CONSTI 2: 3/2/2020

1) What is just compensation?

a. Fair market value fixed by Court
b. As long as property owner received fair market value, he is justly compensated?- NO,
add CD subtract CB (Sumulong vs Guerrero)
i. FMV
ii. Assessed cost of land
iii. Sworn evaluation of owner (?)
c. Estoppel- not applicable; Consti requires JC; valuations based on tax values are
generalizations; do not reflect real situation
2) Partial expropriations- additional requirements in fixing JC-consequential damages and
consequential benefits
a. If CB greater than CD, disregard other factors
b. CD greater than CB, add difference to FMV
3) EPZA vs Dulay
a. PD- presidential decrees did not totally remove discretion from Courts or did it only
limit- remove; choose only lower amount
b. Commissioners- not more than 3 Sec 5, Rule 67
c. Sec 8, Rule 67- proceedings after commissioners submitted report (can totally disregard
d. Appointment of commissioners- procedural involved? Due process?
e. Can appointment be dispensed with?- mutual agreement of two parties wit
f. 2 stages of expropriation (republic vs lim)-
4) When is the title of expropriation given to the Republic- upon full payment
a. Recovery of ownership-yes if after 5 years from finality of judgment if there is no JC
b. Republic vs Lim-determinative factor whether there is a remedy for possessionrefusal
on part of Public (57 years- Government abandoned public use intended by Republic)
5) Municipality of Paranaque vs VM Realty Corporation
a. Requisites in Sec 19, RA 7160
i. Ordinance by local legislative council authorizing local chief executive (MAYOR)
to exercise of eminent domain
ii. Payment of JC
iii. Public use
iv. Valid and definite offer made before; not accepted
6) Uniformity/Equality different from Equity
7) Justice Marshall vs Justice Malcolm
a. Taxation used as implement of police power- example is sin tax (Marshall)
b. Power to tax not power to destroy-power of taxation only
8) Equitable taxation- burden of taxation shall rest on those who has capacity to make it
9) Progressive taxation vs Regressive taxation
a. Progressive- directly proportional; rationale is equity
b. Regressive-to increase productivity; 1st world countries
c. Evolve- only to develop (Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance)
10) Public purpose- expanded? Pascual vs Secretary of Public Works
a. Must be direct and exclusive
 b. As long as public is purposed- enough
11) Double Taxation-
12) Tax exemption- In strictissimi juris against taxpayer
13) Province of Abra vs Hernando-
14) XYZ Corporation- operating a school, owns a building being leased to Jollibee, Jollibee pays 1M
to XYZ, 1M being used to purchase books, chairs, computers used in educational instruction
(income tax not covered)
a. Par 3, Sec 4, Art 13-
b. Exemption
c. Actual, direct, and exclusive?- Abra Valley College

Sec 1, Article III

Due Process- (Daniel Webster) law of the land

 Vague and general

 (Ynot vs IAC)- vague so it can be flexible and be able to adapt to every need of society; will resort
to a legal straight jacket; conveniently resilient
 Law of the Land (Clause 39 of Magna Carta)- No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or
disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send
against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. ; covers only
procedural aspect
 Substantive due process (EO 626 A)
 Procedural due process (Aniag vs COMELEC)- Aniag was not allowed to undergo preliminary
investigation
 Strike but hear me first- notice and hearing, generally mandatory
o XPN: abatement nuisance, mad dog on the loose, filty restaurant
 Hearing- does it require a trial type?
o No (Phil Phosphate)- submission of issues in pleadings considered as due process;
position paper; memoranda (RIGHT TO PRESENT ONE’S CASE)
 Administrative agencies- discharge of rule making power, are they required to observe notice
and hearing?  not required, but permissive
o Legislative- law passed for general application; general and prospective
o Judicial-dependent; directed towards specific party, immediate and retroactive
 Philcomsat-
 Maceda vs ERB- oil industry still regulated; ERB tasked to regulate, allowed to increase prices of
oil; exercise of quasi legislative
 Criminal proceedings (Alonte vs Savellano)
o Court must be impartial
o Properly clothed with judicial power- determined with law (Sec 2, Art 8)
o Lawfully acquiring jurisdiction over person of accused
 Voluntary Surrender
 Arrest
 (Alonte vs Savellano)- waiver of accused to present witness must be clear and
not just implied; violation of 3rd element of due process
 o Accused given chance to be heard
o Decision made after lawful hearing
 Right to preliminary investigation- in Aniag, it is essential element of criminal due process even if
its origin is statutory; due process guaranteed whatever the source of the rights be, be it
Constitution or the statute or rule of Court. It will give accused to refute evidence against him so
that he will not suffer inconvenience
 Ang Tibay- cardinal primary rights in administrative proceeding
o Substantial evidence- reasonable mind accept as adequate conclusion
 School disciplinary proceedings
o Right to answer charges against them- optional; not the responsibility of school to
provide this
o Right to cross examination available only in criminal proceedings; in this case, it is not
mandatory
o As long as they were informed and they were given a chance to submit evidence
 Void for Vagueness in relation to due process
o Violates due process (page 13)
 Doctrine of vagueness and doctrine of overbreadth do not operate on the same
plane
 Void for vagueness cannot be used to facially challenge criminal laws; but can be
used as applied to criminal doctrine
 Failure to accord persons (especially targeted parties) fair notice of conduct to
avoid
 Leaves the law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying act its provisions,
becomes arbitrary flexing by Government
 Example. Juan dela Cruz does not understand what does dangerous means
o VOID FOR VAGUENESS- lacks comprehensible standards in which a man of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and defer as to its application
 Overbreadth doctrine
o Decrees that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally
subject to state regulations cannot be done with means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade area of protected freedoms
o People understand, but it is too broad, chilling effect, even if protected by Constitution
o Cannot be used to challenge criminal statute- prosecution of crimes may be hampered;
no prosecution is possible; court will be forced to consider third parties who are not
before it. It will preclude State from enforcing criminal laws
o Can be used facially challenge the constitutionality of laws- limited to free speech cases
or religious freedom
 As applied doctrine
o Challenge of law involving real litigants
o Requisites of judicial inquiry must be present

Equal Protection
 Specific- all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and liabilities imposed.
 Limited only to legislative-3 grand departments, agencies, 3 inherent powers
 2 evils sought to be remedied
o Against undue favor or class legislation
o Unjust discrimination/hostile
 Already included in due process
 Due process- vs Equal Protection
 A law discriminates and a law that allows such discrimination
o People vs vera- sec 11 (probation shall be applied in province whose local legislative
council who appropriates funds) ; Yick wo vs Hopkins
o Nothing discriminatory, but only allows discrimination
 Can a law be challenged under EP if law applies equally to all persons and things?  Yes
o Villegas vs Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho- rich, poor, permanently employed, casual; not
allowed because it failed to consider valid substantial differences among aliens
 Ep does not hold for universal application of the law
 Classification- groupings of persons and things similar in particulars and is different because of
particulars
 Allowed: Classifications which are reasonable
o Must rest on substantial distinction which produces real difference
o Germane to the purpose of the law
o Not confined to existing conditions
o Must be applied equally to all members of the same class
 Substantial Distinction and Germane to Purpose of Law
o PASEI vs Drilon
 Justice Fernando- nationality, cultural differences, age, gender SHALL
ALWAYS BE VALID WHEN young and old, women, cultural minority, Filipino
citizens singled out for the benefit of the group; basis for favorable treatment
o Dumlao vs COMELEC
o Ichong vs Hernandez- Americans were exempted because of Parity right
o People vs Cayat
 Stare Decisis cannot be applied in EP
 Not confined in existing conditions
o 4 requisites of judicial inquiry required in EP?  No, especially actual case or
controversy
o People vs Vera- no province yet which has appropriated; still speculative
o Ormoc Sugar-
 Apply equally to all members
o No sub classification
o Biraogo- investigate immediately preceding administration
 Petitioners: Limited only to GMA because evidence still fresh, crimes not yet
prescribed, sui generis, doctrine of underinclusiveness (EO 1 does not include all
past admin, remedy is to supplement legislation)
  Underinclusiveness- insufficiency of law to address all evil remedied by
amendment of law
 SC: not a substantial distinction; past admin committed even graver ;
underinclusiveness cannot be appliedonly if insufficiency is inadvertent; EO 1
insufficiency is intentional and deliberate (3 provisions
o Almonte vs Vasquez- ombudsman law allows prosecution based only in anonymous
complaint
 SC: employees in private sector different from public sector; reluctance to file
cases; allowed under Constitution
o Himagat vs People-
 Grouping in almonte cannot be used in this case; factual circumstances dictate
that there should be a distinction between police officers and civil service
o Quinto vs COMELEC- elective or appointive officials
 Prior to OEC- treatment is same; amended OEC; “deemed resigned” is based on
Article IX of Constitution- prohibition in engaging in partisan political activity
 Appointive- deemed resigned after filing certificate
 Elective- by their nature, partisan

Section 2, Article III

 Alvarez vs CFI- only unreasonable are prohibited

o Constitution does not define neither does Gen Order 58
o Determination of reasonableness is a judicial prerogative- purpose of search or purpose
of arrest, presence of PC, thing seized, manner search is effected, character of object
procured
 Consti guarantee
 Requisites of valid warrant
 Personal right (Stonehill vs Diokno)- corporation and house of petitioners
o No personality to question; only legal personality to question searches effected in
house; corporation has personality separate and distinct (must have power of attorney)
 Invoked only against public officers
o People vs Marti-Fr Bernas
 Protection of fundamental liberties is essence of consti democracies- it is a
protection against the state (applicable only to law enforcers)
 Mere presence as a look and see stance is not a search made by government
 Authority to issue SW and WoA- cannot be withdrawn by legislative
o Sec 1, Rule 126- SW (applicable only to personal property- Sec 3)
 Unilab- SW are sui generis proceedings; not directed against person; objective is to obtain
custody over a personal property, directed against the whole world; SW not civil proceeding; not
an administrative case
 Rule 113- duty to make a report by police officer within 10 days from date of receipt

Reqs of valid warrant

 Based on probable cause

 o Mantaring vs Roman- SW: Mantaring Jr, WoA: Mantaring Sr included; SC- this is allowed
WoA and SW based on different probabilities
 WoA- probabilities: crime has been committed, accused probably guilty thereof
 SW- object sought is related to a crime, may be found in the place sought to be
searched
 “determined personally by the judge”
o Soliven vs Makasiar- WARRANT OF ARREST: duty of issuing judge: personally evaluate
report and docs submitted by public prosecutor; issue warrant OR require submission of
supporting affidavits
o Silva vs Presiding Judge/ Mata vs Bayona-judge must conduct searching questions and
answers in SEARCH WARRANTS
o SW stricter than WoA- No. In WoA there are proceedings prior to issuance, particularly
preliminary investigation (complainant and witnesses already appeared before
prosecutor, so judge may rely on regularity of prosecutor). In SW, no anterior
proceedings.
 1973 Consti- WoA and SW can also be issued by any other officer; does it mean that since it does
not include this in 1987 Consti, such authority must be limited to a judge
o Salazar vs Achacoso- power of Secretary of Labor under Labor Code- SC invalidated this;
in 1987 Consti has withdrawn power to issue any other officer aside from a judge; only
judge can issue warrant
o Harvey vs Santiago- were already in custody; purpose of warrant is to execute final
order of deportation
o Would depend on objective of warrant- criminal prosecution: judge; obtain custody over
person of accused: judge; other than that: administrative officer
 Examination under oath or affirmation- Oath or affirmation, duty of affiant is the same;
difference is binding truth
o Alvarez vs CFI- definition of oath; Oath is to God; application based on reliable
information; test of sufficient oath- affiant may be held liable for perjury if he has said
false information; in belief, it is subjective, cannot be held liable for perjury. Oath must
be based on personal knowledge; duty of applicant is to convince issuing judge
 Particularity in description
o Supplying of personal knowledge by police officer- not allowed; cannot use their
discretion because they are limited to implementation of warrant
o Can police officers seize a thing not described in warrant- YES; prohibited by law
o Can police officers use as evidence in prosecution: NO; inadmissible in evidence

3 Lawful Warrantless Arrests (Sec 5, Rule 113)

o In Flagrante delicto
o Probable cause based on personal knowledge (hot Pursuit)
o Escaping prisoners
o *** Sec 13, Rule 113- Arrest after escape or rescue
o *** Sec 23, Rule 114-Arrest of accused out on bail
 Sec 5, Rule 113- citizen’s arrest
  “in his presence”
o Ppl vs Sucro- even if at a distance, still valid (in this case, 2 meters); sensory perception
 Hot pursuit
o No break between commission of offense and actual pursuit
o Ppl vs Rodrigueza- linked together with unbroken chain; poseur immediately appellant
instead of arresting him right after the entrapment
o Ppl vs Gerente-from commission of offense up to arrest
o Go vs CA- cannot be effected after 6 days’

Warantless Searches

 Permissible- CASE LAW DOCTRINE

o Stop and Frisk- does not require PC; enough that belief of seasoned and trained police
officer; reason is more limited to body of person and outer clothing
 Terry vs Ohio- walking to and fro happened 12x and whenever in front of store,
looks into the window, detective believes that they are casing the store. When
detective asked for names, Terry mumbled something; spun and pat clothing
 When detective approached group, he did not arrest. He stopped them
for further investigation. He did not do an extensive search.
 vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on
the street, interrogate him and pat him for weapons whenever he
observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal
activity may be afoot.
o Stop and Search- includes premises within immediate control of person; requires
Probable cause
 Posadas vs CA- buri bag; ran and was caught by police; police searched body,
clothes and bag, found ammunitions

Search incident to lawful arrest

 Malacat vs CA- fast eyes;

 Arrest must precede to search
 Arrest
o Cruz vs People- arrest presupposes restraint on freedom of movement must be
permanent; in traffic violation, restraint is temporary for issuance of ticket; arrest only
can be affected if penalty is imprisonment
 Consented search?- Cruz took it out of pocket; NO. It should have 4 reqs
 Specific
 Unequivocal
 Intelligently given
 Uncontaminated by duress or coercion
 Depends on age, public or secluded location…

Plain view

 3 reqs
 o (Unilab vs Isip) justification for initial intrusion
o Discovered incriminating evidence inadvertently
o Immediately apparent
 Unilab vs Isip
o Nothing incriminating in display of Disudrin product; they did not know these were
counterfeit

Customs Searches

 Only on dutiable goods- imported and exported