims susceptible of judicial
adjudication.
*must not be moot or academic or based on
extra legal or other similar considerations not
cognizable by a court of justice.
*justiciable controversy – distinguished from a
difference or dispute of hypothetical or
abstract or from one that is academic or moot
*request for an advisory opinion cannot come
in the category of an actual case or
controversy since the issue raised does not
involve any conflict in law that has assumed
the proportions of a full blown dispute
Advice will not have force of law but of a mere
suggestion or recommendation that may be
accepted or rejected at will by the dept
requesting it.
Case: PACU vs. secretary of education (SC held
that the case was premature because there
was no showing at the time of any conflict of
legal rights that would confer jurisdiction by
the judiciary, “mere apprehension that the
secretary of education might under the law,
withdraw the permit of one of the petitioners
does not constitute justiciable controversy”
Case: PHILCONSA vs. Villereal – petition to
compel the speaker of the house to produce
book of accounts however the congress was
abolished by the 1973 constitution, therefore
becoming moot and academic
B.) PROPER PARTY – is one who has sustained
or is in immediate danger of sustaining an
injury as a result of the act complained of.
Case: tileson vs. ulman – the patients of the
physician and not the physician himself were
the proper parties
Case: cuyegkeng vs. Cruz – petitioner had not
made a claim to the position held by Cruz and
therefore could not be regarded as a property.
Case: Ex Parte Levitt – same as cuyegkeng
petitioner is not claiming the position held by
justice black
Case: A person vs. Vera – govt of the Phil is the
proper party to challenge the constitutionality
of probation act because more than any other,
it was the government itself that should be
concerned over the validity of its own laws.
RULE REGARDING LOCUS STANDI OF
TAXPAYERS:
Before: ordinary taxpayer does not have proper
party personality to question the legality of an
appropriation law since his interest in the sum
appropriated is not substantial enough
(custodio vs. senate president)
At present: since the case of (emergency
power case) – the rule was changed, and it is
now permissible for an ordinary taxpayer, or a
group of taxpayers, to raise the question of the
validity of an appropriation law.
*the trandescendental importance to the public
of these cases demands that they be settled
promptly and definitely, brushing aside if we
must technicalities of procedure
Case: oposa vs. factoran – SC ruled that the
minors may represent the generations to come
which is based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
concerned
Case: macalintal vs. comelec – taxpayers such can be disposed of on some other ground such
herein petitioner have the right to restrain as the application of a statute or general law”
officials from wasting public funds though the
enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. Case: Zandueta vs. De la costa – petitioner
accepted an appointment for new
Case: lozada vs. comlelec – petition to call for reorganization or judges, when his
special election because of vacancy in the appointment was bypassed, he returned to his
interim batasang pambansa because petitioner former court in manila, however respondent
was not proper party as they had only was already appointed. Petitioner contends
“generalized interest” that law for the reorganization was
unconstitutional for it violates judicial security
C.) EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY – earliest possible of tenure.
opportunity such that if it is not raised in the
pleadings, it cannot be considered at the trial Held: court ruled using the common law
and if not considered at the trial, it cannot be principle of estoppel instead of answering the
considered on appeal. question of constitutionality, contending that a
person cannot question the validity of a law
Exceptions: under which he had previously accepted
benefits, court ruled that petitioner was
a) Criminal case, constitutional case can estopped from impugning the constitutionality
be raised anytime in the discretion of of the judiciary reorganization law.
the court
EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF
b) In civil case, constitutional question UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
can be raised at any stage, if necessary
for the determination of the case itself. ORTHODOX VIEW (art. VII) “When the courts
declare a law to be inconsistent with the
c) In every case except where there is constitution, the former shall be void and the
ESTOPPEL; the constitutional question latter shall govern”
can be raised at any stage if it involves
the jurisdiction of the court. Case: Norton vs. Shelby – an unconstitutional
act is

a) Not a law

b) Confers no right
D.) NECESSITY OF DECIDING CONSTITUTIONAL
QUESTION c) Imposes no duties

*as much as possible courts will avoid the d) Affords no protection

decision of constitutional question because of
the doctrine of separation of powers, which e) Creates no office
enjoins other departments a proper respect for
the acts of other departments. f) Inoperative

*”to doubt is to sustain” – as the joint act of
legislative and executive authorities, a law is
supposed to have been carefully studied and
determined to be constitutional before it was
finally enacted.
g) As if it had not been passed.
Effects: not only parties but all persons are
bound by the declaration meaning no one may
invoke it nor may the courts apply it in
subsequent cases – total nullity

MODERN VIEW – the court in passing upon the

Case: laurel vs. Garcia – “court will not pass question of constitutionality does not annul or
upon a constitutional question although repeal the statute if it finds it in conflict with
properly presented by the record if the case the constitution. It simply refuses to recognize
it and determines the rights of the parties just
as if such statute had no existence
CHAPTER IV FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF
Effects: the decision affects the parties only STATE
and there is no judgment against the statute.
SIMILARITIES
The reasons or opinion of the court may
operate as precedent for the determination of
other similar cases, but it does not strike the Police Eminent domain Taxation
statute from the statute books. power

PARTIAL UNCONSTITUTIONALITY Inherent

*in respect to the doctrine of separation of

Necessary and indispensable
powers, courts hesitate to declare a law totally
unconstitutional and as long as they can, will
Methods by the state in interfering w/ private
salvage the valid portions thereof in order to
rights
give effect to the legislative will.

Valid only when: Presupposes equivalent compensation for the

private rights interfered w/
a) Legislature is willing to retain the valid
portions even if the rest of the statute Exercised primarily by the legislature
is declared illegal

b) Valid portions ca stand independently

as a separate statute. DIFFERENCES

Expressly provided in “seperability clause” – “if Police power Eminent domain

for any reason any section or provision of this
act is declared invalid or unconstitutional, the Regulation Liberty and Property
remainder of the act shall not be affected by property
such declaration

Case: the bar flunkers case (in re cunanan) – Exercise Government May be exercised by g
partial unconstitutional. The law was sustained some private
in so far as it amended the rules of court entities
prospectively, BUT the portion w/c retroactively
reduced the passing average in the bar exam Property Destroyed Intended for public Intend
was declared unconstitutional for being an taken (noxious or use and therefore there
encroachment upon judicial functions. intended for wholesome
noxious
purpose)

compensati Is the More concrete, full Prote

on intangible and fair value of the impro
altruistic property
feeling that expropriated
he has
contributed to
the general
welfare
Police power – power of the state to regulate Conginental of legitimate police
liberty and property for the promotion of infirmity applied to objective.
general welfare a law:
Eminent domain – enables the state to Case: Powell vs.
forcibly acquire private property, upon Case: Stone vs. Pennsylvania –
payment of just compensation for some Mississippi after investigation
intended public use. (franchise to sell the legislature
Taxation – state is able to demand from the lottery tickets for found out that the
members of society their proportionate share 25 years was margarine industry
or contributions in the maintenance of the Cancelled by the was processed in a
government. government unsanitary manner
CHAPTER V – implement because a and being mistaken
POLICE POWER for the subsequent law for butter w/c
attainment was passed after 3 prejudice the
*The police power of yrs prohibiting all consuming public,
is the power of legitimate kinds of gambling – instead of
promoting the police “all agree that prohibiting
public welfare by objective. legislature cannot outright, it imposed
restraining and bargain away an exorbitant tax
regulating the use May be exercised police power of a making it
of liberty and as long as the state”) unprofitable to
property (Chicago, activity or property continue w/o
1904) (Professor sought to be Conginental incurring loss
Freund) regulated has some infirmity applied to
relevance to the a treaty: Case: Lutz vs.
CHARACTERISTICS public welfare. Araneta – SC held
Case: Ichong vs that the imposition
• Most “salus populi est Hernandez – (retail of special tax on
Pervasive suprema lex” – national trade law sugar producers is
Welfare of the was contended a legitimate
• Least people is the unconstitutional by exercise of police
Limitable supreme law the petitioner, power for the
being inconsistent rehabilitation of the
• Most “sic utere tuo ut to the treaty of sugar industry
Demanding alienum” amity between
china and *in relation to
• Dynamic *may not be Philippines and the eminent domain,
(must be bargained away UN charter and uses eminent
moving through the universal domain as an
with the medium of a declaration of implement
moving contract or a human rights. – The
society) treaty. treaty is always Case: Association
subject to of small
• Cannot be CONGINENTAL qualification or landowners vs.
bargained INFIRMITY – the amendment by a Secretary of
away by susceptibility of subsequent law (US agrarian reform –
contract or laws to subsequent vs. Thompson) like taxation the
treaty amendment by the power of eminent
state in the domain can be
• May exercise of the used as an
sometimes police power as a Uses Taxing power implement of police
use Taxing postulate of the as an implement power. The
power as existing legal order for the attainment objective is to
an promote welfare of
the farmers, class services in consists of peso
expropriated requires separate room, to demand deposits
agricultural lands the prevent immorality which are the
(subject to exercise of and enable source of
minimum retention police authorities to commercial papers.
limits for the power properly assess Therefore it is
landowners) license fees. justified that the
• Means legitimate concern
EXERCISE OF employed – Case: Bautista vs. of the state in
POLICE POWER reasonably Junio – prohibiting preserving the
necessary heavy and extra integrity of the
• National for the heavy vehicles banking system.
Legislature accomplish from using public Flooding the
ment of the streets on system with
• President purpose weekends and legal worthless checks is
(by virtue and unduly holidays the object like pouring
of valid oppressive is energy garbage into the
delegation upon conservation. bloodstream of the
by individuals nation’s economy.
legislature) Case: Tio vs.
LAWFUL SUBJECT Videogram Case: Department
• Administrat Regulatory Board – of Education vs.
ive boards Subject of measure sustaining the San Diego –
is within the scope creation of petitioner issued a
• Lawmaking of police power. Videogram regulation
bodies on That the activity or Regulatory Board disqualifying any
municipal property sought to as proper exercise person who has
levels be regulated of police power “to failed the national
including affects the public answer the need medical admission
barangay welfare. Welfare of for regulating the test three times
the people is the video industry, from taking it again
*no mandamus is supreme law particularly (and in effect in
available to coerce
because of the enrolling in a
the exercise of Case: Taxicab rampant film medical school),
police power Operators of Metro piracy, the flagrant the private
Manila vs. Board of violation of
TEST OF THE respondent must
transportation – intellectual
POLICE POWER – as yield to the
administrative property rights,
laid down in a challenge rule and
regulation phasing and the
number of cases, give way to those
out taxicabs more proliferation of
the test to prepared. Where
than six years old pornographic video
determine the even those who
was held valid tapes”
validity of a police have qualified may
police measure to
measure are as still not be
protect the riding Case: Lozano vs.
follows: accommodated in
public and promote Martinez – our already
convenience and sustaining the
• Lawful crowded medical
comfort constitutionality of
subject schools, there is all
BP 22 (bouncing the more reason to
(scope) – Case: Velasco vs. check law) because
interest of bar those who have
Villegas – an the magnitude of
public been tested and
ordinance the amount of
generally found wanting.
prohibiting money involved in
and not of barbershops from the money supply Case: Sangalang
particular rendering massage of our country vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court – frequencies members property upon
“the demands of through which they of society payment of just
the common good, transmit broadcast compensation, for
in terms of traffic signals and images. • Providing some intended
decongestion and Since a franchise is reasonable public use. (Power
public a mere privilege, working of expropriation)
convenience” SC the exercise of the hours or
sustained the act of privilege may be minimum - the highest and
the mayor of reasonably be wages most exact idea of
Makati in opening burdened with the property remaining
two erstwhile performance by the • a law in the government
private roads in bel grantee of some requiring that may be
air village form of public the acquired for some
service” attendance public purpose
of a full through a method
Case: Ople vs. time “in the nature of
Case: Del Rosario Torres – SC struck pharmacist compulsory sale to
vs. Bengzon – SC down the in drug state”
sustained the administrative stores is
GENERICS ACT, w/c order of former valid, since *art III sec 9 – not a
requires doctors to president Fidel V. the grant but a
prescribe generic Ramos establishing presence of limitation of the
drug products a national the power. Should be
rather than specific computerized pharmacist construed against
brand medicines identification “the is intended the expropriator
“to promote and order pressures the to prevent and liberally in
require the use of people to surrender the wrong favor of the
generic drug their privacy by dispensing property owner.
products that are giving information of This is to prevent
therapeutically about themselves medicines arbitrary exercise
equivalent to their on the pretext that to the of government
brand name it will facilitate the detriment power to the
counterparts” delivery of basic of health or detriment of
services” life of the individual rights.
Case:
customer
Telecommunication LAWFUL MEANS *who may exercise:
s and Broadcast
Attorneys of the The lawful a) Congress
Philippines vs. objective, in other
Comelec – words, must be b) President of
“comelec sustained pursued through a the
the validity of sec lawful method, that Philippines
92 of BP blg. 881 is both the end and
c) Various
requiring radio and the means must be
local
television stations legitimate
legislative
to give free air time
Example: bodies
to the respondents
“radio and CHAPTER 6 d) Certain
television • Confineme
EMINENT public
broadcasting nt of a
DOMAIN corporation
companies, w/c are leper where
s (example:
given franchise do he will not
*the power of the land
not own the contaminat
state to forcibly authority
airwaves and e the other
acquire private and
 national when decided by Cases: city of Cases: republic vs.
housing the national manila vs. Chinese PLDT
authority) legislature and are community (must (interconnection of
usually not subject comply w/ the government
e) Quasi of judicial review. requirements) communication
public lines)
corporation Exception: when *PRIVATE
s (example: this right is PROPERTY – Cases PLDT vs.
Philippine exercised by a anything that can national
national delegate only of come under the telecommunication
railways the national dominion of man is s commission
and legislature like subject to
Philippine municipal expropriation, this *TAKING – means
long corporations and include real and dispossessing,
distance other entities, the personal, tangible however, in law it
telephone courts can inquire and intangible has broader
co. and into the question properties connotation. It may
meralco) whether or not (franchise, include trespass
these municipal churches and other w/o actual eviction
*destruction corporations or religious of the owner,
from necessity entities is properties) material
vs. eminent exercising the right impairment of the
domain in a particular case Exception: MONEY value of the
under the and CHOSE OF property or
Destruction from conditions imposed ACTION (a personal prevention of the
necessity right not reduced ordinary uses for
by the general
Arises under the law into possession but w/c the property
of society or the authority.
recoverable by a was intended
society itself. A right
of self defense or Cases: republic vs. suit of law, a right
self preservation la orden pp. to receive, demand Case: US vs. lynch
Applied to persons benedictos de or recover a debt, (farm, dam)
and property Filipinas (it does demand or
Property taken is not extended damages on cause Case: US vs.
destroyed and not argument w/n the of action. Ex: Causby (airplaine
converted to public touching trees)
proposed contract, or for tort
use
There is no just expropriation is a or omission of
Case: Ayala de
compensation necessity) duty)
Roxas vs. city of
- The courts *PUBLIC PROPERTY manila (easement
have the – can still be of way, right of way
Case: American
power to subject to easement)
print works vs.
Lawrence (building inquire into expropriation
Case: people vs.
demolished to stay the legality provided this is
fajardo (building,
the great fire, valid of the right done directly by
block view of the
exercise of police of eminent the national
plaza)
power not eminent domain and legislature or under
domain) to a specific grant of Case: national
determine authority to the power corp vs.
*necessity of w/n there is delegate. A mere Aguirre padetanga
exercise – a genuine general authority
questions of necessity may not suffice. *not all taking
necessity or thereof. corresponds to just
wisdom are Cases: Chinese compensation
essentially political community case
Example: police a) Expropriato Chosen action – *the importance of
power for general r must contingent, not yet taxation is derived
welfare enter a available, still from the
private waiting for the unavoidable
a) Building property result. obligation of the
demolished government to
on verge of b) Entry must Just compensation protect and extend
collapse for be for = basic value + benefits in the form
public more than (consequential of public projects
safety momentar damages – and services to the
y period consequential people.
b) Road benefits)
constructed c) Entry must * obligation to pay
(business be under taxes is not based
or people warrant or on a contract it is a
affected color of duty upon the body
cannot be legal politic and his
compensat authority enjoyment of the
ed – this CHAPTER 7 benefits available
doctrine is d) Property on such
must be TAXATION
valid as membership.
long as the developed
*TAXES – are the
prejudice for public TAX LICENSE
proportional
suffered by use or To raise revenues Regulatory
contributions from
the otherwise (police pow
the proportional
individual informally
contributions from
property appropriat
persons and *scope:
owner is ed or
property, levied by
shared in injuriously
the state by virtue a) Income
common w/ affected.
of its sovereignty, earned by
the rest of for the support of citizens
e) The
the government and
utilization
community for all public needs b) Income
must be in
(Cooley) earned by
Case: Richards vs. such way
citizens
Washington as to oust
- the power of the living
terminal (exhaust, the owner
state to demand abroad
smoke – more and
from members of
injury than the deprive
society their c) Income
other neighbors, him of
proportionate share earned by
tunnel) beneficial
or contributions in aliens in
enjoyment
the maintenance of host state
*taking under of the
the government.
police power vs. property. d) Shares of
taking under *there is at least an stocks
eminent domain Cases: amigable
effort apportion the issued by
vs. cuena
cost of government foreign
Case: republic vs. among the people corporation
Castellvi (when is Case: city
government of QC according to their
taking started) ability to pay on POWER TO DESTROY DOES NOT
vs. ericta (paupers) (Marshall) POWER TO
the basis of as
Requisites of taking (Holmes)
Case: phil press scientific a
in eminent domain: If it is used validly as Solely for t
institute vs. classification as an implement of of reven
comelec possible police power in modern vie
discouraging and exorbitant, *equitable – and state)
prohibiting certain oppressive connotes that taxes
things or enterprise should be
inimical to public - should not be apportioned among Case: Llade vs.
welfare. tyrannical, and commission of
the people
unrealistic (ex: according to their internal revenue
retroactive tax for ability to pay or (donees tax, should
Exercise:
50 yr) their capacity. be ad valorem tax.
a) State Excise tax imposed
*does not require *equality in on the priest for his
b) Legislature previous notice and taxation – strictly exercise of the
hearing before proportional to the privilege to accept
c) Local taxes on specific relative value of donation)
legislative articles may be the property.
bodies (art enacted. Except: (circumstances: *Art VI sec 28(4) –
x, sec 5) when tax to be location) no law granting any
imposed is based in tax exemption shall
the value of the *DOUBLE be passed w/o the
taxable property. In TAXATION – not concurrence of a
this owner should prohibited by the majority of all the
be notified constitution, “the members of the
*questions: congress (tax
(taxpayer) of the power to tax twice
assessment is as ample to tax exemptions can be
a) Amount of
proceedings and to once” (Holmes). revoked anytime
tax
be heard on the by the congress)
correct valuation to - when additional except : if it is
b) To tax or
be given the taxes are laid on granted for
not
property. the same subject valuable
c) Whom to by the same taxing consideration, it is
tax Ad valorem – jurisdiction, during deemed to partake
according to its the same taxing of the nature of a
d) For what value period, and for the contract.
purpose same purpose.
Ex parte – Exception : if it Case: cassanova
Note: all of the proceeding w/o violates the equal vs. Hord
answer to the requiring the other protection clause
questions should parties, unilateral.
not violate due Case: punzalan vs.
Appraisal – to municipal board of CHAPTER 8 DUE
process and equal
assess the value of PROCESS OF LAW
protection clause manila
(art VI sec 28) the real property.
*due process was
*PUBLIC PURPOSE suggested that it
*DUE PROCESS *EQUAL had its beginnings
AND TAXATION PROTECTION AND *TAX EXEMPTIONS from the Garden of
TAXATION Eden.
- should not be CONSTITUTIONAL
confiscatory except “Uniform and Provided in (art VI sec “Where art thou,
equitable” – 28) – given because Adam?” – giving
when exercised for
persons or things they give considerable him notice
destruction as an assistance to the state
instrument of belonging to the “Didst thou eat of
in the improvement of
police power same class shall be the morality of the the forbidden
taxed at the same people and the care of fruit?” – giving
- should not be rate indigent and the Adam chance to
excessive, handicapped. be heard
(separation of church
ORIGIN OF DUE observance of the *but there is no on the part of the
PROCESS procedure laid exact definition or government,
down by law, meaning of due whether committed
*Magna Carta, regardless of its process because by the legislature,
which was wrung intrinsic validity. according to the executive, or
by the barons from delegate Jose P. the judiciary.
prince john in 1215 Example: Laurel chairman
– “no man shall be of the committee PERSON
taken or In the time of on the bill of
imprisoned or monarchy when rights “precise *protects all
desseized or parliament was definition of due persons, natural as
outlawed, or in any legally omnipotent process might well as artificial.
manner destroyed; (powerful), the king prove constricting Natural persons
nor shall we go and courts cannot and prevent the include both the
upon him, nor send annul the acts of judiciary from citizen and the
upon him but by parliament. adjusting it to the alien
the lawful circumstances of
judgment of his *when the due particular cases Case: villegas vs.
peers or by the law process was and to the ever hiu chong “while it
of the land” exported to the changing is true that the
United states it conditions of Philippines as a
*1355 King Edward went to a society.” (avoid the state is not obliged
III’s Statute 28 – substantial courts to be to admit aliens
“no man, of what transformation ( a confined legal strait within its territory,
state or condition limitation on the jacket instead to once an alien is
whoever he be, legislature itself) have the meaning admitted, he
shall be put out of creating the of the phrase cannot be deprived
his lands, or separation of “gradually of life without due
tenements, nor powers (executive, ascertained by the process of law. This
taken, nor judiciary, process of inclusion guarantee includes
imprisoned, nor legislative), chief and exclusion in the means of
indicted, nor put to justice john the course of the livelihood”
death, without he Marshall asserted decisions of cases
be brought in to for the judiciary not as they arise) *artificial persons
answer by due only to see if like corporations
process of law.” executive was *nature or and partnerships
enforcing the law characteristic of are also covered by
EVOLUTION OF properly but due process – the protection but
DUE PROCESS also to determine continues to be only insofar as their
w/n the law was dynamic, and property is
*Dartmouth college enacted by resilient, adaptable concerned
case – Daniel congress was to every situation
Webster was to valid in the first calling for its Reason: life and
declare that the place. application. liberty of the
law of the land artificial persons,
meant “the general *Justice Fernando – as a creature of law
law, a law which “responsiveness to are derived from,
hears before it MEANING OF DUE the supremacy of and therefore
condemns, which PROCESS reason, obedience subject to the
proceeds upon to the dictates of control of the
inquiry and renders *ideally the justice” legislature
judgment only after provisions of the
trial.” constitution should *justice frankfurter DEPRIVATION
be precise and (US supreme court)
*the definition in definite so as to – “embodiment of *to deprive is to
Dartmouth case leave no room for the sporting idea of take away forcibly,
was in accord with ambiguity that may fairplay” to prevent from
the original lead to possessing,
understanding of controversies on *due process is a enjoying or using
due process but it their proper guaranty against something, as
only called for the interpretation. any arbitrariness applied to due
process,
deprivation *according to the property *violative of due
connotes denial of Supreme Court right) process case: yu
the right to life, “the term should cong eng vs.
liberty, or property not be dwarfed into c) Privileges, Trinidad
mere animal licenses (prohibiting the use
*example of lawful existence.” The of other language
deprivation term should d) Continued other than English,
embrace the operation Spanish, or Filipino
a) Military enjoyment by the of law in keeping their
service in individual of all the (legislature, account books)
defense of God – given doctrine of
the state faculties that can judiciary *not violative of
make his life worth can be substantive due
b) Death living. changed process case:
penalty for anytime) ichong vs.
heinous LIBERTY Hernandez
crimes SUBSTANTIVE (petitioner
*apolinario mabini DUE PROCESS contends that the
c) Confineme – “liberty is the retail trade
nt because freedom to do right *requires the nationalization law
of and never wrong” intrinsic validity of violates due
commutabl the law in process, court
e disease interfering with the upholds the valid
rights of the person exercise of police
d) Examinatio PROPERTY to his life, liberty or power justice
n before property. (issue is Labrador declared:
practicing a *anything that can not w/n the law is to free the national
profession come under the being enforced economy for alien
right of ownership properly or in a control and
e) Expropriati and be the subject prescribed manner, dominance)
on of of contract. This it is the proper
private will include things – exercise of PROCEDURAL
property for real, personal, legislative power) DUE PROCESS
public use tangible and
intangible, that are *not violative of Essence: the
LIFE within the substantive due immortal cry of
commerce of man. process case: Themistocles to
*means the nebbia vs state of eurybiades –
integrity of the *not property right: New York “strike, but hear
physical person (it (prohibiting the me first!”
is not permissible a) Public sale of milk for
for the government office lower than the * “which hears
to deprive the (created by specified minimum before it
individual of any statute can or floor price, condemns, which
part of his body, be reason: protect the proceeds upon
even if it be as abolished quality and health inquiry and renders
punishment for by of public) judgment only after
crime) legislature trial” – Daniel
at anytime) *violative of Webster
*case: buck vs. bell substantive due
– valid sterilization b) Salary from process case: *twin requirement
of imbecile public kwong sing vs. city (notice and
because the office of Manila hearing) –
operation involved (unless (requiring constitute the
“a minimum of earned establishment to essential elements
pain, or none at all” cannot be issue receipt in of due process and
and did not reduced or English or Spanish, neither of these
endanger the withdrawn petitioner does not elements can be
imbecile’s life or by a know to use the eliminated w/o
health retroactive prescribed running afoul of the
law, it languages)
accrued as
constitutional *competent court – neglect of proclamati
guaranty one vested with appellant’s neglect on, order,
jurisdiction over a instruction,
*judicial due case as conferred *due process is not ordinance,
process: upon it by law. violated where a or
person is not heard regulation
a) Impartial Example: because he has is in
and chosen, for question
competent • RTC – over whatever reason,
court murder not to be heard. If 2) All cases
cases but he opts to be silent involving
b) Jurisdiction not where he has a the legality
(defendant violation of right to speak, he of any tax,
or property, municipal cannot later be impost,
w/c is ordinance heard to complain assessmen
subject that he was unduly t, or toll, or
matter of *JURISDICTION silenced any
the penalty
proceeding *actions in *not only oral imposed in
) personam and arguments but also relation
actions in rem through pleadings, thereto
c) Hearing it does not
*HEARING necessarily trial 3) All cases in
d) Judgment type proceedings which the
- notice to party is jurisdiction
*IMPARTIAL AND essential to adduce Case: Marcos vs. of any
COMPETENT its own evidence garchitorena – right lower court
COURT and to meet and to confrontation is in issue
refute the evidence means right to be
Case: tumey vs. ohi submitted by the given opportunity
– such law could 4) All criminal
other party. Every to cross examine
not insure cases in
litigant is entitled and this right can
impartiality since w/c the
to “his day in be exercised
he stood to benefit penalty
court” through counsel.
personally and imposed is
Declared default in
officially, with reclusion
Case: david vs. filing an answer
every judgment of perpetual
aquilizan – decision despite valid
conviction he or higher
rendered w/o substituted service
rendered. hearing is null and of summons. 5) All cases in
void ab initio and
Case: azul vs. w/c only an
may be attacked *appeal – the right
castro – the error or
directly or to appeal is not
supreme court question of
collaterally. essential to the
ordered the trial law is
right to a hearing
judge to admit the involved
Case: lorenzana vs.
answer of cayetano – Requirements
petitioner, Case: calano vs.
respondent under Art VIII,
questionable Cruz – appeal to
questioned the sections 5(2) of the
circumstance, supreme court in
validity of writ of constitution:
proceedings were an election protest
demolition because
being orchestrated involving municipal
he was not a party 1) All cases of
by an “unseen officials was
to any of the 12 constitutio
hand” challenged because
ejectment case, nality or
it was not allowed
was not afforded validity of
Case: paderanga by the revised
his day in court. any treaty,
vs. azura – judge election code, this
internation
was held to be was rejected by the
Case: lobete vs. al or
inhibited because supreme court
sundiam – right to executive
of existence of because the appeal
appeal was not agreement
hostility between was based on a
unlawfully withheld , law,
him and the pure question of
because of the presidentia
petitioner law, w/c came
l decree,
under the review evidence to rebut the al
powers of supreme the presumption? evidence questions,
court. presented render its
Answer: no, decisions in
*exceptions to the provided there is a 3) The such
twin requirements: rational or natural decision manner
connection must have that the
Example: between the fact something parties to
proved and the fact to support the
a) Cancellatio ultimately itself proceeding
n of presumed such can know
passport fact. 4) Evidence the various
due to must be issues
commission Example: the substantial involved,
of crime. presumption about and the
the legitimacy of 5) The reason for
b) Preventive the child born w/in decision the
suspension 180 days of must be decision
of a civil marriage if the rendered rendered.
service husband knows the on the
servant pregnancy of the evidence Case: zambales
facing wife. It will be presented chromite vs CA –
admin deemed not at the SC annulled the
charges violative of due hearing, or proceedings
process at least because it was a
c) Distraint of contained “mockery of
properties *JUDGMENT in the justice” director of
for tax record and mines promoted to
delinquenc - should be based disclosed to secretary of
y upon the lawful the parties agriculture,
hearing previously affected. affirmed his own
d) Padlocking conducted decision
of 6) The
restaurants Art. VIII, section 14, tribunal or Case: anzaldo vs.
found to be “no decision shall body or any clave – SC withheld
insanitary be rendered by any of its ist approval
court without judges because the
e) Theaters expressing therein must act on respondent as
showing clearly and its or his presidential
obscene distinctly the facts own executive
movies and the law in independen assistant, affirmed
which it is based” t his own decision as
f) Abatement considerati a chairman of civil
of *administrative due on of the service
nuisances process: law and commission.
facts of the
*nuisances 1) Right to a controversy
hearing , and not
- nuisances per se w/c simply
and per accidens includes accept the
the right to views of a
*presumptions present subordinate
one’s case in arriving
Question: would a and submit
statutory at a
evidence in decision CHAPTER 9 –
presumption deny support EQUAL
the right to a thereof. PROTECTION
7) The board
hearing insofar as
or body
the person affected 2) The *like the due
should in
is precluded from tribunal process, the equal
all
introducing must protection clause is
controversi
consider also couched in
indefinite probation law CLASSIFICATION valid, must be
language. This is unconstitutional substantial. But
because the because “only in *the equal certain physical
guaranty is also those provinces in protection clause differences of
dynamic. “swiftly w/c respective does not require persons ca in some
moving facts” of provincial boards the universal instances be the
our changing have provided for application of the basis of valid
society. the salary of a laws, that is, that it classification
probation officer” operate on all the
Case: Plessy vs. will the probation people w/o *a recognized
Ferguson – the system be distinction. Such an distinction between
clause was applicable effect might in fact citizens and aliens
interpreted as sometimes result in is that the former
justifying the In the ruling it unequal protection have more
doctrine of stated that “this solicitude for the
separate but equal means that a *the legislature is national interest
rights which mean person otherwise allowed to classify than the latter,
that the separate coming within the the subjects of whose allegiance to
enjoyment of rights purview of the law legislation. If the the local state is
by white and black would be able to classification is merely transient.
persons could be enjoy the benefits reasonable, the law
required as long as of probation in one may operate only Cases: Dumlao vs.
the rights province while on some and not all Comelec – the
themselves were another person of the people, w/o challenged statute
equal. similarly situated in violating the equal was upheld valid
another province protection clause. providing any
Case: Brown vs. would be denied retired elective
Board of Education those same Classification – has official who
of Topeka – the old benefits. This is been defined as the received his
doctrine was obnoxious grouping of retirement pay and
abandoned ruling discrimination” persons or things benefits cannot run
that compulsory of similar to each for the same
the two races in PERSONS other in certain elective office from
public schools was PROTECTED particulars and w/c he has retired –
unconstitutional. different from all not
*equal protection others in these unconstitutional for
DEFINITION clause is available same particulars. the reason to give
to all persons, way for the new
According to a long natural as well as REQUIREMENTS: blood.
line of decisions, juridical. Artificial
EQUAL PROTECTIO persons, however, a) Substantial Cases: Ceniza vs.
– simply requires are entitled to the distinctions Comelec –
that all persons or protection only petitioner contends
things similarly insofar as their b) Relevance that classification
situated should be property is to purpose of cities as highly
treated alike, both concerned. of law urbanized and
as rights conferred component is
and responsibilities Constitutional c) Duration unconstitutional –
imposed (ichong Reservation – SC sustained the
vs. Hernandez) certain rights are d) Applicabilit validity because
enjoyable only by y to all there is substantial
*even if the law be citizens, such as members distinction as to the
fair and impartial the right vote, hold of the class revenue of highly
on its face, it will public office, urbanized and to
still violate equal exploit natural A. SUBSTANTIAL component cities.
protection if it is resources, and DISTINCTIONS The latter is still
administered “with operate public dependent to its
an evil eye and utilities, although *superficial province where it is
uneven hand” aliens are differences do not situated.
comprehended in make for a valid
Case: people vs. the guaranty. classification. The
Vera – old distinction, to be
“the practice of nature and oil companies by non application of
allowing voters in condition of their requiring them to the law to him
one component city jobs. meet certain
or vote for conditions already Case: Ichong vs.
provincial officials International being observed by Hernandez – the
and denying the School Alliance of the latter. alien resident owes
same privileges to Educators vs. allegiance to the
voters in another Quisimbing – B. RELATIVE TO country of his birth
component city is a petitioner contends THE PURPOSE OF or his country, his
matter of that other LAW – the stay here is for
legislative treatment for classification even personal
discretion which foreigner hired if substantial will convenience, he is
violates NEITHER teacher such as still be invalid if it is attracted by the
the constitution nor 25% increase not germane to the lure of gain and
the voter’s right of differential on purpose of law. profit, this shows
suffrage. salaries and other the existence of
benefits are Example: the law real and actual,
Case: Nunez vs. against equal cannot provide for positive and
Sandiganbayan – protection “equal a lower passing fundamental
PD 1606 did not pay equal work” average for women difference between
discriminate in the bar exam an alien and a
persons convicted Case: Department because physical national which fully
by the of Education vs. strength is not the justify the
sandiganbayan San Diego – the test for admission legislative
because they only medical profession to the legal classification
have the remedy directly affects the profession adopted in the
unlike those who very lives of the retail trade
are convicted people, unlike C. DURATION – measure.
under the lower other careers, classification must
courts who can go which for this be enforced not Case: villegas vs.
to appellate courts reason, do not only for the present hiu chong “while it
and supreme court, require more but as long as the is true that the
so would have vigilant regulation problem sought to Philippines as a
more prospect of (not violative of be corrected state is not obliged
reversal of decision equal protection continues to exist. to admit aliens
– SC ruled that clause. within its territory,
sandigan bayan is D. APPLICABILITY once an alien is
composed of 3 Case: Philippine TO ALL – the admitted, he
justices needing Judges Association classification will cannot be deprived
unanimous votes vs. Prado – if it be regarded as of life without due
w/c conceivably will recognizes the invalid if all the process of law. This
be more careful need of the members of the guarantee includes
than that of trial president of the class are not the means of
courts in rendering Philippines and the similarly treated, livelihood”
decision members of both as to rights
congress for the conferred and The 50 pesos is
Case: Philippine franking privilege, obligations unreasonable not
association of there is no reason imposed. only because it
service exporters why it should not excessive but
vs. Drilon – it was recognize a similar *the mere fact that because it fails to
held that Filipino in fact greater need an individual consider valid
female domestic on the part of the belonging to a substantial
working abroad judiciary for such class differs from difference in
were in a class by privilege. the other situation among
themselves members, as long individual aliens
distinguishable Case: tatad vs. as that class is who are required to
from other Filipino Secretary of Energy substantially pay it.
female workers – it placed them at distinguishable
because they are a competitive from all others, Case: tatad vs.
exposed to more disadvantage vis a does not justify the Secretary of Energy
risk due to the vis the established – it placed them at
a competitive
disadvantage vis a
vis the established
oil companies by
requiring them to
meet certain
conditions already
being observed by
the latter.

The law was

unconstitutional
because it favored
the oligopoly of
petron, shell, and
Caltex to the
prejudice of
prospective
investors in the oil
industry that would
be saddled with
requirements
alredy complied w/
by the 3 oil grants.