state and imposing upon the government limitations to

BALACUIT v. CFI
safeguard constitutional rights did not intend thereby to
Facts: enable individual citizens or group of citizens to obstruct
unreasonably the enactment of such salutary measures to
Petitioners in this case were charged by the RTC of ensure communal peace, safety, good order and welfare."
Butuan City in violation of Ordinance No. 640, an ordinance
penalizing any person, group of person, group of persons, BP 22 had been questioned as a violation of this
entity or corporation engaged in the business of selling right. However, it's not the non-payment of an obligation
admission tickets to any movie or other public exhibitions, which this law punishes. The law isn't designed to coerce a
games, contests or other performances to require children debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit,
between 7 and 12 years of age to pay full payment for under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless
tickets intended for adults but should charge only one-half checks and putting them in circulation. Checks have
of the said ticket. become widely accepted as a medium of payment in trade
and commerce, and if the confidence in checks is shaken,
The petitioners questioned the validity and the usefulness of checks as currency substitutes would be
constitutionality of the statute on the grounds that it is ultra greatly diminished. When the question was resolved in
vires and an invalid exercise of police power. 1986, it had been reported that the approximate value of
bouncing checks per day was close to 200 Million Pesos,
Issue: thereafter averaging between P50 to P80 Million a day.

WON Ordinance No. 640 is valid and constitutional.

HELD:
No, the Ordinance No. 640 is said to be
unconstitutional because to invoke the exercise of police
power, not only must it appear that the interest of the public
generally requires an interference with private rights, but the
means adopted must be reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. The legislature may not, under the guise
of protecting the public interest, arbitrarily interfere with
private business, or impose unusual and unnecessary
restrictions upon lawful occupations. In other words, the
determination as to what is a proper exercise of its police
power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the
supervision of the courts.
The exercise of police power by the local
government is valid unless it contravenes the fundamental
law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is
against public policy or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial,
discriminating or in derogation of a common right.
Ordinance No. 640 clearly invades personal and property
rights of a business man, where selling and purchasing
admission ticket are under the discretion of theater owners
and no person is under compulsion to purchase a ticket. It
is a totally voluntary act on the part of the purchaser if he
buys a ticket to such performances.
LOZANO v. MARTINEZ
Facts:
The issue raised by the defendants is the
constitutionality of Batasang Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22)
popularly known as the Bouncing Check Law. The
defendants moved to quash the informations on the
grounds that the acts charged did not constitute an offense
and that the statute is unconstitutional. The defendants
contended that the statute run counter to the inhibition of Bill Issue: Whether NMAT requirement for admission to
of Rights which states “No person shall be imprisoned for medical colleges contravenes the Constitutional guarantee
debt or non-payment of a poll tax.”
Issue: WON BP 22 is a valid law
TABLARIN v. GUTIERREZ
Facts:
Teresita Tablarin, Ma. Luz Ciriaco, Ma. Nimfa B.
Rovira, and Evangelina S. Labao sought admission into
colleges or schools of medicine for the school year 1987-
1988. However, they either did not take or did not
successfully take the National Medical Admission Test
(NMAT) required by the Board of Medical Education and
administered by the Center for Educational Measurement
(CEM).
On 5 March 1987, Tablarin, et. al., in behalf of
applicants for admission into the Medical Colleges who
have not taken up or successfully hurdled the NMAT, filed
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital
Judicial Region, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and
Prohibition with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) and Preliminary Injunction, to enjoin the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical
Education and the Center for Educational Measurement
from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act 2382, as
amended, and MECS Order 52 (series of 1985), dated 23
August 1985 [which established a uniform admission test
(NMAT) as an additional requirement for issuance of a
certificate of eligibility for admission into medical schools of
the Philippines, beginning with the school year 1986-1987]
and from requiring the taking and passing of the NMAT as a
condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission,
from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the
NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on
26 April 1987 and in the future.
After hearing on the petition for issuance of
preliminary injunction, the trial court denied said petition on
20 April 1987. The NMAT was conducted and administered
as previously scheduled. Tablarin, et. al. accordingly filed a
Special Civil Action for Certiorari with the Supreme Court to
set aside the Order of the RTC judge denying the petition
for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
for the accessibility of education to all, and whether such
regulation is invalid and/or unconstitutional.

Held: Yes, the court did find the enactment of BP 22 a valid Held:
exercise of the police power and is not repugnant to the No. Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic
constitutional inhibition against imprisonment of debt. Acts 4224 and 5946, known as the “Medical Act of 1959″
defines its basic objectives to govern (a) the standardization
The police power of the state has been described and regulation of medical education; (b) the examination for
as "the most essential, insistent and illimitable of powers" registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision, control
which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines.
safety and welfare of society. It is a power not emanating
from or conferred by the constitution, but inherent in the The Statute created a Board of Medical Education
state, plenary, "suitably vague and far from precisely and prescribed certain minimum requirements for applicants
defined, rooted in the conception that man in organizing the to medical schools. The State is not really enjoined to take
appropriate steps to make quality education “accessible to
all who might for any number of reasons wish to enroll in a
professional school but rather merely to make such
education accessible to all who qualify under “fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements.”
The regulation of the practice of medicine in all its
branches has long been recognized as a reasonable
method of protecting the health and safety of the public. The
power to regulate and control the practice of medicine
includes the power to regulate admission to the ranks of
those authorized to practice medicine. Legislation and
administrative regulations requiring those who wish to
practice medicine first to take and pass medical board
examinations have long ago been recognized as valid
exercises of governmental power.
Similarly, the establishment of minimum medical
educational requirements for admission to the medical
profession, has also been sustained as a legitimate
exercise of the regulatory authority of the state.