Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

IBP vs.

ZAMORA PRESIDENT’s CALLING OUT POWER


- When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily
August 15, 2000 exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom.
- he Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However, this does not
prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was
exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.
- Calling out power can only be challenged if there was a grave abuse of discretion.
POWER TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW AND POWER TO SUSPEND WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS\
- Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, in the exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus or to impose martial law, two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an actual invasion or rebellion and, (2)
public safety must require it.
CIVILIAN SUPREMACY
- The deployment of the Marines in the metropolis for civilian law enforcement does not constitute a breach of the civilian
supremacy clause.
REGULATORY POWER VS PROSCRIPTIVE POWER VS COMPULSARY POWER
- A power regulatory in nature is one which controls or directs. It is proscriptive if it prohibits or condemns and compulsory if it
exerts some coercive force.
LICO vs. COMELEC FACIAL OBJECTION TEST
- Error in the interpretation of law which amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
September 29, 2015 EQUIPOISE RULE
- When the evidence in an issue of fact is in equipoise, that is, when the respective sets of evidence of both parties are
evenly balanced, the party having the burden of proof fails in that issue.
AMENDMENT OF BY-LAWS
- An amendment to the bylaws of a party-list organization should become effective only upon approval by the Commission on
Elections (COMELEC)
TANADA vs. CUENCO SENATE HOUSE RULES
- These are political questions. The only justiciable questions to be passed upon in this matter are:
1. The publication requirement
2. Voting requirement
3. Requirement on Quorum
VINUYA vs. ROMULO NATURE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
- Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy that is adjunct to the main case, and is subject to the latter’s outcom e.
August 12, 2014 It is not a cause of action itself. It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of during the pendency
of the action; and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.
ESPOUSAL OF CLAIM IS A POLITICAL QUESTION
- The Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or
not to espouse petitioners’ claim against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and judgment of the
Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the
Executive Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either by writ of certiorari or injunction, to
conduct our foreign relations with Japan in a certain manner.

1
REPUBLIC vs. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
SANGALANG - All lands within the limits of the Baguio Townsite Reservation were declared “public lands” no longer registrable under the
Land Registration Act. It is clear, therefore, that the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benquet, presided over by Judge
April 8,1988 Pio R. Marcos, had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of Land Registration Case No. N30
SANGALANG vs. IAC POLICE POWER
- Sate authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty or property in order to promote the general
August 25, 1989 welfare.
-The fact that the opening up of Orbit St. to vehicular traffic has led to the loss of privacy of Bel-Air residents, does not
render the exercise of police power unjustified
ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE
- The Orbit gate may be legally abated by summary means considering that it is a public nuisance
OPLE vs. TORRES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER CANNOT COVER A SUBJECT WHICH VIOLATES A CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER
- Administrative order no. 308 cannot pass constitutional muster as an administrative legislation because facially it violates
July 23, 1998 the right to privacy.
- An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative
operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of implementing the law
and carrying out the legislative policy.
COURT’S SCRUTINY
- The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not intended to stifle scientific and
technological advancements that enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that the law be narrowly
focused and a compelling interest justify such intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper
safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. Any law or order that invades individual
privacy will be subjected by this Court to strict scrutiny.
ICHONG vs. POLICE POWER
HERNANDEZ - The police power legislation must be firmly grounded on public interest and welfare, and a reasonable relation must exist
between purposes and means. And if disctinction or classification has been made, there must be a reasonable basis for
May 31, 1957 said distinction.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
- The power of the legislature to make distinctions and classifications among persons is not curtailed or denied by the equal
protection of the laws clause. The legislative power admits of a wide scope of discretion, and a law can be violative of the
constitutional limitation only when the classification is without reasonable basis. Citizenship is a legal and valid ground for
classification.
CLASSIFICATION IN NATIONALIZATION OF RETAIL TRADE
- The classification in the law of retail traders into nationals and aliens is actual, real and reasonable. All persons of one class
are treated alike, and it cannot be said that the classification is patently unreasonable and unfounded. Hence, it is the dut y
of this Court to declare that the legislature acted within its legitimate prerogative and it cannot declare that the act
transcends the limits of equal protection established by the Constitution.
TEST OF REASONABLENESS
- The test of reasonableness of a law is the appropriateness or adequacy under all circumstances of the means adopted to
carry out its purpose into effect. Judged by this test, the disputed legislation, which is not merely reasonable but actually
necessary, must be considered not to have infringed the constitutional limitation of reasonableness.

2
SOVEREIGN RIGHTS CANNOT BE BARGAINED
- Supposing that the law infringes upon the said treaty, the treaty is always subject to qualification or amendment by a
subsequent law, and the same may never curtail or restrict the scope of the police power of the State.

GIOS SAMAR vs.


DOTC TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE
- Transcendental importance must be construed by observing the hierarchy of courts to streamline the facts of the
March 12, 2019 case so that only questions of law should be entertained in the Supreme Court.
BELGICA vs. JUSTICIABILITY OF PORK BARREL
EXECUTIVE - The intrinsic constitutionality of the “Pork Barrel System” is not an issue dependent upon the wisdom of the political
SECRETARY branches of government but rather a legal one which the Constitution itself has commanded the Court to act upon.
PORK BARREL SYSTEM
November 19, 2013 - The Court defines the Pork Barrel System as the collective body of rules and practices that govern the manner by which
lump-sum, discretionary funds, primarily intended for local projects, are utilized through the respective participations of the
Legislative and Executive branches of government, including its members.
- The Pork Barrel System involves two (2) kinds of lump-sum discretionary funds: First, there is the Congressional Pork
Barrel which is herein defined as a kind of lump-sum, discretionary fund wherein legislators, either individually or
collectively organized into committees, are able to effectively control certain aspects of the fund’s utilization
through various post-enactment measures and/or practices.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
- From the moment the law becomes effective, any provision of law that empowers Congress or any of its members to play
any role in the implementation or enforcement of the law violates the principle of separation of powers and is thus
unconstitutional; Any post-enactment-measure allowing legislator participation beyond oversight is bereft of any
constitutional basis and hence, tantamount to impermissible interference and/or assumption of executive function.
- Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF); The Supreme Court hereby declares the 2013 Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) Article as well as all other provisions of law which similarly allow legislators to wield any form of
post-enactment authority in the implementation or enforcement of the budget, unrelated to congressional oversight, as
violative of the separation of powers principle and thus unconstitutional.
NON-DELEGABILITY
- The Supreme Court observes that the 2013 Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) Article, insofar as it confers
post-enactment identification authority to individual legislators, violates the principle of non-delegability since said
legislators are effectively allowed to individually exercise the power of appropriation, which ― as settled in Philconsa ― is
lodged in Congress.

PEOPLE vs. VERA GOVERNMENT’S LEGAL STANDING


- The government maintains standing in questioning the constitutionality of laws since it is the most interested
party in pursuing cases involving validity and constitutionality of laws.
IMBONG vs. OCHOA FACIAL CHALLENGE EXTENDS TO THE RIGHT UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT
- The scope of facial challenge was expanded to rights under the first amendment such as the right to life, right to
religion, free speech, political expressions, press and assembly.
UMALI vs. GUINGONA CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A LAW MUST BE QUESTIONED IN AN EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME
3
-It is too late to raise the issue of constitutionality in the Motion for reconsideration.
Except: In criminal cases since liberty is at stake.
REPUBLIC vs. CA OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE
- The doctrine of operative fact recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the determination of its
unconstitutionality as an operative fact that produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or disregarded.
In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustains its effects.
Exception:
1. If contrarty to constitutional policy.

PROVINCE OF RIGHT OF INFORMATION


NORTH COTABATO - MOA-AD subject of the present cases is of public concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial
vs. integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.
GOVERNMENT OF THE - The right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information while Section 28, Article II of the
REPUBLIC OF THE Constitution recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody demands
PHILIPPINES PEACE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO CONDUCT PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH REBEL GROUPS
PANEL ON ANCESTRAL - That the authority of the President to conduct peace negotiations with rebel groups is not explicitly mentioned in the
DOMAIN Constitution does not mean that she has no such authority.
RESIDUAL POWER
October 14, 2008 - President’s . . . unstated residual powers which are implied from the grant of executive power and which
are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution. The powers of the President are not limited
to what are expressly enumerated in the article on the Executive Department and in scattered provisions of the
Constitution.
STATE WITHIN STATE IS NOT ALLOWED
- The Constitution does not contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other than the Philippine State, much less does it
provide for a transitory status that aims to prepare any part of Philippine territory for independence.
DELA CRUZ vs. WELFARE OF THE CHILD
GRACIA - Our laws instruct that the welfare of the child shall be the “paramount consideration” in resolving questions affecting him. x x
x It is thus “(t)he policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of
July 31, 2009 children, especially of illegitimate children x x x.” Too, “(t)he State as parens patriae affords special protection to children
from abuse, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development.”
TANADA vs. ANGARA NOT SELF-EXECUTING PROVISIONS
- The principles and state policies enumerated in Article II and some sections of Article XII are not self-executing provisions,
May 02, 1997 the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action in the courts.
TRADE LIBERALIZATION AND FILIPINO FIRST POLICY
- While the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time,
it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and limits
protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition and trade practices that are unfair—the Constitution did
not intend to pursue an isolationist policy.
BARGAIN OF SOVEREIGNTY
- By their inherent nature, treaties really limit or restrict the absoluteness of sovereignty. By their voluntary act, nations may
surrender some aspects of their state power in exchange for greater benefits granted by or derived from a convention or
pact. After all, states, like individuals, live with coequals, and in pursuit of mutually covenanted objectives and benefits, they
4
also commonly agree to limit the exercise of their otherwise absolute rights
GONZALES vs. RICE AND CORN IMPORTATION LAWS
HECHANOVA - Since the Rice and Corn Importation Laws (Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452) set conditions for the importation of rice,
and in the case at bar conditions have not been complied with, it is held that the proposed importations are illegal.
October 22, 1963 IMPORTATIONS MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF
- The provisions of Republic Acts Nos. 2207 and 3452, prohibiting the importation of rice and corn by any “government
agency”, apply likewise to importations “made by the Government itself”, because each and every officer and employee of
our Government, is a government agency and/or agent.
LIMITATION ON PRESIDENT’S POWER TO ENTER INTO AN EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT
- He may not by executive agreement, enter into a transaction which is prohibited by statutes enacted prior thereto.
POWER TO INVALIDATE TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
- Section 2 of Article VIII thereof that the Supreme Court may not be deprived “of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse,
modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and
decrees of inferior courts in (1) all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive
order or regulation is in question.” In other words, our Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty, not only when it
conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also, when it runs counter to an act of Congress.
OLIVERAS vs. LOPEZ MEANING OF “MOVE IN THE PREMISES”
- A “move in the premises” resolution simply means what is stated therein: the parties are obliged to inform the Court of
December 14, 1988 developments.
UP vs. DIZON TRUST FUND
- A fund that officially comes in the possession of an agency of the government or of a public officer as trustee, agent or
August 23, 2012 administrator, or that is received for the fulfillment of some obligation
IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL JUDGMENTS
- A decision that has attained finality becomes immutable and unalterable, and cannot be modified in any respect, even if the
modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law, and whether the modification is made by the court
that rendered it or by this Court as the highest court of the land.
Exceptions:
1. the correction of clerical errors;
2. The so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party;
3. Void judgments; and
4. Whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision that render its execution unjust and inequitable.
SUABILITY vs. LIABILITY
- Matter of jurisdiction. The latter is a matter of execution.
JEFFREY LIANG vs. STATE IMMUNITY
PEOPLE - Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any
immunity.
January 28, 2000 - The DFA’s determination that a certain person is covered by immunity is only preliminary which has no binding effect in
courts. In receiving ex-parte the DFA’s advice and in motu proprio dismissing the two criminal cases without notice to the
prosecution, the latter’s right to due process was violated. It should be noted that due process is a right of the accused as
much as it is of the prosecution. The needed inquiry in what capacity petitioner was acting at the time of the alleged
utterances requires for its resolution evidentiary basis that has yet to be presented at the proper time. At any rate, it has

5
been ruled that the mere invocation of the immunity clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping of the charges.
- Slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement between the Asian Development Bank and
the Republic of the Philippines because our laws do not allow the ccmmission of a crime, such as defamation, in the name
of official duty.
MIJARES vs. RANADA FOREIGN JUDGMENT
- Foreign judgment is susceptible to impeachment in our local courts on the grounds of want of jurisdiction or notice to the
April 12, 2005 party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. Thus, the party aggrieved by the foreign judgment is entitled to defend
against the enforcement of such decision in the local forum. It is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge
the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.
- It is usually necessary for an action to be filed in order to enforce a foreign judgment; The party attacking a foreign
judgment has the burden of overcoming the presumption of its validity.
AMCOW vs GCC SUPERVISORY WRITS
- The use of petitions for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 is a remedy that judiciaries have used long before our Rules
December 6, 2016 of Court existed. As footnoted below, these writs — now recognized and regulated as remedies under Rule 65 of our Rules
of Court — have been characterized a “supervisory writs” used by superior courts to keep lower courts within the confines
of their granted jurisdictions, thereby ensuring orderliness in lower courts’ rulings.
PRINCIPLE OF SOVEREIGN INDEPENDENCE AND EQUALITY
- While the principles of sovereign independence and equality have been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence, our
recognition of this principle does not extend to the exemption of States and their affiliates from compliance with Philippine
regulatory laws.
IMMUNITY FROM SUIT
- State immunity are restricted to acts jus imperii, or public acts. Once a State enters into commercial transactions (jus
gestionis), then it descends to the level of a private individual, and is thus not immune from the resulting liability and
consequences of its actions.
- Philippine courts, as part of the Philippine government, cannot and should not take jurisdiction over cases involving the
public acts of a foreign government. Taking jurisdiction would amount to authority over a foreign government, and would
thus violate the principle of sovereign independence and equality.
INTERNATIONAL SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
CATHOLIC MIGRATION - These are international organizations having functions in particular fields.
COMMISSION - The term appears in Articles 57 and 63 of the Charter of the United Nations: "The Charter, while it invests the United
Vs. CALEJA Nations with the general task of promoting progress and international cooperation in economic, social, health, cultural,
educational and related matters, contemplates that these tasks will be mainly fulfilled not by organs of the United Nations
September 28, 1990 itself but by autonomous international organizations established by inter-governmental agreements outside the United
Nations.
- The grant of immunity from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly necessitated by their international character and
respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the danger of partiality and interference by the host country in their internal
workings.
U.S vs. RUIZ SUITS AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENT
- In suits against a foreign government, a distinction must he made between acts jure imperil and acts jure gestionis. As to
May 22, 1985 the former, the State immunity prevails.
- States may be sued only when the proceedings arise out of commercial transactions.
Infrastructure projects of U.S. Naval Base in Subic involve governmental functions. In this case the projects are an integral

6
part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the
government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.

CHINA NATIONAL STATE IMMUNITY


MACHINERY vs. STA - the agreement to submit disputes to arbitration in a foreign country is construed as an implicit waiver of immunity from suit.
MARIA
REPUBLIC OF - The mere entering into a contract by a foreign State with a private party cannot be construed as the ultimate test of whether
INDONESIA vs. or not it is an act jure imperii or jure gestionis.
VINZON - There is no dispute that the establishment of a diplomatic mission is an act jure imperii. A sovereign State does not merely
establish a diplomatic mission and leave it at that; the establishment of a diplomatic mission encompasses its maintenance
and upkeep. Hence, the State may enter into contracts with private entities to maintain the premises, furnishings and
equipment of the embassy and the living quarters of its agents and officials.
ARIGO vs. SWIFT ADDED DIMENSION ON SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
- Tort exception. What is important to emphasize is that while some states have enacted legislation to allow the piercing of
September 16, 2014 sovereign immunity in tortuous actions, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 of the United States (FSIA) contains
such privilege. Specifically, the FSIA contains exceptions for (1) waiver; (2) commercial activity; (3) expropriation; (4)
property rights acquired through succession or donation; (5) damages for personal injury or death or damage to or loss of
property; (6) enforcement of an arbitration agreement; (7) torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or
the provision of material support to such an act, if the state sponsors terrorism; and (8) maritime lien in a suit for admiralty
based on commercial activity.
DOCTRINE OF RELATIVE JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITY
- That no state may be subjected to the jurisdiction of another state without its consent.
- This doctrine of relative jurisdictional immunity (sovereign immunity) of states and their agents becomes binding in our
jurisdiction as international law only through Section 2 of Article II or Section 21 of Article VII of the Constitution.
SAN ROQUE REALTY ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE STATE
vs REPUBLIC - While the general rule is that the State cannot be put in estoppel or laches by the mistakes or errors of its officials or
agents, this rule, however, admits of exceptions, one of which is when the strict application of the rule will defeat the
September 7, 2007 effectiveness of a policy adopted to protect the public such as the Torrens system.
REPUBLIC vs. STATE CANNOT BE BOUND BY THE MISTAKE OF ITS AGENT
SERENO
YNOT vs. IAC POLICE POWER
- The ban on the transportation of carabaos from one province to another (E.O. 626-A), their confiscation and disposal
March 20, 1987 without a prior court hearing is violative of due process for lack of reasonable connection between the means employed and
the purpose to be achieved and for being confiscatory.
- Challenged measure is an invalid exercise of the police power because the method employed to conserve the carabaos is
not reasonably necessary to the purpose of the law and, worse, is unduly oppressive. Due process is violated because the
owner of the property conf iscated is denied the right to be heard in his defense and is immediately condemned and
punished. The conferment on the administrative authorities of the power to adjudge the guilt of the supposed offender is a
clear encroachment on judicial functions and militates against the doctrine of separation of powers.
- There is, finally, also an invalid delegation of legislative powers to the o ficers mentioned therein who are granted unlimited
discretion in the distribution of the properties arbitrarily taken.

7
MMDA vs. BEL-AIR POLICE POWER
- MMDA has no police power
CIR vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC USE
LUZON DRUG - The concept of public use is no longer confined to the traditional notion of use by the public, but held synonymous
CORPORATION with public interest, public benefit, public welfare, and public convenience.
- The discount privilege to which our senior citizens are entitled is actually a benefit enjoyed by the general public to
April 15, 2005 which these citizens belong.
TAX CREDIT DEEMED JUST COMPENSATION
- As a result of the 20 percent discount imposed by RA 7432, respondent becomes entitled to a just compensation.
SOUTHERN LUZON EMINENT DOMAIN vs. POLICE POWER
DRUG CORP vs. - In Manila Memorial Park, Inc., et al. v. Secretary of the DSWD, et al., 36 the Court ruled that by examining the nature
DSWD and the effects of R.A. No. 9257, it becomes apparent that the challenged governmental act was an exercise of police
power.
April 25, 2017 - As to its nature and effects, the 20% discount is a regulation affecting the ability of private establishments to price
their products and services relative to a special class of individuals, senior citizens, for which the Constitution affords
preferential concern.
- The subject regulation may be said to be similar to, but with substantial distinctions from, price control or rate of
'return on investment control laws which are traditionally regarded as police power measures.
ASSOCIATION OF POLICE POWER
SMALL LAND - Every restriction upon the use of property imposed in the exercise of the police power deprives the owner of some
OWNERS right theretofore enjoyed, and is, in that sense, an abridgment by the State of rights in property without making
Vs. DAR compensation. But restriction imposed to protect the public health, safety or morals from dangers threatened is not a
taking. The restriction here in question is merely the prohibition of a noxious use.
July 14, 1989
RUTTER vs ESTEBAN POLICE POWER vs. NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT
- Police power yields over contracts.
May 18, 1953 - Not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix obligations as between the parties, but the reservation of
essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.
PRECIOUS GLITTLE CLAUSE
- Even if you did not reserve in your contract, all regulatory laws are deemed incorporated in the contract.
ZABAL vs DUTERTE J. DEL CASTILLO REASONABLE MEANS
- The questioned proclamation is clearly focused on rehabilitating Boracay and there was no intention to directly
2019 restrict the right to travel. The closure of Boracay was only temporary considering that it will only be for a period
of 6 months.
ERMITA MALATE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
HOTEL vs - A Manila ordinance regulating the operation of hotels, motels and lodging-houses is a police power measure specifically
CITY OF MANILA aimed to safeguard public morals.
REASONABLENESS OF ORDINANCE
- It is reasonable to mandate transient and hotel owners to fill up registration form open to public view at all times.

8
WHITELIGHT OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
CORPORATION vs - Assuming arguendo that petitioners do not have a relationship with their patrons for the former to assert the rights of the
CITY OF MANILA latter, the overbreadth doctrine comes into play. In overbreadth analysis, challengers to government action are in effect
permitted to raise the rights of third parties. Generally applied to statutes infringing on the freedom of speech, the
January 20, 2009 overbreadth doctrine applies when a statute needlessly restrains even constitutionally guaranteed rights.
POLICE POWER
- Prohibition on wash up rates. A valid ordinance must not prohibit but merely regulates. Here, it prohibits the
hotels from its legitimate purpose.
AQUINO vs EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
MUNICIPALITY OF - Despite the hotel’s classification as a nuisance per accidens, however, LGU may nevertheless properly order the hotel’s
MALAY AKLAN demolition. This is because, in the exercise of police power and the general welfare clause, property rights of individuals
may be subjected to restraints and burdens in order to fulfill the objectives of the government. Otherwise stated, the
government may enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty, property, lawful businesses and occupations to
promote the general welfare.
MOSQUEDA vs. VALID POLICE POWER MEASURE
PILIPINO BANANA - To be considered as a valid police power measure, an ordinance must pass a two-pronged test: the formal (i.e., whether
GROWERS the ordinance is enacted within the corporate powers of the local government unit, and whether it is passed in accordance
with the procedure prescribed by law); and the substantive (i.e., involving inherent merit, like the conformity of the ordinance
August 16, 2016 with the limitations under the Constitution and the statutes, as well as with the requirements of fairness and reason, and its
consistency with public policy).
- A local government unit is considered to have properly exercised its police powers only if it satisfies the following requisites,
to wit: (1) the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the interference of
the State; and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the attainment of the object sought to be
accomplished and not unduly oppressive. The first requirement refers to the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution;
the second, to the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
- To determine the propriety of the classification, courts resort to three (3) levels of scrutiny, viz.: the rational scrutiny,
intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.—To determine the propriety of the classification, courts resort to three levels of
scrutiny, viz.: the rational scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
- The principle of precaution involves matters of evidence in cases where there is lack of full scientific certainty in establishing
a causal link between human activity and environmental effect
- The precautionary principle shall only be relevant if there is concurrence of three elements, namely: uncertainty, threat of
environmental damage and serious or irreversible harm.
ARANETA vs. BOND REQUIREMENT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
GATMAITAN - An Action against Government officials sued in their official capacity, is essentially one against the Government, and to
require these officials to file a bond would be indirectly a requirement against the Government. The reason for this
April 30, 1957 pronouncement is understandable; the State undoubtedly is always solvent
PRESIDENT’S POWER TO EXPROPRIATE BY VIRTUE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY
- Consequently, when the President, in response to the clamor of the people and authorities of Camarines Sur issued
Executive Order No. 80 absolutely prohibiting fishing by means of trawls in all waters comprised within the San Miguel Bay,
he ,did nothing but show an anxious regard for the welfare of the inhabitants of said coastal province and dispose of issues
of general concern (Section 63, Revised Administrative Code) which were in consonance and strict conformity with the law.

9
The exercise of such authority did not, therefore, constitute an undue delegation of the powers of Congress.
ABAKADA vs. SYSTEM OF INCENTIVES
PURISIMA - A system of incentives for exceeding the set expectations of a public office is not anathema to the concept of public
accountability. In fact, it recognizes and reinforces dedication to duty, industry, efficiency and loyalty to public service of
August 14, 2008 deserving government personnel.
EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
- The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or
rational basis and not arbitrary. With respect to RA 9335, its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue-
generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC. Since the subject of the law is the revenue-generation
capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain
to the said agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct
primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the collection of taxes, customs duties, fees
and charges.
DELAGATION OF POWERS
- A law is complete when it sets forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate and lays
down a sufficient standard when it provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from running riot.
ARANETA vs. EMERGENCY POWER
DINGLASAN - Emergency, in order to justify the delegation of emergency powers, "must be temporary or it can not be said to be an
emergency.
August 26, 1949 - A mere resolution may revoked a delegated power.
DAVID vs. ARROYO VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
- A law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
May 3, 2006 CALLING OUT POWER
- Under the calling-out power, the President may summon the armed forces to aid him in suppressing lawless violence,
invasion and rebellion. This involves ordinary police action.
- President Arroyo’s declaration of a “state of rebellion” was merely an act declaring a status or condition of public moment or
interest, a declaration allowed under Section 4 cited above. Such declaration, in the words of Sanlakas, is harmless,
without legal significance, and deemed not written. In these cases, PP 1017 is more than that. In declaring a state of
national emergency, President Arroyo did not only rely on Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, a provision calling on
the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. She also relied on Section 17, Article XII, a provision
on the State’s extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public utility and business affected with public interest.
- President Arroyo cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws governing family
and property relations, laws on obligations and contracts and the like—she can only order the military, under PP 1017, to
enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence.
- President Arroyo could validly declare the existence of a state of national emergency even in the absence of a
Congressional enactment but the exercise of emergency powers, such as the taking over of privately owned public utility or
business affected with public interest, is a different matter.

10