CODES AND NOTES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

NOTES AND CASES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

I. THE INHERENT/ FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation
They are inherent powers because they belong to the very essence of government and without
them no government can exist.
Similarities, Distinctions, and Limitation
Similarities:
They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express
constitutional grant.
They are necessary and indispensable The State cannot continue or be effective unless it is
able to
exercise them.
They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
Differences:
As to regulation/extent
of power
As to who may
exercise
As to the property
taken

As to Compensation

Police Power

Eminent Domain

Taxation

regulates both liberty

and property
only the government

regulates
property
rights only
government
and
some private entities
-wholesome
-taken for a public
use or purpose

Regulates
property
rights only
only the government

full and fair equivalent

of the property
expropriated

protection and public

improvements for the
taxes paid

destroyed because it
is
noxious or intended
for
noxious purpose
intangible altruistic
feeling
that
the
person
has contributed to the
general welfare

-wholesome
-taken for a public use
or purpose

Limitations:
(a) May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights.
(b) Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in
proper cases be annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is a grave abuse of discretion.
A. POLICE POWER
Police Power is an inherent power of the State to promote the welfare of society by
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.

Justification of existence:
Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is the supreme law;
Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas a person must use his own property so as not to injure
another
Scope:
(a) cannot be bargained away through the medium of a treaty or contract (Stone v Mississippi)
(b) may use taxing power as its implement (Tio vs Videogram Regulatory Board)
(c) may use eminent domain as its implement (Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Agrarian
Reform)
(d) could be given retroactive effect and may reasonably impair vested rights or contracts
(police power prevails over contract)
(e) dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving society it is supposed to regulate
Who may exercise Police Power?
(a) the Legislature (inherent)
(b) President (by delegation)
(c) administrative boards (by delegation)
(d) lawmaking bodies on all municipal levels, including barangay (by delegation)
(e) Municipal governments / LGU's (conferred by statute general welfare clause of RA 7160)
Not being a political subdivision but merely an executive authority it has no police power.
(MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assoc.)
Tests (Limitations):
(a) Lawful subject interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular
class, require the exercise of police power
(b) Lawful means the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of
the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals
Additional limitations (when exercised by delegate) [Nachura Reviewer]:
express grant by law (e.g. RA 7160)
within territorial limits (for LGU's)
must not be contrary to law (City Government of Quezon City vs Ericta)
for municipal ordinances 1. must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. must not be unfair and oppressive
3. must not be partial and discriminatory
4. must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade
5. must not be unreasonable
6. must be general in application and consistent with public policy
In Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila, police
power has been characterized as the most essential, insistent and least limitable of powers
extending as it does to all great public needs.
[T}he mere fact that some individuals in the community may be deprived of

their business or a particular mode of earning a living cannot prevent the exercise of police
power. .. [P]ersons licensed to pursue occupations which may in the public need and interest be
affected by the exercise of the police power embark in these occupations subject to the
disadvantages which may result from the exercise of that power.
Government can take away a license and increase the cost of license fees even to prohibitive
levels, if public interest dictates so, without any constitutional violations.
Licenses for regulating non-useful occupation are incidental to the exercise of police power and
the right to exact fees is may be implied from that power to regulate. In setting the fees,
municipal corporations are given wider discretion in this class of licenses (than for licenses
issued to regular business). Courts have generally upheld these because of the desirability of
imposing restraints on individuals who engage in these unuseful enterprises.
In Ynot v. IAC, the Court here ruled that the ban on transportation of carabao under the
assailed ordinance and their outright confiscation and disposal without court hearing is a
violation of due process hence it is an invalid exercise of police power.
The court adopted the measures laid down in the Toribio case.
Protection general welfare is a function of police power which both restrains and is restrained
by due process, which requires notice and hearing.
Case emphasized the need to have a lawful method to follow due process requirement .
Reasons why ordinance is invalid are:
No reasonable connection between means employed (absolute ban on movement of
carabeef) and purpose sought to be achieved (conservation of carabao for general
welfare)
Unduly oppressive since petition not given due process or opportunity to be heard in
proper court
B. EMINENT DOMAIN
Eminent Domain is the use of the government of its coercive authority, upon just
compensation, to forcibly acquire the needed property in order to devote the same to public use.
Eminent domain is also known as expropriation, or condemnation.
Who may Exercise?
1. The Congress (inherent)
2. President
3. various local legislative bodies
4. certain public corporations (e.g. National Housing Authority)
5. Quasi-public corporations (e.g. PLDT)
Eminent Domain Distinguished from Destruction from Necessity
Eminent Domain
Destruction from Necessity
public right
arises from the laws of society and is vested
in the state or grantee, acting under the right

private right vested in every individual with

which the right of state or state necessity has
nothing

and power of the state or benefit of the state

to do
comes under the right of necessity, of selfpreservation
arises under the laws of society or society
itself
cannot require the conversion of the property
taken to public use, nor is there any need for
the payment of just compensation

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has the jurisdiction over a complaint for eminent domain.
Requisites of Eminent Domain:
1. Necessity of exercise
2. Private property
3. Taking
4. Public use
5. Just compensation
1. Necessity of Exercise
genuine necessity, and
must be of public character
When exercised by legislature political question
When exercised by a delegate justiciable question
determine the: (a) adequacy of compensation; (b) necessity of taking; and (c)
public
use character
2. Private Property
General Rule: anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to expropriation
Exceptions: money and chose in action (personal right not reduced into possession, i.e. the
right to
bring an action to recover debt, money or thing)
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be expropriated by a delegate acting
under a general grant of authority (City of Manila vs Chinese Community)
3. Taking
Requisites (Republic vs Castellvi):
(a) expropriator must enter a private property
(b) entry must be for more than a momentary period
(c) entry must be under the warrant of legal authority
(d) entry is for public use
(e) the owner is deprived of enjoying his property
if taking is under police power, it is not compensable
Taking Under Eminent Domain vs Taking in Police Power :
Police Power
Eminent Domain
the prejudice suffered by the individual
property owner is shared in common with the

the individual suffers more than his aliquot

part of the damages, i.e. a special injury above

rest of the community

that
sustained by the rest of the community

In Amigable v. Cuenca, where there is taking in the constitutional sense, the property owner
need not file a claim for just compensation with the Commission of Audit; he may go directly to
the court to demand payment. Arbitrary action of the government shall be deemed a waiver of
its immunity from suit.
In City Government v. Ericta, an ordinance of Quezon City, under the guise of exercising
police power, prescribed that at least 6% of the totalarea of memorial parks must be developed
and set aside for the burial of paupers. The Court held that such ordinance is not an exercise of
police power but the taking of private property for public use. Hence, to satisfy the Constitution,
there must be compensation.
4. Public Use
Public use is whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare, including both
direct or indirect benefit or advantage to the public
In Heirs of Ardona v. Reyes, the Court held that the Constitution understand public use in a
broad sense as meaning public welfare. That includes development of tourism.
5. Just Compensation
Just compensation is fair and full equivalent payment for the loss sustained, which is the
measure of the indemnity, not whatever gain would accrue to the expropriating agency. It is not
market value per se. (Epza v. Dulay)
Where only part of the property is expropriated: entitlement to consequential
damages, if any
+ consequential benefits must be deducted from the total compensation provided
consequential
benefits does not exceed consequential damages
Payment of the correct amount + Payment within a reasonable time
Form of Compensation: Money (However, in Assoc. of Small Landowners vs Sec. of
Agrarian Reform, payment is allowed to be made partly in bonds because it deals with a
revolutionary kind of expropriation).
Transfer of Title: payment of just compensation before title is transferred.
Reckoning point of market value of property: either as of the date of taking or filing
of the complaint, whichever comes first
Entitlement of interest:
General Rule: when there is delay, there must be interest by way of damages (Art.
2209, CC)
Exception: when waived by not claiming the interest

 Payment of Taxes : taxes paid from the time of the taking until the transfer of the title, during
which the owner did not enjoy any beneficial use of the property, are reimbursable by the
expropriator.

Right of the landowner in case of non-payment:

General Rule: landowner is not entitled to recover possession of the property, but only to
demand payment
Exception: when the government failed to pay just compensation within 5 years from the
finality of judgment in expropriation proceedings, there is a right to recover property
In De Knecht v. Bautista, the court ruled that the expropriation proceeding against the
property of petitioner was arbitrary and cannot receive judicial approval. There was another area
where the expansion of EDSA can be undertaken, which will cost government less, affect lesser
homeowners, etc.
But in Republic vs. Knecht, the same property was ordered expropriated. Apparently, BP 340,
which called for the taking of the property, was enacted after the 1st De Knecht case. De Knecht
argued that there was already a law of the case, which should not be disturbed.
Court responded that while it is true that there was a law of the case, it is equally true that there
is constitutional grant given to the State to take private property upon payment of just
compensation. Such expropriation proceedings may be undertaken by the [State] not only by
voluntary negotiation with landowners but also by taking appropriate court action or by
legislation.
The prior court decision is no obstacle for the legislature to make its own assessment of the
circumstances that prevailed after the decision as well as supervening events and reaching a
conclusion as to the propriety of undertaking the appropriation of the De Knecht property.
In the case Republic v. PLDT, the Court ordered the PLDT to allow the reconnection of
telephone lines of the Republic.
No cogent reason appears why Eminent Domain may be availed of to impose only a
burden upon the owner of condemned property without loss of title or possession for
public use subject to just compensation
Case highlights that even services may be subjected to eminent domain
In City of Manila v. Chinese Community of Manila, the Court said that [T]he very foundation
of the right to exercise eminent domain is a genuine necessity and that necessity must be of
public character.
In Epza v. Dulay, P.D. Nos. 76, 464, 794, and 1533 prescribed a formula for arriving at just
compensation in expropriation proceedings , dispense with the need to appoint commissioners
to determine just compensation. The Court held that those decrees are unconstitutional and
void for they constitute impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives.
In Republic v. CA, the government argued that the nullification should only have prospective
effect. The Court agreed. Thus under the operative fact doctrine, the effect of the invalidated
law was allowed to affect transactions completed before the declaration of nullity.

C. POWER OF TAXATION
Power of Taxation is a method by which contributions are exacted from persons and property
for the support of government and for all public needs.
Obligation to pay taxes is a duty
Taxes vs Licenses
Tax
to raise revenues

License
for regulatory purpose only
justified under police power
amount of fees required is usually limited to
the
cost of regulation

Scope
all income earned in the taxing state, whether by citizens or aliens, and all immovable and
tangible personal properties found in its territory, as well as tangible personal property owned by
persons domiciled therein
Power to Tax Includes Power to Destroy
(1) when used validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging and in effect
ultimately prohibiting certain things or enterprises inimical to public welfare
Power to Tax Does Not Include Power to Destroy
where the tax is used solely for the purpose of raising revenues
Who May Exercise
1. Legislature / Congress (inherent)
2. President (by delegation / tariff powers [Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI, Consti])
3. local legislative bodies (conferred by direct authority [Sec. 5, Art. X, Consti])
Limitations of Taxation:
1. Due Process of Law
2. Equal Protection
3. Public Purpose
1. Due Process
Substantive : tax should not be confiscatory except when used as an implement of police
power
Procedural : due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law
prescribing specific taxes on specific articles may be enacted. However, where the tax to be
collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property, the taxpayer is entitled to be
notified of the assessment proceedings and to be heard therein on the correct valuation of the
property.
2. Equal Protection
embodied in Sec. 28 (1), Art. VI, 1987 Constitution (The rule of taxation shall be uniform and
equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.)

 Uniformity persons or things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate
Requisites (Tan vs Del Rosario):
(a) standards that are used are substantial and not arbitrary
(b) categorization is germane to achieve the legislative purpose
(c) the law applies, all things being equal, to both present and future conditions
(d) classification applies equally well to all those belonging to the same class
Equitable taxation based on the capacity to pay
Equality in taxation tax shall be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property
Progressive system of taxation the rate increases as the tax base increases
3. Public Purpose
whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare
Double Taxation / Direct Duplicate Taxation
when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by the same taxing jurisdiction
during the same taxing period and for the same purpose.
despite the lack of specific prohibition, double taxation will not be allowed if it results in
a violation of the equal protection clause.
Tax Exemptions may either be:
constitutional
Art. Vi, Sec. 28 (3) : when lands, buildings and improvements are actually,
directly and exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes entitled
to exemption
statutory- discretion of legislature
II. CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS
Bill of Rights set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing
the enjoyment of those rights.
Significance of the Bill of Rights
Government is powerful. When unlimited, it becomes tyrannical. The Bill of
Rights is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person's life, liberty, and property which
governmental power may not touch.
Bill of Rights are generally self-implementing.
Classification of Rights
1. Political Rights granted by law to members of community in relation to their direct or
indirect participation in the establishment or administration of the government;

2. Civil Rights rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private individuals for
the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their means of happiness;
3. Social and Economic Rights; and,
4. Human Rights.