You are on page 1of 9

Constitution 2.

Ratification Stage
Notes: - Any amendment to or revision shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60
days nor later than 90 days after approval of such change by the
 In case of doubt, the constitution should be considered self-executing Congress of the Con-Con or after certification by the COMELEC
rather than not self-executing; mandatory rather than directory; and
- There must be a fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection.
prospective rather than retrospective.
This is possible only if the plebiscite is scheduled on a special
 Self-executing—by itself is directly or indirectly applicable without the date rather than during elections (Gonzales v COMELEC)
need of statutory implementation.
3. Judicial Review
 Non-self-executing—remains dormant unless it is activated by legislative - The question of the validity of the adoption of amendments to
implementation the Consti is a subject to judicial review.
II. AMENDMENT AND REVISION - The judiciary may declare invalid a proposal adopted by less than
¾ of the members of the Congress, or a call for a Con-Con by less
 Change in the constitution may be effected by a mere modification in its than 2/3 of the legislature, or ratification made by less than a
interpretation by courts of justice. majority of the votes cast, or a plebiscite irregularly held.
 Amendment – isolated or piecemeal change; Revision – rewriting of the
whole instrument
1. Proposal Stage Notes:
- Where what is intended is a mere amendment, the proposal is  Voting (Art VIII, Section 4, p2 )
better made by direct legislative action (vote of at least ¾ if all All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or
members of Congress is needed) executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the SC en banc, and
all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en
- The choice of the method of proposal is discretionary upon the banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or
legislature (Occena v COMELEC) operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
- The Congress, acting as a constituent body, may with the ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the occurrence of
concurrence of 2/3 of all its members call a constitutional a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on
convention in general terms only (Imbong v COMELEC) the issues in the cases and voted thereon.
- Thereafter, the same Congress, acting this time as a legislative
 Requisites of Judicial Inquiry
body, may pass the necessary implementing law providing for the
No constitutional question will be heard and decided unless there is
details of the Con-Con, such as the number, qualifications, and
compliance with the following:
compensations of its members
1. There must be an actual case or controversy
- As long as it exists and confines itself within the sphere of its 2. The question of constitutionality must be raised by the proper party
jurisdiction, the Con-Con must be considered independent of 3. The constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible
and co-equal with the other departments of the government opportunity
(Mabanag v Lopez-Vito) 4. The decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the
determination of the case itself (lis mota)
Actual Case Necessity of Deciding the Constitutional Question
- Involves conflict of legal rights and assertion of opposite legal claims - A person cannot question the validity of a law under which he
susceptible of judicial adjudication has previously accepted benefits
- The case must not be moot and academic
- There must be “real and substantial” controversy admitting of a  Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
specific relief 1. Orthodox View
- An election protest will have to be dismissed upon the expiration of - (Norton v Shelby ) – an unconstitutional act is not a law; it
the protested official’s term (Morelos v De la Rosa) confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed
Proper Party 2. Modern View
- One who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining of an - The court does not annul or repeal the statute. It simply refuses
injury as a result of the act complained of to recognize it and determines the rights of the parties just as if
- Appropriations law – can now be questioned by an ordinary taxpayer such statute had no existence.
- (Tolentino v COMELEC) – a senator had the proper part personality to - It only affects the parties
seek the prohibition of a plebiscite for the ratification of a proposed - It does not strike the stature from the statute books; it does not
constitutional amendment repeal, supersede, revoke, or annul the statute
- (Oposa v Factoran) – petitioner minors are proper party to sue on
behalf of the succeeding generation based on the concept of  (Manila Motors v Flores) –
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and
healthy ecology is concerned. Partial Unconstitutionality
- Court can take jurisdiction over cases whenever the petitioner has - Valid only if it satisfies the conditions:
seriously and convincingly presented an issue of transcendental a. Legislature is willing to retain the valid portions even if the
significance to the Filipino people rest of the statute is declared illegal
- (Guanzon v De Villa) – well-meaning citizens with only second-hand b. Valid portions can stand independently as a separate statute
knowledge of the events are not considered properties to challenge
the saturation drives or “zonas” being conducted by the military IV. FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
- (Art VII, Section 18) – any citizen may challenge the suspension of the Notes:
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the proclamation of martial  Police power, Eminent Domain, Taxation
law  Police Power – power to regulate liberty and property for the promotion
of the general welfare
Earliest Opportunity  Eminent Domain – power to forcibly acquire private property, upon
Exceptions payment of just compensation for some intended public use.
a. Criminal cases – consti question can be raised at any time in the  Taxation – power to demand from the members of the society their
discretion of the court proportionate share for the maintenance of the government
b. Civil cases—consti question can be raised at any stage if it is V. POLICE POWER
necessary to the determination of the case itself Notes:
c. Every case, except when there is estoppels, the consti question can  Most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of powers
be raised at any stage if it involves the jurisdiction of the court  Can be exercised by the President, Lawmaking bodies, Administrative
Case: Ichong v Hernandez
1. A treaty is always a subject to qualification or amendment by a Taxicab Operators of MM v BOT
subsequent law, and the same may never curtail or restrict the - An administrative regulation phasing out taxicabs more than six years old
scope of police power of the State. was held a valid police measure to protect the riding public and promote
 Police power is dynamic, not static, and must move with the moving their comfort and convenience.
society it is supposed to regulate. Tio v VRB
 Case: Lutz v Araneta The creation of VRB is a proper exercise of PP to answer the need for
1. The imposition of a special tax on sugar producers for the regulating the video industry, particularly because of the rampant film piracy,
purpose of creating a special fund to be used for the the flagrant violation of intellectual property rights, and the protection of
rehabilitation of the sugar industry s a legitimate exercise of pornographic video tapes.
police power. DepEd v San Diego
 Case: (Assn of Small Landowners v Secretary Regulation disqualifying a person who has failed the NMAT 3 times from
1. Like taxation, the power of eminent domain could be used as an taking it is a valid police measure intended for the protection of the patients.
implement of the police power. There is an exercise of police
power for the regulation of private property in accordance with Ortigas & Co v Ca – Non impairment of contracts or vested rights clauses will
the Constitution. have to yield to the superior and legitimate exercise of the State of the PP.
2. It becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands
they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is PRC v De Guzman – The exercise of Constitutional right of every citizen to
definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which select a profession or course of study may be regulated pursuant to the PP of
payment of just compensation is imperative. the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety, and
 Exercise – lodged primarily in the national legislature. By virtue of a valid the general welfare of the people. This regulation assumes particular
delegation of legislative power, it may also be exercised by the President pertinence in the field of medicine, to protect the public from the potentially
and administrative boards as well as the lawmaking bodies on all dead effects of incompetence and ignorance.
municipal levels, including the barangay.
 Tests of Police Power MMDA v Garin – when there is a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by
1. Lawful Subject- The interests of the public generally, as distinguished the legislature or those agencies to whom legislative power has been
from those of a particular class, require the exercise of Police power delegated, the MMDA is not precluded and in fact is duty-bound to confiscate
2. Lawful Means- The means employed are reasonably necessary for the and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the exercise of its mandate of
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon transport and traffic management, etc..
individuals  Limitations when exercised by a delegate
a. Express grant by law
Lawful Subject b. Within territorial limits
- The activity or the property sought to be regulated affects the public c. Must not be contrary to law
- The enjoyment of private rights may be subordinated to the interests  For municipal ordinance to be valid
of the greater number—“welfare of the people is the supreme law” a. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
- Private matters in which the public interest is not at all involved and b. MN be unfair or oppressive
over which therefore the PP cannot be validly asserted. c. MN be partial or discriminatory
d. MN prohibit, but may regulate, trade
e. MN be unreasonable
f. Must be general in application and consistent with public policy
Case: Sanggalang v IAC  Power of the State to forcibly take private property for public use upon
Opening of two private roads for the public is a valid exercise of payment of just compensation.
PP to help in traffic decongestion and public convenience.  Art III, Section 9 “private property shall not be taken for public use
- Case: Del Rosario v Bengzon without just compensation” – strictly interpreted against the expropriator
SC sustained the Generics Act, which required doctors to and liberally in favor of the property owner
prescribe generic drugs rather than branded drugs  It is a public right ; arises from the laws of the society and it is vested in
- Case: TBA v COMELEC the state or its grantee
Law on radio and television stations to give free air time to  Obligation to pay—arises from law, independent of contract
respondent to be used as the COMELEC hour was a proper  Who may Exercise – Primarily with the Legislature, but can be validly
regulation of the State of the use of airwaves. Since a franchise is delegated to governmental entities and even private corporations
a mere privilege the exercise of the privilege may be reasonably 1. Congress
be burdened with the performance by the grantee of some form 2. President ng Pinas
of public service 3. Various Local Legislative Bodies
- Case: Ople v Torres 4. Public Corps (Land Authority and NHA)
Admin order for establishing a National Computerized 5. Quasi-public Corps
Identification System was struck down as an invalid police
measure. It pressures the people to surrender their privacy by  Object of Expropriation
giving info about themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate 1. Anything that comes under the dominion of man
the delivery of basic services. 2. Real, personal, tangible, and intangible
3. Property right
Lawful Means 4. Churches and other religious properties
- The end does not justify the means 5. Property already devoted to public use
- The lawful object must be pursued through a lawful method; that is,
both the end and the means must be legitimate. Otherwise, it shall be  Case: American Print Works v Lawrence –
struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights. 1. Destruction of a building as ordered by Mayor to stay the great
- Case: Ynot v IAC fire does not come under Power of Eminent Domain but under
EO prohibiting the transport of carabaos or carabao meat across the right of necessity of self-preservation. It is a private right
provincial boundaries without government clearance, for the vested in every individual, and which the right the state has
purpose of preventing indiscriminate slaughter of these animals, nothing to do.
was invalid due to its unlawful means.  Necessity of Exercise – it is essentially political in nature and not subject
- Means must pass the test of reasonableness and conform to the to judicial review.
safeguards embodied in the Bill of Rights for the protection of private
rights. For the delegate, the RTC has the power to inquire to the legality of the
 Integrity of Police Power – greatest good for the greater number exercise of the right of ED and to determine whether there is a genuine
necessity for it.
Case: Republic v La Orden – Expropriation of a portion of a property for
VI. EMINENT DOMAIN the extension of the Recto Street.
Notes: 1. Private property may be expropriated for public use and upon
 Aka “Power of Expropriation” – it is described as the highest and most payment of just compensation. It is justified if there is for the
exact idea of property remaining in the government public good and there is genuine necessity of a public character.
Case: City of Manila v Chinese Community – expropriation of a portion of - Trespass without actual eviction of the owner
a private Chinese cemetery for conversion into an extension of Rizal - Material impairment of the value of the property
Avenue. - Prevention of the ordinary uses of the property
1. General authority to exercise the right of eminent domain cannot  There is taking when:
be questioned by the courts. 1. The owner is actually deprived or dispossessed of his property
2. But, WON the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the 2. There is practical destruction or material impairment of the value
right in a particular case under conditions imposed by the GA, is of the property
a question which the courts have the right to inquire to. 3. The owner is deprived of the ordinary use of his property
A cemetery open to public was already in public use and no part of
the ground could be taken for their public use under a general authority.  Requisites for a valid taking (EMADO)
1. The expropriator must enter a private property
 Private Property 2. Entry must be for more than a momentary period
- Anything that can come under the dominion of man is subject to 3. Entry must be under warrant or color of authority
expropriation (Includes real, personal, tangible, and intangible 4. Property must be devoted for public use
properties) 5. Utilization of the property must be un such a way as to oust the
- A franchise is a property right and may therefore be owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property
expropriated. US v Causby
- Property already devoted to public use is still subject to 1. Government planes fly over private property at such a low
expropriation, provided it is done directly by the legislature or altitude as to touch the tress, there is an intrusion into the
under specific grant of authority to the delegate. superjacent rights of the owner as to entitle him to payment of
- A mere general authority will not suffice. In such a case the just compensation although there is no divestiture of title.
courts will have the authority to inquire into the necessity of the  Taking (without compensation) is valid—as long as the prejudice suffered
expropriation by the individual property owner is shares in common with the rest of the
Republic v PLDT community. If there is special injury – he is entitled to payment of the
1. The Republic, in its exercise of the sovereign power of eminent corresponding compensation.
domain, may require the telephone company to permit Richards v Washington Terminal
interconnection of the Government Telephone System and that 1. More smoke into the house of petitioner and thus sustaining
of PLDT, as the needs of the government service may require, more damage—he is entitled to just compensation
subject to the payment of just compensation to be determined  Distinguishing PP and PED
by the court. Republic v Castellvi : requisites of taking in Eminent Domain
2. There is no reason why a state may not require a public utility to 1. The expropriator must enter a private property
render services in the general interest, provided just 2. The entry must be for more than a momentary period (must be
compensation is paid. for a permanent or indefinite period)
3. The entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority
PLDT v NTC 4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise
1. The property subject of expropriation must be by its nature or informally appropriated or injuriously affected.
condition wholesome, as it is intended to be devoted to a public 5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a
 Taking – imports a physical dispossession of the owner, as when he is way as to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
ousted from his land or relieved of his watch or his car and is deprived of enjoyment of the property.
all beneficial use and enjoyment of the property such as:
 The expropriator can enter the said property only after expropriation c. Property taken should be assessed as of the time of the taking,
proceedings are actually commenced and the deposit required by law is which usually coincides with the commencement of the
duly made. expropriation proceedings. Assessment should be made as of the
City Govt of Quezon v Ericta time of the entry.
1. Ordinance to reserve 6% of private cemeteries for burial of Knecht v CA
paupers 1. “Owner” refers to all those who have lawful interest in the
2. Is not a valid exercise of PP but rather falls under PED. property to be condemned, including mortgagee, a lessee, and a
3. There was a taking of private property without payment of just vendee in possession under an executor contract.
compensation in violation of the principles of ED. There is no
showing of an existence of a national emergency or imperious NHA v Reyes
public necessity. 1. Just compensation for property under expropriation should be
either the sworn valuation made by the owner or the official
Phil Press Institute v COMELEC assessment thereof, whichever was lower.
1. COMELEC resolution directing Newspapers to provide free VII. DUE PROCESS of LAW
COMELEC space for common use of political parties and  Art III, Section 1: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
candidates without due process of law.”
2. This amounts to taking of private property without payment of  Guaranty – against any arbitrariness on the part of the govt, whether
just compensation required in expropriation cases + no committed by the legislature, the executive, or the judiciary.
establishment of the necessity of taking.  If the law unreasonably deprives a person of his life or his liberty or his
 Public Use –any use directly available for the general public as a matter of property, he is denied the protection of due process.
right and not merely forbearance or accommodation  Person – Due process clause protects all persons, natural (citizens and
Province of Camarines Sur v CA aliens) as well as artificial (corporations and partnerships concerning their
1. Establishment of a pilot development center would inure to the properties).
direct benefit and advantage of CamSur people
2. Livelihood will be enhanced. Housing project also satisfies the Villegas v Hiu Chong
public purpose requirement. 1. City ordinance requiring aliens to obtain work permit from mayor
as pre-condition for employment
 Just Compensation 2. Even aliens cannot be deprived of life without due process of
- full and fair equivalent of the property taken from private owner by law. This guarantee includes the means of livelihood.
the expropriator  Deprivation – connotes denial of the right to life, liberty or property
- measure is not the expropriator’s gain but the owner’s loss  Life—includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness,
- CARP Law: payment of the balance (if the owner cannot be paid with from dismemberment; embraces all God-given faculties that can make his
money), or indeed the entire amount of the just compensation, with life worth-living: right of reproduction, parenthood,
other things of value.  Liberty – Liberty regulated by law. Includes the right to exist and the right
- Title to the property shall not be transferred until after actual to be free from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude. A person is free
payment of just compensation is made to the owner. to act but he may exercise his rights only in such a manner as not to injure
a. Court shall determine first the actual or basic value of the the rights of others.
property  Property – anything that can come under the right of ownership and be
b. Consider the consequential benefits and damages subject of contract.
- Public office is not a property which one may acquire as a vested Ichong v Hernandez
right; it is nevertheless a protected right. It is created by statute 1. Retail Trade Nationalization Law
and can be abolished by the legislature anytime. 2. Valid exercise of Police Power. It is necessary for the desired
- Where a salary has already been earned, it cannot be reduced or objective—to free the national economy form alien control and
withdrawn by a retroactive law as it has accrued as a property dominance.
right. 3. It is reasonable. It is prospective and recognize the rights and
- Privileges such as licenses are not property rights and are privileges of those already engaged in the occupation to
revocable at will. continue (given grace period pa  ).
 Requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
the person to his life, liberty, or property.  Hears before it condemns, proceeds upon inquiry, and renders
 Requires that the law itself, not merely the procedures by which the judgment only after trial
law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable and just. It serves as a  Twin elements of notice and hearing
restriction of the government’s law and rule-making powers; a *As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental
prohibition of arbitrary laws. requirements of procedural due process, are essential only when an
 Is it a proper exercise of legislative power? administrative body exercises its Quasi-Judicial Function.
 Requirements: *In the exercise of its Executive or Legislative Functions, such as
1. Interest of the public -- Must have a valid governmental issuing rules and regulations, an administrative body need not comply with
objective: the requirements of notice and hearing.
2. Objective must be pursued in a lawful manner: means A. Judicial Due Process
employed must be reasonably related to the accomplishment a. Impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear
of the purpose and not unduly oppressive. and determine the matter before it
b. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
Kwong Sing v City of Manila defendant and over the property which is the subject of the
1. Municipal Ordinance requiring all laundry establishments to proceeding
issue their receipts in Eng and Spanish c. Defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
2. Valid. It is intended to protect the public from deceptions and d. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing and based on
misunderstandings that might arise from their accepting evidence adduced
receipts in Chinese characters that they did not understand.
Yu Cong Eng v Trinidad Impartial and Competent Court
1. Law prohibiting keeping of accounts other than Eng or Spanish Ynot v IAC
—for all persons, companies or partnerships, engaged in
commerce and industry in Pinas.
2. Invalid. Not within the police power of Phil. Legislature, Javier v COMELEC
because it would be oppressive and arbitrary, to prohibit all 1. Cold neutrality of an impartial judge
Chinese merchants from maintaining set of books in Chinese. 2. Judge must not only be impartial but appear to be impartial
3. They would be a prey to all kinds of fraud and damaging in the 3. Due process is intended to insure fair play – that calls for equal
preservation of their property. justice.
Paderanga v Azura Lorenzana v Cayetano
Ejectment case—as third part to the judgment, it does not bind her; nor
its writ of execution cannot be enforced against her since she was not
afforded her day in court.

- Competent court – one vested with jurisdiction over a case as conferred PP v Beriales
upon it by law.  Dues process is not violated where a person is not heard because he
has chosen, for whatever reason, not to be heard.
- Actions in personam – (complaint for recovery of a loan)  * Due process does not always and in all situations, requires trial-type
 jurisdiction over the defendant is acquired by the court by his proceedings.
voluntary appearance or through service of summons upon him  * The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity
 Effected: personally, by substituted service, or by publication to be heard and to submit any evidence in support of defense.
 * Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or
- Actions is rem or quasi in rem – (land registration or foreclosure of pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
 jurisdiction of court is derived from the power it may exercise over Marcos v Garhitorena
the property. The right of confrontation merely means the right to be given an
 Notice of publication is sufficient opportunity to cross-examine and this right can be done through the counsel.
 Property is always presumed to be in the possession of the owner or
his agent. 1. Appeal
- The right to appeal is not essential to the right to a hearing.
Hearing - Except when guaranteed by the Constitution, appeal may be
- Every litigant is entitled to his day in court. allowed or denied by the legislature in its discretion.
- No party should be made to suffer in person or property without being - Requirement of due process are deemed satisfied as long as
given a hearing. litigant is given his day in court at the trail of the case, and he
- He has a right to be notified of every incident of the proceeding and to cannot demand as a matter of right another day in the appellate
be present at every stage thereof so that he may be heard by himself court.
and counsel for the protection of his interests. Appeal is not a natural right nor is it part of due process; generally, it
may be allowed or denied by the legislature in its discretion. But where the
David v Aquilizan Constitution gives a person the right to appeal, denial of the right to appeal
Decision rendered without a hearing is null and void ab initio ay may be constitutes a violation of due process. Where there is statutory grant of the
attacked directly or collaterall. right to appeal, denial of that remedy also constitutes a denial of due
DBP v Bautista - Exceptions:
Certificate of title to piece of land was annulled although part was not a. But as long as the law allows him to appeal, denial of that
made a party to the case.—Null and Void. Decision could not in any way remedy is a denial of due process.
bind the party because of denial from her of the right to be heard. b. Minimum appellate jurisdiction of SC
1. All cases regarding the constitutionality or validity of any B. Administrative Due Process
treaty, international or executive agreement, PD, PO, 1. The right to a hearing: right to present one’s case and submit
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is questioned evidence to support
2. All cases regarding any tax impost, assessment, or toll, or 2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
any penalty imposed in relation thereto. 3. The decision must have something to support itself
3. All cases regarding the jurisdiction of any lower court. 4. The evidence must be substantial
4. All criminal cases with penalty of Reclusion perpetua up. 5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at
5. All cases in which only an erros or question of law is the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to
involved. the parties affected.
Calano v Cruz 6. The tribunal or body of any of its judges must act on its or his
Election protest involving municipal officials – appeal was proper own independent consideration of the law and facts of the
because it was based on pure question of law, which comes under the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate
irreducible review powers of SC. in arriving at a decision.
7. The board or body should render its decision in such a manner
2. Exceptions (notice and hearing may be omitted) that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues
- Cancellation of passport of a person sought for commission of a involved and the reason for the decision rendered.
- Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing admin charges Zambales Chromite v CA
- Distraint of properties for tax delinquency
- Padlocking of restaurants found to be unsanitary

a. Nuisances
- Per se: objectionable under any and all circumstances due to Anzaldo v Clave
immediate danger to welfare of community. Can be abated It is a violation of fundamental fairness required by due process. A
summarily (without need of judicial authorization). public officer who decided the case should not be the same person
- Per accidens: objectionable only under some but not all to decide it on appeal because he cannot be an impartial jude.
circumstances. Could be abated only upon judicial
authorization due to difficult of identification, or summarily
abated is of trifling value only.
b. Presumption
- Statutory presumption does not deny the right to a hearing
as long as it is based on human experience.

- Judgment must be based upon the lawful hearing previously conducted.
- Art VIII, Section 14: “no decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it
is base.”