constitutional law 2 case digests.doc

8/14/2019 constitutional law 2 case digests.doc

1/231

1R 2011-2012CASE DIGESTS IN

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IIJustice Francisco P. Acosta

I.NATURE OF THE CONSTITUTION

Santiago vs. Commission on E !"tions

Fa"ts#

On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of theMovement for Peo le!s "niti#tive, filed $ith the %OM&'&% # (Petitionto Amend the %onstitution, to 'ift )erm 'imits of &lective Offici#ls, byPeo le!s "niti#tive( citing Section *, Article + "" of the %onstitution.

Acting on the etition, the %OM&'&% set the c#se for he#ring #nddirected Delfin to h#ve the etition ublished. After the he#ring the#rguments bet$een etitioners #nd o osing #rties, the %OM&'&%directed Delfin #nd the o ositors to file their (memor#nd# #nd-oro ositions-memor#nd#( $ithin five d#ys. On December 1 , 1996,Sen#tor Miri#m Defensor S#nti#go, Ale/#nder P#dill#, #nd M#ri#"s#bel Ong in filed # s eci#l civil #ction for rohibition under 0ule 6r#ising the follo$ing #rguments, #mong others2

1.3 )h#t the %onstitution c#n only be #mended by eo le4siniti#tive if there is #n en#bling l#$ #ssed by %ongress, to$hich no such l#$ h#s yet been #ssed5 #nd*.3 )h#t 0.A. 6 7 does not suffice #s #n en#bling l#$ on

eo le4s initi#tive on the %onstitution, unli8e in the othermodes of initi#tive.

Iss$!#

0.A. o. 6 7 sufficient to en#ble #mendment of the %onstitution byeo le4s initi#tive:

H! %# O. 0.A. 6 7 is in#de;u#te to cover the system of initi#tive on

#mendments to the %onstitution.


2/231

be #ccording to the number of their res ective inh#bit#nts,#lthough e#ch rovince sh#ll h#ve, #t le#st, one 13 member5*. 0. @. ?. o. *, c#lling # convention to ro ose#mendments to s#id %onstitution, the convention to becom osed of t$o *3 elective deleg#tes from e#ch

re resent#tive district, to be (elected in the gener#l electionsto be held on the second )uesd#y of ovember, 19 15( #nd7. 0. @. ?. o. 7, ro osing th#t Section 16, Article ", of thes#me %onstitution, be #mended so #s to #uthoriCe Sen#tors#nd members of the ?ouse of 0e resent#tives to becomedeleg#tes to the #forementioned constitution#l convention,$ithout forfeiting their res ective se#ts in %ongress.

Subse;uently, %ongress #ssed # bill, $hich, u on # rov#l by thePresident, on June 1 , 196 , bec#me 0e ublic Act o. 917,

roviding th#t the #mendments to the %onstitution ro osed in the#forementioned 0esolutions o. 1 #nd 7 be submitted, for # rov#l

by the eo le, #t the gener#l elections $hich sh#ll be held onovember 1 , 196 .

Iss$!#

>hether or ot # 0esolution of %ongress, #cting #s # constituent#ssembly, viol#tes the %onstitution.

H! %#

"n#smuch #s there #re less th#n eight 3 votes in f#vor of decl#ring0e ublic Act 917 #nd 0. @. ?. os. 1 #nd 7 unconstitution#l #ndinv#lid, the etitions in these t$o *3 c#ses must be, #s they #rehereby, dismiss #nd the $rits therein r#yed for denied, $ithouts eci#l ronouncement #s to costs. "t is so ordered.

As # conse;uence, the title of # de f#cto officer c#nnot be #ss#iledcoll#ter#lly. "t m#y not be contested e/ce t directly, by ;uo $#rr#nto

roceedings. either m#y the v#lidity of his #cts be ;uestioned u onthe ground th#t he is merely # de f#cto officer. And the re#sons #reobvious2 13 it $ould be #n indirect in;uiry into the title to the office5#nd *3 the #cts of # de f#cto officer, if $ithin the com etence of his

office, #re v#lid, insof#r #s the ublic is concerned.

()he =udici#l de #rtment is the only constitution#l org#n $hich c#n bec#lled u on to determine the ro er #lloc#tion of o$ers bet$eenthe sever#l de #rtments #nd #mong the integr#l or constituent units

thereof.( Article + of the %onstitution rovides2. . .)he %ongress in =oint session #ssembled, by # vote of threeEfourths of #ll the Members of the Sen#te #nd of the ?ouse of0e resent#tives voting se #r#tely, m#y ro ose #mendments to this%onstitution or c#ll # contention for th#t ur ose. Such #mendmentssh#ll be v#lid #s #rt of this %onstitution $hen # roved by #m#=ority of the votes c#st #t #n election #t $hich the #mendments#re submitted to the eo le for their r#tific#tion.

From our vie$ oint, the rovisions of Article + of the %onstitution#re s#tisfied so long #s the elector#te 8no$s th#t 0. @. ?. o. 7

ermits %ongressmen to ret#in their se#ts #s legisl#tors, even if theyshould run for #nd #ssume the functions of deleg#tes to the%onvention.

Sani%a% vs. Commission on E !"tions

Fa"ts#

On * Se t 19 6, M#rcos issued PD o. 991 c#lling for # n#tion#lreferendum on 16 Oct 19 6 for the %itiCens Assemblies

Gb#r#ng#ysH3 to resolve, #mong other things, the issues of m#rti#ll#$, the interim #ssembly, its re l#cement, the o$ers of suchre l#cement, the eriod of its e/istence, the length of the eriod forthe e/ercise by the President of his resent o$ers. )$enty d#ys#fter, the President issued #nother rel#ted decree, PD o. 1B71,#mending the revious PD o. 991, by decl#ring the rovisions ofPD o. **9 roviding for the m#nner of voting #nd c#nv#ss of votesin Gb#r#ng#ysH # lic#ble to the n#tion#l referendumE lebiscite of Oct16, 19 6. Iuite relev#ntly, PD o. 1B71 re e#led inter #li#, Sec , ofPD o. 991. On the s#me d#te of ** Se t 19 6, M#rcos issued PD

o. 1B77, st#ting the ;uestions to he submitted to the eo le in thereferendumE lebiscite on October 16, 19 6. )he Decree recites in its

21R 2011-2012 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II CASE DIGESTS


3/231

G$here#sH cl#uses th#t the eo le4s continued o osition to theconvening of the interim #tion#l Assembly evinces their desire toh#ve such body #bolished #nd re l#ced thru # constitution#l#mendment, roviding for # ne$ interim legisl#tive body, $hich $illbe submitted directly to the eo le in the referendumE lebiscite of

October 16.

On Se tember * , 19 6, S#nid#d filed # Prohibition $ith Prelimin#ry"n=unction see8ing to en=oin the %ommission on &lections fromholding #nd conducting the 0eferendum Plebiscite on October 165 todecl#re $ithout force #nd effect Presidenti#l Decree os. 991 #nd1B77, insof#r #s they ro ose #mendments to the %onstitution, #s$ell #s Presidenti#l Decree o. 1B71, insof#r #s it directs the%ommission on &lections to su ervise, control, hold, #nd conduct the0eferendumEPlebiscite scheduled on October 16, 19 6.Petitionerscontend th#t under the 197 #nd 19 7 %onstitutions there is no gr#ntto the incumbent President to e/ercise the constituent o$er to

ro ose #mendments to the ne$ %onstitution. As # conse;uence,the 0eferendumEPlebiscite on October 16 h#s no constitution#l orleg#l b#sis. )he SocE en contended th#t the ;uestion is olitic#l inn#ture hence the court c#nnot t#8e cogniC#nce of it.

Iss$!#

>hether or not M#rcos c#n v#lidly ro ose #mendments to the%onstitution.

H! %#

)he #mending rocess both #s to ro os#l #nd r#tific#tion r#ises # =udici#l ;uestion. )his is es eci#lly true in c#ses $here the o$er ofthe Presidency to initi#te the #mending rocess by ro os#ls of#mendments, # function norm#lly e/ercised by the legisl#ture, isseriously doubted.


4/231

give it due course for l#c8 of #n en#bling l#$ governing initi#tiveetitions to #mend the %onstitution, ursu#nt to S#nti#go v. %omelec

ruling

Iss$!s#

13 >hether or not the ro osed ch#nges constitute #n #mendmentor revision

*3 >hether or not the initi#tive etition is sufficient com li#nce $iththe constitution#l re;uirement on direct ro os#l by the eo le

H! %#

"niti#tive etition does not com ly $ith Sec. *, Art. + "" on directro os#l by eo le Sec.*, Art. + ""...is the governing rovision th#t

#llo$s # eo le4s initi#tive to ro ose #mendments to the

%onstitution. >hile this rovision does not e/ ressly st#te th#t theetition must set forth the full te/t of the ro osed #mendments, thedeliber#tions of the fr#mers of our %onstitution cle#rly sho$ th#t2 #3the fr#mers intended to #do t relev#ntbAmeric#n =uris rudence on

eo le4s initi#tive5 #nd b3 in #rticul#r, the eo le must first seethefull te/t of the ro osed #mendments before they sign, #nd th#t the

eo le must sign on # etition cont#ining such full te/t. )he essenceof #mendments Gdirectly ro osed by the eo le through initi#tiveu on # etitionH is th#t the entire ro os#l on its f#ce is # etition bythe eo le. )his me#ns t$o essenti#l elements must be resent.1. First, the eo le must #uthor #nd thus sign the entire ro os#l. o#gent or re resent#tive c#n sign on their beh#lf.*. Second, #s #n initi#tive u on # etition, the ro os#l must beembodied in # etition.

)hese essenti#l elements #re resent only if the full te/t of thero osed #mendments is first sho$n to the eo le $ho e/ ress their

#ssent by signing such com lete ro os#l in # etition. )he full te/tof the ro osed #mendments m#y be either $ritten on the f#ce of the

etition, or #tt#ched to it. "f so #tt#ched, the etition must st#te thef#ct of such #tt#chment. )his is #n #ssur#nce th#t every one of thesever#l millions of sign#tories to the etition h#d seen the full te/t of

the ro osed #mendments before K not #fter K signing. Moreover,G#n initi#tive signer must be informed #t the time of signing of then#ture #nd effect of th#t $hich is ro osedH #nd f#ilure to do so isGdece tive #nd misle#dingH $hich renders the initi#tive void.

"n the c#se of the '#mbino rou 4s etition, there4s not # single$ord, hr#se, or sentence of te/t of the ro osed ch#nges in thesign#ture sheet. either does the sign#ture sheet st#te th#t the te/tof the ro osed ch#nges is #tt#ched to it. )he sign#ture sheetmerely #s8s # ;uestion $hether the eo le # rove # shift from the@ic#mer#lEPresidenti#l to the


5/231

contr#st, %ongress or # constitution#l convention c#n ro ose both#mendments #nd revisions to the %onstitution.

Does the '#mbino rou 4s initi#tive constitute # revision of the%onstitution: Les. @y #ny leg#l test #nd under #ny =urisdiction, #

shift from # @ic#mer#lEPresidenti#l to #


6/231

6 , for # 6 Eye#r old retiree could be # good loc#l offici#l =ust li8eone, #ged 6 , $ho is not # retiree.

@ut, in the c#se of # 6 Eye#r old elective loc#l offici#l Duml#o3, $hoh#s retired from # rovinci#l, city or munici #l office, there is re#son

to dis;u#lify him from running for the s#me office from $hich he h#dretired, #s rovided for in the ch#llenged rovision.

+ACU vs. S!"*!ta*, o E%$"ation

Fa"ts#

)he Phili ine Associ#tion of %olleges #nd


7/231

sust#ined #nd st#te th#t the etitioner remedy is to ch#llenge theregul#tion not to inv#lid#te the l#$ bec#use it needs no #rgument tosho$ th#t #buse by offici#ls entrusted $ith the e/ecution of thest#tute does not er se demonstr#te the unconstitution#lity of suchst#tute. On this h#se of the litig#tion the court conclude th#t there

h#s been no undue deleg#tion of legisl#tive o$er even if theetitioners # ended # list of circul#rs #nd memor#nd# issued by theDe #rtment of &duc#tion they f#il to indic#te $hich of such offici#ldocuments $#s constitution#lly ob=ection#ble for being c# ricious or

#in nuis#nce. )herefore, the court denied the etition for rohibition.

i os'a,an vs. /o*ato

Fa"ts#

)his is # etition see8ing to decl#re the &'A inv#lid on the groundth#t it is subst#nti#lly the s#me #s the %ontr#ct of 'e#se nullified in

. 0. o. 1177 7, *7* S%0A 11B. Petitioners contended th#t the#mended &'A is inconsistent $ith #nd viol#tive of P%SO4s ch#rter#nd the decision of the Su reme %ourt of M#y 199 , th#t it viol#tedthe l#$ on ublic bidding of contr#cts #s $ell #s Section * *3, Article"+ED of the 19 %onstitution in rel#tion to the %OA %ircul#r o. E

EA. 0es ondents ;uestioned the etitioners4 st#nding to bring thissuit.

Iss$!#

>hether or not etitioners ossess the leg#l st#nding to file theinst#nt etition.

H! %#

)he Su reme %ourt ruled in the neg#tive. St#nding is # s eci#lconcern in constitution#l l#$ bec#use some c#ses #re brought not by

#rties $ho h#ve been erson#lly in=ured by the o er#tion of the l#$or by offici#l #ction t#8en, but by concerned citiCens, t#/ #yers orvoters $ho #ctu#lly sue in the ublic interest. Petitioners do not inf#ct sho$ $h#t #rticul#riCed interest they h#ve for bringing this suit.

And they do not h#ve resent subst#nti#l interest in the &'A #s$ould entitle them to bring this suit.

Ti am vs. Si'ong)ano,

Fa"ts# )i=#m filed for recovery of P1,9B leg#l interest fromSibong#h#noy. Defend#nts filed # counter bond $ith M#nil# Surety#nd Fidelity %o Surety3. Judgement $#s in f#vour of the l#intiffs, #$rit of e/ecution $#s issued #g#inst the defend#nt. Defend#ntsmoved for $rit of e/ecution #g#inst surety $hich $#s gr#nted. Suretymoved to ;u#sh the $rit but $#s denied, # e#led to %A $ithoutr#ising the issue on l#c8 of =urisdiction.

%A #ffirmed the # e#led decision. Surety then filed Motion toDismiss on the ground of l#c8 of =urisdiction #g#inst %F" %ebu in

vie$ of the effectivity of Judici#ry Act of 19 # month before thefiling of the etition for recovery. Act l#ced origin#l e/clusive =urisdiction of inferior courts #ll civil #ctions for dem#nds note/ceeding *,BBB e/clusive of interest. %A set #side its e#rlierdecision #nd referred the c#se to S% since it h#s e/clusive

=urisdiction over (#ll c#ses in $hich the =urisdiction of #ny inferiorcourt is in issue.

Iss$!#

>hether or not the Surety bond is esto ed from ;uestioning the =urisdiction of the %F" %ebu for the first time u on # e#l.

H! %#

Les. S% believes th#t th#t the Surety is no$ b#rred by l#ches frominvo8ing this le# #fter #lmost fifteen ye#rs before the Surety filed itsmotion to dismiss r#ising the ;uestion of l#c8 of =urisdiction for thefirst time E A #rty m#y be esto ed or b#rred from r#ising # ;uestionin different $#ys #nd for different re#sons. )hus $e s e#8 ofesto el in #is, or esto el by deed or by record, #nd of esto elby l#ches. '#ches, in # gener#l sense is f#ilure or neglect, for #n

7



8/231

unre#son#ble #nd une/ l#ined length of time, to do th#t $hich, bye/ercising due diligence, could or should h#ve been done e#rlier EFurthermore, it h#s #lso been held th#t #fter volunt#rily submitting #c#use #nd encountering #n #dverse decision on the merits, it is tool#te for the loser to ;uestion the =urisdiction or o$er of the court

E(undesir#ble r#ctice( of # #rty submitting his c#se for decision #ndthen #cce ting the =udgment, only if f#vor#ble, #nd #tt#c8ing it forl#c8 of =urisdiction, $hen #dverse.

In *! C$nanan

Fa"ts#

"n the m#nner of the etitions for Admission to the @#r ofunsuccessful c#ndid#tes of 19 6 to 19 75 Albino %un#n#n et. #l

etitioners. "n recent ye#rs fe$ controversi#l issues h#ve #roused somuch ublic interest #nd concern #s 0.A. 9 * o ul#rly 8no$n #sthe G@#r Flun8ers4 Act of 19 7.H ener#lly # c#ndid#te is deemed

#ssed if he obt#ins # gener#l #ve of N in #ll sub=ects $-o f#llingbelo$ BN in #ny sub=ect, #lthough for the #st fe$ e/#ms the

#ssing gr#des $ere ch#nged de ending on the strictness of thecorrecting of the b#r e/#min#tions 19 6E *N, 19 E 69N, 19 E

BN 19 9E N, 19 BE19 7 K N3.

@elieving themselves to be fully ;u#lified to r#ctice l#$ #s thosereconsidered #nd #ssed by the S.%., #nd feeling th#t they h#vebeen discrimin#ted #g#inst, unsuccessful c#ndid#tes $ho obt#ined#ver#ges of # fe$ ercent#ges lo$er th#n those #dmitted to the b#r$ent to congress for, #nd secured in 19 1 Sen#te @ill no. 1*, but$#s vetoed by the resident #fter he $#s given #dvise #dverse to it.

ot overriding the veto, the sen#te then # roved sen#te bill no. 7 *embodying subst#nti#lly the rovisions of the vetoed bill. )he billthen bec#me l#$ on June *1, 19 7.

0e ublic Act 9 * h#s for its ob=ect, #ccording to its #uthor, to #dmitto the @#r those c#ndid#tes $ho suffered from insufficiency ofre#ding m#teri#ls #nd in#de;u#te re #r#tions. @y #nd l#rge, the l#$is contr#ry to ublic interest since it ;u#lifies 1,B9 l#$ gr#du#tes

$ho h#d in#de;u#te re #r#tion for the r#ctice of l#$ rofession,#s evidenced by their f#ilure in the e/#ms.

Iss$!s#

>hether or not the 0e ublic Act. 9 * is constitution#l.H! %#

An #de;u#te leg#l re #r#tion is one of the vit#l re;uisites for ther#ctice of the l#$ th#t should be develo ed const#ntly #nd

m#int#ined firmly. )he Judici#l system from $hich ours h#s beenderived, the #ct of #dmitting, sus ending, disb#rring, #nd reinst#ting#ttorneys #t l#$ in the r#ctice of the rofession is concededly

=udici#l. )he %onstitution h#s not conferred on %ongress #nd theS.%. e;u#l res onsibilities concerning the #dmission to the r#cticeof l#$. )he rim#ry o$er #nd res onsibility $hich the constitutionrecogniCes continue to reside in this court. "ts retro#ctivity is inv#lid insuch # $#y, th#t $h#t the l#$ see8s to GcureH #re not the rules set in

l#ce by the S.%. but the l#c8 of $ill or the defect in =udgment of thecourt, #nd this o$er is not included in the o$er gr#nted by the%onst. to %ongress, it lies e/clusively $-in the =udici#ry.0e#sons for


9/231

#nd therefore void #nd $-o force #nd effect.*. )he #rt of A0) 1 th#t refers to the e/#min#tions subse;uent tothe # rov#l of the l#$ 19 7E 19 3 is v#lid #nd sh#ll continue inforce. those etitions by the c#ndid#tes $ho f#iled the b#r from19 6 to 19 * #re denied, #nd #ll the c#ndid#tes $ho in the

e/#min#tion of 19 7 obt#ined # & Ave. of 1. N $-o getting #gr#de of belo$ BN in #ny sub=ect #re considered #s h#ving #ssed$hether they h#ve filed etitions for #dmissions or not.3

III. FUNDA/ENTAL +OWERS OF THE STATEA. +OLICE +OWER

// +*omotion an% /anag!m!nt( In". vs. CA

Fa"ts#

Due to the de#th of one M#ricris Sioson in 1991, %ory b#nned thede loyment of erforming #rtists to J# #n #nd other destin#tions.)his $#s rel#/ed ho$ever $ith the introduction of the &ntert#inment"ndustry Advisory %ouncil $hich l#ter ro osed # l#n to PO&A toscreen #nd tr#in erforming #rtists see8ing to go #bro#d. "n ursu#ntto the ro os#l PO&A #nd the secret#ry of DO'& sought # ste

l#n to re#liCe the l#n $hich included #n Artist4s 0ecord @oo8 $hich# erforming #rtist must #c;uire rior to being de loyed #bro#d. )heFeder#tion of )#lent M#n#gers of the Phili ines #ss#iled the v#lidityof the s#id regul#tion #s it viol#ted the right to tr#vel, #bridge e/istingcontr#cts #nd rights #nd de rives #rtists of their individu#l rights.JMM intervened to bolster the c#use of F&)MOP. )he lo$er courtruled in f#vor of &"A%.

Iss$!#

>hether or not the regul#tion by &"A% is v#lid.

H! %#

)he S% ruled in f#vor of the lo$er court. )he regul#tion is # v#lide/ercise of olice o$er. Police o$er concerns governmenten#ctments $hich recisely interfere $ith erson#l liberty or ro erty

in order to romote the gener#l $elf#re or the common good. As the#ss#iled De #rtment Order en=oys # resumed v#lidity, it follo$s th#tthe burden rests u on etitioners to demonstr#te th#t the s#id order,

#rticul#rly, its A0@ re;uirement, does not enh#nce the ublic$elf#re or $#s e/ercised #rbitr#rily or unre#son#bly. )he $elf#re of

Fili ino erforming #rtists, #rticul#rly the $omen $#s #r#mount inthe issu#nce of De #rtment Order o. 7. Short of # tot#l #nd#bsolute b#n #g#inst the de loyment of erforming #rtists to Ghighris8H destin#tions, # me#sure $hich $ould only drive recruitmentfurther underground, the ne$ scheme #t the very le#st r#tion#liCesthe method of screening erforming #rtists by re;uiring re#son#bleeduc#tion#l #nd #rtistic s8ills from them #nd limits de loyment toonly those individu#ls #de;u#tely re #red for the un redict#bledem#nds of em loyment #s #rtists #bro#d. "t c#nnot be g#ins#id th#tthis scheme #t le#st lessens the room for e/ loit#tion byunscru ulous individu#ls #nd #gencies.

L$t& vs. A*an!ta

Fa"ts#

>#lter 'utC, #s the Judici#l Administr#tor of the "ntest#te &st#te of Antonio J#yme 'edesm#, see8s to recover from J. Antonio Ar#net#,the %ollector of "ntern#l 0evenue, the sum of money #id by theest#te #s t#/es, ursu#nt to the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act.


10/231

H! %#

)he t#/ levied under the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act is constitution#l. )het#/ under s#id Act is levied $ith # regul#tory ur ose, to rovide

me#ns for the reh#bilit#tion #nd st#biliC#tion of the thre#tened sug#rindustry. Since sug#r roduction is one of the gre#t industries of ourn#tion, its romotion, rotection, #nd #dv#ncement, thereforeredounds gre#tly to the gener#l $elf#re. ?ence, s#id ob=ectives ofthe Act is # ublic concern #nd is therefore constitution#l. "t follo$sth#t the 'egisl#ture m#y determine $ithin re#son#ble bounds $h#t isnecess#ry for its rotection #nd e/ edient for its romotion. "fob=ectives #nd methods #re #li8e constitution#lly v#lid, no re#son isseen $hy the st#te m#y not levy t#/es to r#ise funds for their

rosecution #nd #tt#inment. )#/#tion m#y be m#de $ith theim lement of the st#te4s olice o$er. "n #ddition, it is only r#tion#lth#t the t#/es be obt#ined from those th#t $ill directly benefit from it.)herefore, the t#/ levied under the Sug#r Ad=ustment Act is held tobe constitution#l.

Asso"iation o Sma Lan%o n!*s vs. S!"*!ta*, o DAR

Fa"ts#

Sever#l etitions #re the root of the c#se2#. A etition #lleging the constitution#lity of PD o. * , &O ** #nd**9 #nd 0A 66 . Sub=ects of the etition #re # 9Ehect#re #nd hect#re 0icel#nd $or8ed by four ten#nts. )en#nts $ere decl#red fullo$ners by &O ** #s ;u#lified f#rmers under PD * . )he etitionersno$ contend th#t President A;uino usur ed the legisl#ture4s o$er.b. A etition by l#ndo$ners #nd sug#r l#nters in ictori#4s Mill

egros Occident#l #g#inst Procl#m#tion 171 #nd &O **9.Procl#m#tion 171 is the cre#tion of Agr#ri#n 0eform Fund $ith initi#lfund of P [email protected]. A etition by o$ners of l#nd $hich $#s l#ced by the DA0 underthe cover#ge of O er#tion '#nd )r#nsfer.d. A etition invo8ing the right of retention under PD * to o$ners ofrice #nd corn l#nds not e/ceeding seven hect#res.

Iss$!#

>hether or ot the #forementioned &O4s, PD, #nd 0A $ereconstitution#l.

H! %#

)he romulg#tion of PD * by President M#rcos $#s v#lid ine/ercise of Police o$er #nd eminent dom#in. )he o$er ofPresident A;uino to romulg#te Proc. 171 #nd &O ** #nd **9 $#s#uthoriCed under Sec. 6 of the )r#nsitory Provisions of the 19%onstitution. )herefore it is # v#lid e/ercise of Police Po$er #nd&minent Dom#in.

0A 66 is li8e$ise v#lid. )he c#rrying out of the regul#tion under%A0P becomes necess#ry to de rive o$ners of $h#tever l#nds theym#y o$n in e/cess of the m#/imum #re# #llo$ed, there is definitely# t#8ing under the o$er of eminent dom#in for $hich #yment of

=ust com ens#tion is im er#tive. )he t#8ing contem l#ted is not #mere limit#tion of the use of the l#nd. >h#t is re;uired is thesurrender of the title #nd the hysic#l ossession of s#id e/cess #nd#ll benefici#l rights #ccruing to the o$ner in f#vour of the f#rmer.

A st#tute m#y be sust#ined under the olice o$er only if there isconcurrence of the l#$ful sub=ect #nd the method. Sub=ect #nd

ur ose of the Agr#ri#n 0eform '#$ is v#lid, ho$ever $h#t is to bedetermined is the method em loyed to #chieve it.

Lo&ano vs. /a*tin!&

Fa"ts#

Petitioners, ch#rged $ith @#t#s P#mb#ns# @il#ng ** @P ** forshort3, o ul#rly 8no$n #s the @ouncing %hec8 '#$, #ss#il the l#$!sconstitution#lity.

@P ** unishes # erson ($ho m#8es or dr#$s #nd issues #nychec8 on #ccount or for v#lue, 8no$ing #t the time of issue th#t he

10



11/231

does not h#ve sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dr#$ee b#n8 forthe #yment of s#id chec8 in full u on resentment, $hich chec8 issubse;uently dishonored by the dr#$ee b#n8 for insufficiency offunds or credit or $ould h#ve been dishonored for the s#me re#sonh#d not the dr#$er, $ithout #ny v#lid re#son, ordered the b#n8 to

sto #yment.( )he en#lty rescribed for the offense isim risonment of not less th#n 7B d#ys nor more th#n one ye#r or #fine or not less th#n the #mount of the chec8 nor more th#n doubles#id #mount, but in no c#se to e/ceed P*BB,BBB.BB, or both suchfine #nd im risonment #t the discretion of the court.

)he st#tute li8e$ise im oses the s#me en#lty on (#ny erson $ho,h#ving sufficient funds in or credit $ith the dr#$ee b#n8 $hen hem#8es or dr#$s #nd issues # chec8, sh#ll f#il to 8ee sufficient fundsor to m#int#in # credit to cover the full #mount of the chec8 if

resented $ithin # eriod of ninety 9B3 d#ys from the d#te # e#ringthereon, for $hich re#son it is dishonored by the dr#$ee b#n8.

An essenti#l element of the offense is (8no$ledge( on the #rt of them#8er or dr#$er of the chec8 of the insufficiency of his funds in orcredit $ith the b#n8 to cover the chec8 u on its resentment. Sincethis involves # st#te of mind difficult to est#blish, the st#tute itselfcre#tes # rim# f#cie resum tion of such 8no$ledge $here

#yment of the chec8 (is refused by the dr#$ee bec#use ofinsufficient funds in or credit $ith such b#n8 $hen resented $ithinninety 9B3 d#ys from the d#te of the chec8. )o mitig#te theh#rshness of the l#$ in its # lic#tion, the st#tute rovides th#t such

resum tion sh#ll not #rise if $ithin five 3 b#n8ing d#ys fromrecei t of the notice of dishonor, the m#8er or dr#$er m#8es#rr#ngements for #yment of the chec8 by the b#n8 or #ys theholder the #mount of the chec8.

Another rovision of the st#tute, #lso in the n#ture of # rule ofevidence, rovides th#t the introduction in evidence of the un #id#nd dishonored chec8 $ith the dr#$ee b#n8!s refus#l to #y(st#m ed or $ritten thereon or #tt#ched thereto, giving the re#sontherefore, (sh#ll constitute rim# f#cie roof of (the m#8ing orissu#nce of s#id chec8, #nd the due resentment to the dr#$ee for

#yment #nd the dishonor thereof ... for the re#son $ritten, st#m ed

or #tt#ched by the dr#$ee on such dishonored chec8.(

)he resum tions being merely rim# f#cie, it is o en to the #ccusedof course to resent roof to the contr#ry to overcome the s#id

resum tions.

Iss$!s#

13 >hether or not @P ** viol#tes the constitution#l rovisionforbidding im risonment for debt.

*3 >hether or not @P ** im #irs the freedom to contr#ct.73 >hether or not it viol#tes the e;u#l rotection cl#use.

HELD#

13 o. )he gr#v#men of the offense unished by @P ** is the #ct ofm#8ing #nd issuing # $orthless chec8 or # chec8 th#t is dishonoredu on its resent#tion for #yment. "t is not the nonE #yment of #noblig#tion $hich the l#$ unishes. )he l#$ is not intended ordesigned to coerce # debtor to #y his debt. )he thrust of the l#$ isto rohibit, under #in of en#l s#nctions, the m#8ing of $orthlesschec8s #nd utting them in circul#tion. @ec#use of its deleteriouseffects on the ublic interest, the r#ctice is roscribed by the l#$.)he l#$ unishes the #ct not #s #n offense #g#inst ro erty, but #noffense #g#inst ublic order.

)he effects of the issu#nce of # $orthless chec8 tr#nscends theriv#te interests of the #rties directly involved in the tr#ns#ction #nd

touches the interests of the community #t l#rge. )he mischief itcre#tes is not only # $rong to the #yee or holder, but #lso #n in=uryto the ublic. )he h#rmful r#ctice of utting v#lueless commerci#l

# ers in circul#tion, multi lied # thous#nd fold, c#n very $ell ollutethe ch#nnels of tr#de #nd commerce, in=ure the b#n8ing system #ndeventu#lly hurt the $elf#re of society #nd the ublic interest.

)he en#ctment of @P ** is # decl#r#tion by the legisl#ture th#t, #s #m#tter of ublic olicy, the m#8ing #nd issu#nce of # $orthlesschec8 is deemed ublic nuis#nce to be #b#ted by the im osition of

11



12/231

en#l s#nctions.

*3 o. )he freedom of contr#ct $hich is constitution#lly rotected isfreedom to enter into ( l#$ful( contr#cts. %ontr#cts $hich contr#vene

ublic olicy #re not l#$ful. @esides, $e must be#r in mind th#t

chec8s c#n not be c#tegoriCed #s mere contr#cts. "t is # commerci#linstrument $hich, in this modem d#y #nd #ge, h#s become #convenient substitute for money5 it forms #rt of the b#n8ing system#nd therefore not entirely free from the regul#tory o$er of the st#te.

73 o. Petitioners contend th#t the #yee is =ust #s res onsible forthe crime #s the dr#$er of the chec8, since $ithout the indis ens#ble

#rtici #tion of the #yee by his #cce t#nce of the chec8 there $ouldbe no crime. )his #rgument is t#nt#mount to s#ying th#t, to givee;u#l rotection, the l#$ should unish both the s$indler #nd thes$indled. Moreover, the cl#use does not reclude cl#ssific#tion ofindividu#ls, $ho m#y be #ccorded different tre#tment under the l#$#s long #s the cl#ssific#tion is no unre#son#ble or #rbitr#ry.

3not vs. Int!*m!%iat! A44! at! Co$*t

Fa"ts#

Petitioner $#s ch#rged of viol#tion of &O 6*6 $hen he tr#ns ortedsi/ c#r#b#os in # um bo#t from M#sb#te to "loilo on J#nu#ry 17,19 , $hen they $ere confisc#ted by the olice st#tion comm#nderof @#rot#c uevo, "loilo, for viol#tion of the #bove me#sure. 1 )he

etitioner sued for recovery, #nd the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt of "loilo%ity issued # $rit of re levin u on his filing of # su ersede #s bondof P1*,BBB.BB.

Petitioner r#ised the issue of &O4s constitution#lity #nd filed c#se inthe lo$er court. ?o$ever, the court sust#ined the confisc#tion of thec#r#b#os #nd, since they could no longer be roduced, ordered theconfisc#tion of the bond. )he court #lso declined to rule on theconstitution#lity of the e/ecutive order, #s r#ised by the etitioner.)herefore, etitioner # e#led the decision to "A% $ith the follo$ingcontentions2

1. &O is unconstitution#l #s confisc#tion is outright*. Pen#lty is inv#lid #s it is im osed $ithout the o$ner!s right to behe#rd before # com etent #nd im #rti#l court.7. Me#sure should h#ve not been resumed

. 0#ises # ch#llenge to the im ro er e/ercise of the legisl#tive

o$er by the former President. Iss$!#

>hether &/ecutive Order o. 6*6EA is constitution#l or not.

H! %#

Petiton is 0A )&D $ith the follo$ing =ustific#tions21. 0ight of the etitioner to ;uestion for constitution#lity is v#lid #sthere4s no e/igency sho$ing to =ustify the e/ercise of thise/tr#ordin#ry o$er of the President*. Pro erties involved $ere not even inimic#l er se #s to re;uiretheir inst#nt destruction7. %#se involved roving commission4 #nd inv#lid deleg#tion of

o$ers #nd inv#lid e/ercise of olice o$er . Due rocess is viol#ted bec#use the o$ner is denied the right to

be he#rd in his defense #nd $#s immedi#tely condemned #ndunish

Cit, Gov!*nm!nt o 5$!&on Cit, vs. E*i"ta

Fa"ts#

IueCon %ity en#cted #n ordin#nce entitled GO0D" A %&0&


13/231

be determined by com etent %ity Authorities. I% =ustified the l#$ byinvo8ing olice o$er.

Iss$!#

>hether or not the ordin#nce is v#lid.H! %#

)he S% held the l#$ #s #n inv#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. )here isno re#son#ble rel#tion bet$een the setting #side of #t le#st si/ 63

ercent of the tot#l #re# of #ll riv#te cemeteries for ch#rity buri#lgrounds of dece#sed #u ers #nd the romotion of he#lth, mor#ls,good order, s#fety, or the gener#l $elf#re of the eo le. )heordin#nce is #ctu#lly # t#8ing $ithout com ens#tion of # cert#in #re#from # riv#te cemetery to benefit #u ers $ho #re ch#rges of themunici #l cor or#tion. "nste#d of building or m#int#ining # ubliccemetery for this ur ose, the city #sses the burden to riv#tecemeteries.

W)it! Lig)t Co*4o*ation vs. Cit, o /ani a

Fa"ts#

On 7 Dec 199*, then M#yor 'im signed into l#$ Ord entitledGAn Ordin#nceH rohibiting short time #dmission in hotels, motels,lodging houses, ension houses #nd simil#r est#blishments in the%ity of M#nil#. >hite 'ight %or is #n o er#tor of mini hotels #ndmotels $ho sought to h#ve the Ordin#nce be nullified #s the s#idOrdin#nce infringes on the riv#te rights of their #trons. )he 0)%ruled in f#vor of >'%. "t ruled th#t the Ordin#nce stri8es #t the

erson#l liberty of the individu#l gu#r#nteed by the %onstitution. )he%ity m#int#ins th#t the ordin#nce is v#lid #s it is # v#lid e/ercise of

olice o$er.


14/231

)he lo$er court ruled th#t the s#id ublic im rovement $#s notnecess#ry on the #rticul#rEstri of l#nd in ;uestion. Pl#intiff herein#ss#iled th#t they h#ve the right to e/ercise the o$er of eminentdom#in #nd th#t the courts h#ve no right to in;uire #nd determinethe necessity of the e/ ro ri#tion. )hus, the s#me filed #n # e#l.

Iss$!#

>hether or not the courts m#y in;uire into, #nd he#r roof of thenecessity of the e/ ro ri#tion.

H! %#

)he courts h#ve the o$er of restricting the e/ercise of eminentdom#in to the #ctu#l re#son#ble necessities of the c#se #nd for the

ur oses design#ted by the l#$. )he moment the munici #lcor or#tion or entity #ttem ts to e/ercise the #uthority conferred, itmust com ly $ith the conditions #ccom #nying the #uthority. )henecessity for conferring the #uthority u on # munici #l cor or#tion toe/ercise the right of eminent dom#in is #dmittedly $ithin the o$er ofthe legisl#ture. @ut $hether or not the munici #l cor or#tion or entityis e/ercising the right in # #rticul#r c#se under the conditionsim osed by the gener#l #uthority, is # ;uestion th#t the courts h#vethe right to in;uire to.

+!o4 ! vs. Fa a*%o

Fa"ts#

)he munici #l council of b##o, c#m#rines sur st#ting #mong othersth#t construction of # building, $hich $ill destroy the vie$ of the

l#C#, sh#ll not be #llo$ed #nd therefore be destroyed #t thee/ ense of the o$ner, en#cted #n ordin#nce. ?erein # ell#nt filed #$ritten re;uest $ith the incumbent munici #l m#yor for # ermit toconstruct # building #d=#cent to their g#soline st#tion on # #rcel ofl#nd registered in F#=#rdo!s n#me, loc#ted #long the n#tion#lhigh$#y #nd se #r#ted from the ublic l#C# by # cree8. )here;uest $#s denied, for the re#son #mong others th#t the ro osedbuilding $ould destroy the vie$ or be#uty of the ublic l#C#.

Defend#nts reiter#ted their re;uest for # building ermit, but #g#inthe m#yor turned do$n the re;uest. >hereu on, # ell#nts

roceeded $ith the construction of the building $ithout # ermit,bec#use they needed # l#ce of residence very b#dly, their formerhouse h#ving been destroyed by # ty hoon #nd hitherto they h#dbeen living on le#sed ro erty. )here#fter, defend#nts $ere ch#rgedin viol#tion of the ordin#nce #nd subse;uently convicted. ?ence this# e#l.

Iss$!#

>hether or ot the ordin#nce is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. H! %#

o. "t is not # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er. )he ordin#nce isunre#son#ble #nd o ressive, in th#t it o er#tes to erm#nentlyde rive # ell#nts of the right to use their o$n ro erty5 hence, itoverste s the bounds of olice o$er, #nd #mounts to # t#8ing of# ell#nt4s ro erty $ithout =ust com ens#tion. >e do not overloo8th#t the modern tendency is to reg#rd the be#utific#tion ofneighborhoods #s conducive to the comfort #nd h# iness ofresidents.

As the c#se no$ st#nds, every structure th#t m#y be erected on# ell#nts! l#nd, reg#rdless of its o$n be#uty, st#nds condemnedunder the ordin#nce in ;uestion, bec#use it $ould interfere $ith thevie$ of the ublic l#C# from the high$#y. )he # ell#nts $ould, ineffect, be constr#ined to let their l#nd rem#in idle #nd unused for theobvious ur ose for $hich it is best suited, being urb#n in ch#r#cter.)o leg#lly #chieve th#t result, the munici #lity must give # ell#nts

=ust com ens#tion #nd #n o ortunity to be he#rd.

R!4$' i" vs. Cast! vi

Fa"ts#

"n 19 , the re ublic, through the Armed Forces of the Phili inesAFP3, entered into # le#se #greement $ith %#stelvi on # ye#rEtoE

14



15/231

ye#r b#sis. >hen %#stelvi g#ve notice to termin#te the le#se in19 6, the AFP refused. She then instituted #n e=ectment roceeding#g#inst the AFP. "n 19 9, ho$ever, the re ublic commenced thee/ ro ri#tion roceedings for the l#nd in ;uestion. Iss$!#

>hether or ot the com ens#tion should be determined #s of 19or 19 9.

H! %#

)he Su reme %ourt ruled th#t the Gt#8ingH should not be rec8oned #sof 19 , #nd th#t =ust com ens#tion should not be determined on theb#sis of the v#lue of the ro erty #s of th#t ye#r.

)he re;uisites for t#8ing #re2 13 the e/ ro ri#tor must enter # riv#tero erty, *3 the entry must be for more th#n # moment#ry eriod, 73

it must be under $#rr#nt or color of #uthorities, 3 the ro erty mustbe devoted for ublic use or other$ise inform#lly # ro ri#ted orin=uriously #ffected, #nd 3 the utiliC#tion of the ro erty for ublicuse must be such # $#y #s to oust the o$ner #nd de rive him ofbenefici#l en=oyment of the ro erty.


16/231

$ould nevertheless be v#lid #s #n e/ercise of the olice o$er of theSt#te. )he Solicitor ener#l #lso m#int#ins th#t Section of0esolution o. * * is # ermissible e/ercise of the o$er ofsu ervision or regul#tion of the %omelec over the communic#tion#nd inform#tion o er#tions of rint medi# enter rises during theelection eriod to s#fegu#rd #nd ensure # f#ir, im #rti#l #nd credibleelection.

Iss$!#

>hether or not 0esolution o. * * issued by res ondent%ommission on &lections is v#lid.

H! %#

Petition for %ertior#ri #nd Prohibition is 0A )&D in #rt #ndSection * of 0esolution o. * * in its resent form #nd the rel#tedletterEdirectives d#ted ** M#rch 199 #re hereby S&) AS"D& #s null#nd void, #nd the )em or#ry 0estr#ining Order is hereby MAD&P&0MA & ). )he Petition is D"SM"SS&D in #rt, to the e/tent itrel#tes to Section of 0esolution o. * *. o ronouncement #s tocosts.

Section * of 0esolution o. * *, in its resent form #nd #sinter reted by %omelec in its ** M#rch 199 letter directives,

ur orts to re;uire rint medi# enter rises to Gdon#teH free rints #ce to %omelec. As such, Section * suffers from # f#t#lconstitution#l vice #nd must be set #side #nd nullified. )o the e/tentit ert#ins to Section of 0esolution o. * *, the Petition for%ertior#ri #nd Prohibition must be dismissed for l#c8 of #n #ctu#l,

=ustici#ble c#se or controversy.

S$m$ ong vs. G$!**!*o

Fa"ts#

On December , 19 , the #tion#l ?ousing Authority filed #com l#int for the e/ ro ri#tion of * hect#res of l#nd in Anti olo,0iC#l ursu#nt to PD 1** #uthoriCing the e/ ro ri#tion of riv#te

l#nds for soci#liCed housing. Among those l#nds sought to bee/ ro ri#ted #re the etitioners!! l#nds. )hey brought this suit in theS% ch#llenging the constitution#lity of PD 1** .

Iss$!#

>hether or not it is # v#lid e/ercise of eminent dom#in.

H! %#

Petitioners contend th#t soci#liCed housing for the ur ose ofcondemn#tion roceedings is not ublic use since it $ill benefit only# h#ndful of eo le. )he ( ublic use( re;uirement is #n evolvingconce t influences by ch#nging conditions. hy should the ?A ic8 theirsm#ll lots: &/ ro ri#tion is not confined to l#nded est#tes. )he testto be # lied for # v#lid e/ ro ri#tion of riv#te l#nds $#s the #re# ofthe l#nd #nd not the number of eo le $ho stood to be benefitted.)he St#te #cting through the ?A is vested $ith bro#d discretion todesign#te the ro erty. )he ro erty o$ner m#y not inter oseob=ections merely bec#use in their =udgment some other ro erty$ould h#ve been more suit#ble. )he rovisions on =ustcom ens#tion found in PD 1** , 1* 9, #nd 1717 #re the s#me

rovisions $hich $ere decl#red unconstitution#l in &P A v. Dul#y19 3 for being encro#chments on =udici#l rerog#tives.

E+7A vs. D$ a,

Fa"ts#

)he four #rcels of l#nd $hich #re the sub=ect of this c#se is $herethe M#ct#n &/ ort Processing one Authority in %ebu &P A3 is to

16



17/231

be constructed. Priv#te res ondent S#n Antonio Develo ment%or or#tion S#n Antonio, for brevity3, in $hich these l#nds #reregistered under, cl#imed th#t the l#nds $ere e/ ro ri#ted to thegovernment $ithout them re#ching the #greement #s to thecom ens#tion. 0es ondent Judge Dul#y then issued #n order for the# ointment of the commissioners to determine the =ustcom ens#tion. "t $#s l#ter found out th#t the #yment of thegovernment to S#n Antonio $ould be P1 er s;u#re meter, $hich$#s ob=ected to by the l#tter contending th#t under PD 1 77, theb#sis of =ust com ens#tion sh#ll be f#ir #nd #ccording to the f#irm#r8et v#lue decl#red by the o$ner of the ro erty sought to bee/ ro ri#ted, or by the #ssessor, $hichever is lo$er. Such ob=ection#nd the subse;uent Motion for 0econsider#tion $ere denied #ndhe#ring $#s set for the rece tion of the commissioner4s re ort. &P Athen filed this etition for certior#ri #nd m#nd#mus en=oining theres ondent from further he#ring the c#se.

Iss$!#

>hether or ot the e/clusive #nd m#nd#tory mode of determining =ust com ens#tion in PD 1 77 is unconstitution#l.

H! %#

)he Su reme %ourt ruled th#t the mode of determin#tion of =ustcom ens#tion in PD 1 77 is unconstitution#l. )he method of#scert#ining =ust com ens#tion constitutes im ermissibleencro#chment to =udici#l rerog#tives. "t tends to render the courtsinutile in # m#tter in $hich under the %onstitution is reserved to it forfin#nci#l determin#tion. )he v#lu#tion in the decree m#y only serve#s guiding rinci le or one of the f#ctors in determining =ustcom ens#tion, but it m#y not substitute the court4s o$n =udgment #sto $h#t #mount should be #$#rded #nd ho$ to #rrive #t such#mount. )he determin#tion of =ust com ens#tion is # =udici#lfunction. )he e/ecutive de #rtment or the legisl#ture m#y m#8e theiniti#l determin#tion but $hen # #rty cl#ims # viol#tion of thegu#r#ntee in the @ill of 0ights th#t the riv#te #rty m#y not be t#8enfor ublic use $ithout =ust com ens#tion, no st#tute, decree, ore/ecutive order c#n m#nd#te th#t its o$n determin#tion sh#ll rev#il

over the court4s findings. Much less c#n the courts be recluded fromloo8ing into the =ustness of the decreed com ens#tion.

/$ni"i4a it, o +a*ana8$! vs. 9./. R!a t, Co*4o*ation

Fa"ts#

Petitioner sought to e/ercise its o$er of eminent dom#in b#sed on# resolution by the munici #l council. Petitioner cites # revious c#se$herein # resolution g#ve #uthority to e/ercise eminent dom#in.Petitioner #lso relies on the "m lementing 0ules, $hich rovides th#t# resolution #uthoriCes # 'oc#l overnment hether or ot #n ' < c#n e/ercise its o$er of eminent dom#inursu#nt to # resolution by its l#$Em#8ing body.

H! %#


18/231

geotherm#l #nd other sources, #s $ell #s the tr#nsmission of electrico$er on # n#tion$ide b#sis. "ts ch#rter gr#nts to etitioner, #mong

others, the o$er to e/ercise the right to eminent dom#in. Sometimein June * , *BB1, etitioner filed # com l#int $ith the 0)% of S#nFern#ndo, P#m #ng#, for the #c;uisition of #n e#sement of rightEofE$#y over three 73lots #t @#r#ng#y %#b#l#nti#n, @#color, P#m #ng#belonging to res ondent herein for ur oses of construction of itstr#nsmission lines for its '#h#r Affected )r#nsmission 'ine Pro=ect.On M#rch * , *BB*, P% obt#ined # $rit of ossession #nd on A ril1 , *BB* theytoo8 ossession of the ro erty.On he#ring the 0)%# ointed 7 commissioners to determine the f#ir m#r8et v#lue ofthe ro erty #s of 1 A ril *BB*. )he first t$o commissioners# r#ised the ro erty #tP1,9BB.BB er s;u#re meter or # tot#l ofP1,1 9,BBB.BB. >hile the third commissioner eg the v#lue of the

ro erty #t P .BB er s;u#re meter. )he 0)% rendered its P#rti#lDecision, $herein it decl#red the v#lidity of thee/ ro ri#tion #ndordered etitioner to #y the sum of P1,1 9,BBB.BB, $ith interest#t6N er #nnum beginning A ril 1 , *BB*, the d#te of #ctu#l t#8ing,until full #yment. ot s#tisfied $ith the ruling of lo$er court P%elev#te the c#se to %A, $hich the# ell#te court #lso renderedDecision holding etitioner li#ble to #y the full f#ir m#r8etv#lue #tthe time of #ctu#l t#8ing, $ith interest #t 6N er #nnum from 1 A ril*BB*.Aggrieved $ith the order P% # e#led to S% hence this c#se.

Iss$!#

>hether or not etitioner herein should #y the sub=ect ro erty in itsfull m#r8etv#lue:"s the rec8oning d#te for the determin#tion of =ustcom ens#tion is u on osition or u onthe d#te of filing:

H! %#

L&S. As e#rlier mentioned, Section 7A of 0.A. o. 679 , #s#mended, subst#nti#lly rovides th#t ro erties $hich $ill betr#versed by tr#nsmission lines $ill only beconsidered #s e#sements#nd =ust com ens#tion for such right of $#y e#sement sh#llnote/ceed 1B ercent of the m#r8et v#lue. ?o$ever, this %ourt h#sre e#tedly ruled th#t $hen etitioner t#8es riv#te ro erty toconstruct tr#nsmission lines, it is li#ble to #y the full m#r8et v#lue

u on ro er determin#tion by the courts. )he resence oftr#nsmission lines undoubtedly restricts res ondent4s use ofhis ro erty. Petitioner is thus li#ble to #y res ondent the full m#r8etv#lue of the ro erty.or8s #nd %ommunic#tions, Director of Public>or8s #nd ?igh$#ys #nd the disbursing officers of the l#tterde #rtment from m#8ing #nd securing #ny further rele#se of fundsfor the s#id ro#d ro=ect. 0AR 9*B cont#ined #n item # ro ri#ting

18



19/231

P ,BBB.BB $hich the etitioner #lleged th#t it $#s for theconstruction of ro#ds im roving the riv#te ro erty of Jose ulet#, #member of the Sen#te.

Iss$!s#

1. >hether or not 0A R 9*B is unconstitution#l.*. >hether or not P#scu#l h#s the leg#l c# #city or to sue.

H! %#

1. 0A R9*B is unconstitution#l bec#use the %ongress is $ithouto$er to # ro ri#te ublic revenue for #nything but ublic ur ose.

*. P#scu#l h#s the erson#lity to sue #s # t#/ #yer recogniCing theright of the t#/ #yer to #ss#il the constitution#lity of # legisl#tion# ro ri#ting ublic funds.

+$n&a an vs. /$ni"i4a 6oa*% o /ani a

Fa"ts#

Petitioners, $ho #re rofession#ls in the city, #ss#il Ordin#nce o.779 together $ith the l#$ #uthoriCing it Section 1 of the 0evised%h#rter of the %ity of M#nil#3. )he ordin#nce im oses # munici #loccu #tion t#/ on ersons e/ercising v#rious rofessions in the city#nd en#liCes nonE #yment of the s#me. )he l#$ #uthoriCing s#idordin#nce em o$ers the Munici #l @o#rd of the city to im ose #munici #l occu #tion t#/ on ersons eng#ged in v#rious rofessions.Petitioners, h#ving #lre#dy #id their occu #tion t#/ under section*B1 of the #tion#l "ntern#l 0evenue %ode, #id the t#/ under

rotest #s im osed by Ordin#nce o. 779 . )he lo$er court decl#redthe ordin#nce inv#lid #nd #ffirmed the v#lidity of the l#$ #uthoriCingit.

Iss$!#

>hether or ot the ordin#nce #nd l#$ #uthoriCing it constitute cl#sslegisl#tion, #nd #uthoriCe $h#t #mounts to double t#/#tion.

H! %#

)he 'egisl#ture m#y, in its discretion, select $h#t occu #tions sh#llbe t#/ed, #nd in its discretion m#y t#/ #ll, or select cl#sses ofoccu #tion for t#/#tion, #nd le#ve others unt#/ed. "t is not for thecourts to =udge $hich cities or munici #lities should be em o$eredto im ose occu #tion t#/es #side from th#t im osed by the #tion#l

overnment. )h#t m#tter is $ithin the dom#in of olitic#lde #rtments. )he #rgument #g#inst double t#/#tion m#y not beinvo8ed if one t#/ is im osed by the st#te #nd the other is im osedby the city. "t is $idely recogniCed th#t there is nothing inherentlyterrible in the re;uirement th#t t#/es be e/#cted $ith res ect to thes#me occu #tion by both the st#te #nd the olitic#l subdivisionsthereof. Judgment of the lo$er court is reversed $ith reg#rds to theordin#nce #nd #ffirmed #s to the l#$ #uthoriCing it.

L an%o" vs. Commission!* o Int!*na R!v!n$!

Fa"ts#

Sometime in 19 , M.@. &st#te "nc., of @#colod %ity, don#ted1B,BBB.BB esos in c#sh to Fr. %ris in 0uiC, the #rish riest of

ictori#s, egros Occident#l, #nd redecessor of Fr. 'l#doc, for theconstruction of # ne$ %#tholic church in the loc#lity. )he don#ted#mount $#s s ent for such ur ose.

On M#rch 7, 19 , the donor M.@. &st#te filed the donor!s gift t#/return.


20/231

H! %#

Les, im osition of the gift t#/ $#s v#lid, under Section ** 73 Article" of the %onstitution contem l#tes e/em tion only from #yment of

t#/es #ssessed on such ro erties #s Pro erty t#/es contr#distinguished from &/cise t#/es )he im osition of the gift t#/ on the

ro erty used for religious ur ose is not # viol#tion of the%onstitution. A gift t#/ is not # ro erty by $#y of gift inter vivos.

)he he#d of the Diocese #nd not the #rish riest is the re#l #rty ininterest in the im osition of the donee!s t#/ on the ro erty don#tedto the church for religious ur ose.

A'*a 9a !, Co !g! vs. A8$ino

Fa"ts#

Petitioner, #n educ#tion#l cor or#tion #nd institution of higherle#rning duly incor or#ted $ith the Securities #nd &/ch#nge%ommission in 19 , filed # com l#int to #nnul #nd decl#re void theG otice of SeiCure4 #nd the G otice of S#leH of its lot #nd buildingloc#ted #t @#ngued, Abr#, for nonE #yment of re#l est#te t#/es #nd

en#lties #mounting to P ,1 B.71. S#id G otice of SeiCureH byres ondents Munici #l )re#surer #nd Provinci#l )re#surer,defend#nts belo$, $#s issued for the s#tisf#ction of the s#id t#/esthereon.

)he #rties entered into # sti ul#tion of f#cts #do ted #nd embodiedby the tri#l court in its ;uestioned decision. )he tri#l court ruled forthe government, holding th#t the second floor of the building is beingused by the director for residenti#l ur oses #nd th#t the groundfloor used #nd rented by orthern M#r8eting %or or#tion, #commerci#l est#blishment, #nd thus the ro erty is not being usede/clusively for educ#tion#l ur oses. "nste#d of erfecting #n# e#l, etitioner #v#iled of the inst#nt etition for revie$ oncertior#ri $ith r#yer for relimin#ry in=unction before the Su reme%ourt, by filing s#id etition on 1 August 19 .

Iss$!#

>hether or not the lot #nd building #re used e/clusively foreduc#tion#l ur oses.

H! %#

Section **, #r#gr# h 7, Article ", of the then 197 Phili ine%onstitution, e/ ressly gr#nts e/em tion from re#lty t#/es forcemeteries, churches #nd #rson#ges or convents # urten#ntthereto, #nd #ll l#nds, buildings, #nd im rovements used e/clusivelyfor religious, ch#rit#ble or educ#tion#l ur oses. 0e#son#bleem h#sis h#s #l$#ys been m#de th#t the e/em tion e/tends tof#cilities $hich #re incident#l to #nd re#son#bly necess#ry for the#ccom lishment of the m#in ur oses. )he use of the schoolbuilding or lot for commerci#l ur oses is neither contem l#ted byl#$, nor by =uris rudence. "n the c#se #t b#r, the le#se of the firstfloor of the building to the orthern M#r8eting %or or#tion c#nnot by#ny stretch of the im#gin#tion be considered incident#l to the

ur ose of educ#tion. )he test of e/em tion from t#/#tion is the useof the ro erty for ur oses mentioned in the %onstitution.

)he decision of the %F" Abr# @r#nch "3 is #ffirmed sub=ect to themodific#tion th#t h#lf of the #ssessed t#/ be returned to the

etitioner. )he modific#tion is derived from the f#ct th#t the groundfloor is being used for commerci#l ur oses le#sed3 #nd the secondfloor being used #s incident#l to educ#tion residence of thedirector3.

+ ant!*s +*o%$"ts( In". vs. F!*ti4)i Co*4o*ation

Fa"ts#

Phili ine Pl#nters Products PP"3 #nd Ferti hil %or . #re riv#tecor or#tions incor or#ted under Phili ine l#$s, $hich #re botheng#ged in the im ort#tion #nd distribution of fertiliCers, esticides#nd #gricultur#l chemic#ls. On June 7, 19 , Pres. Ferdin#ndM#rcos issued 'O" o. 1 6 $hich rovided, #mong others, for the

20



21/231

im osition of # c# it#l recovery com onent %0%3 on the domestics#le of #ll gr#des of fertiliCers in the Phili ines. Pursu#nt to the#formentioned 'O", Ferti hil #id P1B for every b#g of fertiliCer it soldin the domestic m#r8et to the FertiliCer #nd Pesticide Authority

FPA3, $hich remitted the #mount collected to the F#r st @#n8 #nd)rust %om #ny, the de ository b#n8 of PP". After the 19 6 &DSArevolution, FPA volunt#rily sto ed the im osition of the P1B levy, for$hich Ferti hil dem#nded PP" # refund of the #mounts it #id under'O" o. 1 6 . @ut then, PP" refused to give in to the dem#nd. >ithth#t, Ferti hil filed # com l#int for collection #nd d#m#ges #g#instFPA #nd PP" $ith the 0)% in M#8#ti. "t ;uestioned theconstitution#lity of 'O" o. 1 6 for being un=ust #nd unre#son#ble,#nd f#voring one riv#tely o$ned cor or#tion, $hich is the PP".0)%!s decision on ovember *B, 1991 f#vored Ferti hil #nd orderedthe l#tter to #y # cert#in sum of the reviously collected #mount$ith #n interest, #nd some other fees.

Iss$!#

>hether or not the P1B #ssessment on fertiliCer s#le # v#lid e/erciseof t#/#tion:

H! %#

o. An inherent limit#tion on the o$er of t#/#tion is ublic ur ose.)#/es #re e/#cted on for # ublic ur ose #nd c#nnot be used for

urely riv#te ur oses or for e/clusive benefit of riv#te ersons.)he 'O" e/ ressly rovided th#t the levy be im osed to benefit PP",# riv#te com #ny. )hus, this #lre#dy e/ceeded the limit#tion $hicht#/es #re su osed to be limited to, inherently #nd n#tur#lly. &ven ifthe levy $#s #cted for the enforcement of olice o$ers, it is stillunconstitution#l bec#use it did not romote ublic interest. @eingvoid, Ferti hil is not re;uired to #y the levy. All levies #id should berefunded in #ccord#nce $ith the gener#l civil code rinci le #g#instun=ust enrichment2 ('#$s #re re e#led only by subse;uent ones, #ndtheir viol#tion or nonEobserv#nce sh#ll not be e/cused by disuse orcustom or r#ctice to the contr#ry. >hen the courts decl#re # l#$ tobe inconsistent $ith the %onstitution, the former sh#ll be void #nd thel#tter sh#ll govern.( )he etition $#s denied.

I9. ARTICLE III - THE 6ILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1 -- Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of theLawsDue Process of Law

ICHONG 9S. HERNANDE7

Fa"ts#

0e ublic Act 11 B or commonly 8no$n #s GAn Act to 0egul#te the0et#il @usinessH $#s #ssed. )he s#id l#$ rovides for # rohibition#g#inst foreigners #s $ell #s cor or#tions o$ned by foreigners fromeng#ging from ret#il tr#de in our country. )his $#s rotested by the

etitioner in this c#se. According to him, the s#id l#$ viol#tes theintern#tion#l #nd tre#ty of the Phili ines therefore it isunconstitution#l. S ecific#lly, the )re#ty of Amity bet$een thePhili ines #nd %hin# $#s viol#ted #ccording to him.

Iss$!#

>hether or ot 0e ublic Act 11 B is # v#lid e/ercise of oliceo$er.

H! %#

According to the %ourt, 0A 11 B is # v#lid e/ercise of olice o$er."t $#s #lso then rovided th#t olice o$er c#n not be b#rg#ined#$#y through the medium of # tre#ty or # contr#ct. )he %ourt #lso

rovided th#t 0A 11 B $#s en#cted to remedy # re#l #nd #ctu#ld#nger to n#tion#l economy osed by #lien domin#nce #nd control. "fever the l#$ infringes u on the s#id tre#ty, the l#tter is #l$#yssub=ect to ;u#lific#tion or #mendment by # subse;uent l#$ #nd thes#me m#y never curt#in or restrict the sco e of the olice o$er ofthe st#te.

+HIL. +HOS+HATE FERTILI7ER COR+. 9S. TORRES

21



22/231

Fa"ts#

Phil hos Movement for Progress, "nc. PMP" for brevity3, filed $iththe De #rtment of '#bor #nd &m loyment # etition for certific#tionelection #mong the su ervisory em loyees of etitioner, #lleging th#t#s # su ervisory union duly registered $ith the De #rtment of '#bor#nd &m loyment it $#s see8ing to re resent the su ervisoryem loyees of Phili ine Phos h#te FertiliCer %or or#tion. Medi#torE

Arbiter 0odolfo S. Mil#do issued #n order directing the holding of #certific#tion election #mong the su ervisory em loyees of etitioner,e/cluding therefrom the su erintendents #nd the rofession#l #ndtechnic#l em loyees. ?o$ever, the PMP" filed #n #mended etition$ith the Medi#torEArbiter $herein it sought to re resent not only thesu ervisory em loyees of etitioner but #lso its

rofession#l-technic#l #nd confidenti#l em loyees. )he #rtiestherein #greed to submit their res ective osition # ers #nd toconsider the #mended etition submitted for decision on the b#sisthereof #nd rel#ted documents. Medi#torEArbiter Mil#do issued #norder gr#nting the etition #nd directing the holding of # certific#tionelection #mong the (su ervisory, rofession#l engineers, #n#lysts,mech#nics, #ccount#nts, nurses, mid$ives, etc.3, technic#l, #ndconfidenti#l em loyees. P?"'P?OS # e#led the order to theSecret#ry of '#bor #nd &m loyment $ho rendered # decisionthrough hether or ot the Second Division of the %ommission on &lections#uthoriCed to romulg#te its decision of July *7, 19 , rocl#iming

22



23/231

the riv#te res ondent the $inner in the election.

H! %#

)his %ourt h#s re e#tedly #nd consistently dem#nded (the coldneutr#lity of #n im #rti#l =udge( #s the indis ens#ble im er#tive ofdue rocess. )o bolster th#t re;uirement, $e h#ve held th#t the

=udge must not only be im #rti#l but must #lso # e#r to be im #rti#l#s #n #dded #ssur#nce to the #rties th#t his decision $ill be =ust.)he litig#nts #re entitled to no less th#n th#t. )hey should be sureth#t $hen their rights #re viol#ted they c#n go to # =udge $ho sh#llgive them =ustice. )hey must trust the =udge, other$ise they $ill notgo to him #t #ll. )hey must believe in his sense of f#irness, other$isethey $ill not see8 his =udgment. >ithout such confidence, there$ould be no oint in invo8ing his #ction for the =ustice they e/ ect.

Due rocess is intended to insure th#t confidence by re;uiringcom li#nce $ith $h#t Justice Fr#n8furter c#lls the rudiments of f#ir

l#y. F#ir l#y c#ns for e;u#l =ustice. )here c#nnot be e;u#l =ustice$here # suitor # ro#ches # court #lre#dy committed to the other

#rty #nd $ith # =udgment #lre#dy m#de #nd $#iting only to beform#liCed #fter the litig#nts sh#ll h#ve undergone the ch#r#de of #form#l he#ring. Judici#l #nd #lso e/tr#E=udici#l3 roceedings #re notorchestr#ted l#ys in $hich the #rties #re su osed to m#8e themotions #nd re#ch the denouement #ccording to # re #red scri t.)here is no $riter to foreord#in the ending. )he =udge $ill re#ch hisconclusions only #fter #ll the evidence is in #nd #ll the #rguments #refiled, on the b#sis of the est#blished f#cts #nd the ertinent l#$.

3NOT 9S. IAC

Fa"ts#

&/ecutive Order o. 6*6EA rohibited the tr#ns ort#tion of c#r#b#os#nd c#r#beef from one rovince to #nother. )he c#r#b#os of

etitioner $ere confisc#ted for viol#tion of &/ecutive Order o 6*6EA$hile he $#s tr#ns orting them from M#sb#te to "loilo. Petitionerch#llenged the constitution#lity of &/ecutive Order o. 6*6EA. )hegovernment #rgued th#t &/ecutive Order o. 6*6EA $#s issued in

the e/ercise of olice o$er to conserve the c#r#b#os th#t $ere stillfit for f#rm $or8 or breeding.

Iss$!#

>hether or ot &O o. 6*6EA is # viol#tion of Subst#ntive DueProcess.

H! %#

)he ch#llenged me#sure is #n inv#lid e/ercise of olice o$er,bec#use it is not re#son#bly necess#ry for the ur ose of the l#$#nd is unduly o ressive. "t is difficult to see ho$ rohibiting thetr#nsfer of c#r#b#os from one rovince to #nother c#n revent theirindiscrimin#te 8illing. 0et#ining the c#r#b#os in one rovince $ill not

revent their sl#ughter there. Prohibiting the tr#nsfer of c#r#beef,#fter the sl#ughter of the c#r#b#os, $ill not revent the sl#ughtereither.

A ont! v. Sav! ano

Fa"ts#

Pending before the court #re t$o se #r#te etitioners, one filed byetitioner @#y#ni M. Alonte, doc8eted .r. o. 1716 *, #nd the other

by etitioner @uen#ventur# %once cion, doc8eted .0. o. 171 * ,th#t #ss#il the decision of the res ondent Judge M#/imo A.S#vell#no, Jr.., of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourt, @r#nch 7, of M#nil#finding both etitioner guilty beyond re#son#ble doubt of the crime ofr# e. )he t$o etitioners $ere consolid#ted.On December , 1996, #n inform#tion for r# e $#s filed #g#inst

etitioners @#y#ni M. Alonte, #n incumbent M#yor of @iT#n '#gun##nd @uen#ventur# %once cion redic#ted on # com l#int filed byJuvieE'yn Punongb#y#n.)he c#se $#s doc8eted %rimin#l %#se o. 9619E@ #nd #s signed byr#ffle to @r#nch * of the 0)% of @iT#n '#gun# resided over byJudge P#blo @. Fr#ncisco.On December 17, 1996, JuvieElyn Punongb#y#n, through hercounsel Attorney 0emedios %. @#lbin, #nd Assist#nt %hief St#te

23



24/231

Prosecutor 'eon#rdo ui#b, Jr., filed $ith the Office of the %ourt Administr#tor # etitione for # ch#nge of venue doc8eted Administr#tive M#tter o. 9 E1E1*E0)%3 to h#ve the c#se tr#nsferred#nd tried by #ny of the 0egion#l )ri#l %ourts in Metro M#nil#.On June * , 199 , Atty. 0#mon %.%#s#no on beh#lf of etitioners,moved to h#ve the etition for ch#nge of venue dismissed on theground th#t it h#d become moot in vie$ of com l#in#nt4s #ffid#vit ofdesist#nce. On August **, 199 , A%SP ui#b filed his comment onthe motion to dismiss. ui#b #sserted th#t he $#s not #$#re of thedesist#nce of riv#te com l#in#nt #nd o ined th#t the desist#nce, in#ny c#se, $ould not roduce #ny leg#l effect since it $#s the ublic

rosecutor $ho h#d direction #nd control of the rosecution of thecrimin#l #ction. ?e r#yed for the deni#l of the motion to dismiss.On Se tember 1 , 199 , the c#se, no$ reEdoc8eted %rimin#l c#se

o. 9 E1 997 by the %ler8 of %ourts of M#nil#, $#s #ssigned byr#ffle to @r#nch 7, 0)% M#nil#, $ith res ondent Judge M#/imo A.S#vell#no, Jr., residing.On October , 199 , JuvieElyn Punongb#y#n, through Atty. @#lbin,submitted to the M#nil# court, # com li#nce $here she reiter#ted herdecision to #bide by her Affid#vit of Desist#nce."n #n order, d#ted October 9, 199 , Judge S#vell#no found rob#blec#use for the issu#nce of $#rr#nts for the #rrest of etitioners Alonte#nd %once cion $ithout re=udice to, #nd inde endent of, this%ourt4s se #r#te determin#tion #s the trier of f#cts, of thevolunt#riness #nd v#lidity of the riv#te com l#in#nt4s desist#nce inthe lights of the o osition of the ublic rosecutor, Asst. %hief St#teProsecutor 'eon#rdo ui#b.

Iss$!hether or not there c#n be shortEcut to the leg#l rocess, #ndthere c#n be #n e/cuse for not #ffording #n #ccused his full d#y incourt.U>hether or not # c#se c#n be dismissed u on # mere #ffid#vit ofdesist#nce of the com l#in#nt.U>hether or not #ny #rdon m#de by the riv#te com l#in#nt,$hether by s$orn st#tement or on the $itness st#nd, c#n e/tinguishcrimin#l li#bility.U>hether or not the de#th of the offended #rty c#n e/tinguish the

c#se once it is filed in court.U>hether or not the roceedings did conform $ith the rocedure fortri#l #s rovided in the 19 0ules on %rimin#l Procedure.U>hether or not #n o ortunity to crossEe/#mine $#s #fforded

etitioners #nd their counsels such th#t they c#n be deemed to h#ve$#ived s#id right by in#ction.U>hether or not #n evidence $hich # #rty desires to submits for theconsider#tion of the court must form#lly be offered be offered by him.

H! %#

)he Solicitor ener#l h#s # tly discerned # fe$ of the devi#tionsfrom $h#t other$ise should h#ve been the regul#r course of tri#l2 13Petitioners h#ve not been directed to resent evidence to rove theirdefenses nor h#ve d#tes therefore been scheduled for the ur ose5

*3 the #rties h#ve not been given the o ortunity to resentrebutting evidence nor h#ve d#tes been set by res ondent Judge forthe ur ose5 #nd 73 etitioners h#ve not #dmitted the #ct ch#rged inthe inform#tion so #s to =ustify #ny modific#tion in the order of tri#l.)here c#n be no shortEcut to the leg#l rocess, #nd there c#n be noe/cuse for not #ffording #n #ccused hiss full d#y in court. Due

rocess, rightly occu ying the first #nd foremost l#ce of honor in our@ill of 0ights, is #n enshrined #nd inv#lu#ble right th#t c#nnot bedenied even to the most undeserving.

"n riv#te crimes, #n #ffid#vit of desist#nce filed by # riv#tecom l#in#nt is #lso fro$ned u on by the courts. Although such#ffid#vit m#y deserve # second loo8 #t the c#se, there is h#rdly #ninst#nce $hen this court u held it in riv#te crimes #nd dismissedthe c#se on the sole b#sis thereof. "ndeed, # c#se is not dismissed$here there e/ist s eci#l circumst#nces th#t r#ise doubts #s to thereli#bility of the #ffid#vit.

Article 7 #lso rovides for the e/tinction of crimin#l li#bility inriv#te crimes. "t mentions t$o modes2 #rdon #nd m#rri#ge, $hich

$hen v#lidly #nd timely m#de, result in the tot#l e/tinction of crimin#lli#bility of the offender. )he #rdon in riv#te crimes must be m#debefore the institution of the crimin#l #ction. "n #dultery #ndconcubin#ge, the #rdon m#y be e/ ress or im lied $hile in

24



25/231

seduction, #bduction, r# e #nd #cts of l#sciviousness, the #rdonmust be e/ ress. "n #ll c#ses, the #rdon must come rior to theinstitution of the crimin#l #ction. After the c#se h#s been filed incourt, #ny #rdon m#de by the riv#te com l#in#nt, $hether bys$orn st#tement or on the $itness st#nd, c#nnot e/tinguish crimin#lli#bility. )he only #ct th#t e/tinguishes the en#l #ction #nd the

en#lty th#t m#y h#ve been im osed is the m#rri#ge bet$een theoffender #nd the offended #rty.

)he de#th of the offended #rty c#nnot e/tinguish the c#se once it isfiled in court. "f the offended #rty dies immedi#tely #fter filing thecom l#int but before the institution of the crimin#l #ction, his de#th isnot # ground to dismiss the c#se. %le#rly, the $ill #nd #rtici #tion ofthe offended #rty is necess#ry only to determine $hether to file thecom l#int or not. )here#fter, the $ill of the St#te rev#ils.

)he roceedings did not conform $ith the rocedure for tri#l #srovided in the 19 0ules on %rimin#l Procedure. Petitioners $ere

never instructed to resent evidence to rove their defenses. )he#rties $ere never given the o ortunity to resent their res ective

evidence rebutting the testimony of riv#te com l#in#nt. )here $#sno #dmission by etitioners of the ch#rge in the inform#tion #s to

=ustify # ch#nge in the order of tri#l.

Follo$ing res ondent =udge4s finding #nd #ssuming th#t theovember , 199 he#ring $#s #lre#dy # tri#l on the merits,etitioners $ere never #fforded their right to confront #nd crossE

e/#mine the $itness. )he court did not, #t the very le#st, in;uire #sto $hether the etitioners $#nted to crossEe/#mine riv#tecom l#in#nt $ith res ect to her #ffid#vit of October *1, 1996. oo ortunity to crossEe/#mine $#s #fforded etitioners #nd theircounsels such th#t they c#nnot be deemed to h#ve $#ived s#id rightby in#ction.

)he #dmission of riv#te com l#in#nt4s #ffid#vit of October *1, 1996$#s m#de solely in res onse to res ondent =udge4s ;uestioning. "t$#s this #ffid#vit $hich res ondent =udge used to convict the

etitioners. )his #ffid#vit, ho$ever, $#s not m#r8ed nor $#s itform#lly offered before the court. )he 0evised 0ules on &vidence

cle#rly #nd e/ ressly rovide th#t Gthe court sh#ll consider noevidence $hich h#s not form#lly offered.H &vidence not form#llyoffered in court $ill not be t#8en into consider#tion by the court indis osing of the issues of the c#se. Any evidence $hich # #rtydesires to submit for the consider#tion of the court must form#lly beoffered by him, other$ise it is e/cluded #nd re=ected.

)he %ourt hereby 0


26/231

c#r. < on finding the guns, he $#s # rehended #nd det#ined #ndhis c#se $#s referred for in;uest to the %ity rosecutor office.Petitioner $#s not m#de # #rty to the ch#rge but $#s invited toshed light on the incident. Petitioner e/ l#ined the ur ose ho$

Arell#no c#me to h#ve the fire#rms bo#rded on the c#r #nd $rote therosecutor to e/oner#te Arell#no from the ch#rges. )he rosecutor

recommended dismissing the c#se. )he %omelec ho$ever issued #resolution filing inform#tion in viol#tion of the gun b#n #g#inst

etitioner. Petitioner moves for reconsider#tion to the %omelec $hich$#s denied hence this etition contending th#t the se#rch on his c#r$#s illeg#l #nd th#t he $#s not im le#ded #s res ondent in the

relimin#ry investig#tion #nd his constitution#l rights for due rocess$#s viol#ted.

Iss$!#

>hether or not etitioner $#s denied of due rocess of l#$.

H! %#

)he court held th#t #s # rule, # v#lid se#rch must be #uthoriCed by #se#rch $#rr#nt duly issued by #n # ro ri#te #uthority. ?o$ever,this is not #bsolute. Aside from # se#rch incident to # l#$ful #rrest, #$#rr#ntless se#rch h#d been u held in c#ses of 13 moving vehicles

*3 the seiCure of evidence in l#in vie$ #nd 73 se#rch conducted #tolice or milit#ry chec8 oints $hich #re not illeg#l for #s long #s the

vehicle is neither se#rched nor its occu #nts sub=ected to # bodyse#rch, #nd the ins ection of the vehicle is merely limited to # visu#lse#rch, #nd 3 Sto E#ndEse#rch $ithout $#rr#nt conducted by oliceofficers on the b#sis of rior confidenti#l inform#tion $hich $erere#son#bly corrobor#ted by other #ttend#nt m#tters is #lsorecogniCed by the court to be leg#l. An e/tensive se#rch $ithout$#rr#nt could only be resorted to if the officers conducting the se#rchh#d re#son#ble or rob#ble c#use to believe before the se#rch th#teither the motorist $#s # l#$ offender or th#t they $ould find theinstrument#lity or evidence ert#ining to the commission of # crimein the vehicle to be se#rched. @ec#use there $#s no sufficientevidence th#t $ould im el the olicemen to sus ect Arell#no to

=ustify the se#rch they h#ve conducted, such #ction constitutes #n

unre#son#ble intrusion of the etitioner4s riv#cy #nd security of hisro erty in viol#tion of Section *, Article """ of the %onstitution.

%onse;uently, the fire#rms obt#ined in viol#tion of etitioner!s right#g#inst $#rr#ntless se#rch c#nnot be #dmitted for #ny ur ose in#ny roceeding. )he m#nner by $hich %OM&'&% roceeded#g#inst etitioner runs counter to the due rocess cl#use of the%onstitution. )he f#cts sho$ th#t etitioner $#s not #mong thosech#rged by the P P $ith viol#tion of the Omnibus &lection %ode.

or $#s he sub=ected by the %ity Prosecutor to # relimin#ryinvestig#tion for such offense. )hus the court decl#red the$#rr#ntless se#rch #nd seiCure of the fire#rms #s illeg#l hencein#dmissible to court #s evidence in #ny roceeding #g#inst the

etitioner.

ANG TI6A3 9S. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Fa"ts#

)here $#s #greement bet$een Ang )ib#y #nd the #tion#l '#bor


27/231

st#ted in the l#$ of its cre#tion $hich is the %ommon$e#lth Act o.1B73. "t is more #n #dministr#tive bo#rd th#n # #rt of the integr#ted

=udici#l system of the n#tion. "t is not intended to be # mere rece tiveorg#n of the government.


28/231

informed of their viol#tion, giving them until the **nd of Febru#ry tores ond. After sever#l ost onements #nd # letter from etitioner@ern#s, # resolution d#ted M#rch 9 found res ondents guilty ofviol#tion of 0ule 7 of the Ateneo '#$ School 0ules of Disci line, forh#ving #rtici #ted in the initi#tion #s #u/ili#ries, heightened by thef#ct th#t they m#de no effect to revent the infliction of further in=ury.)he bo#rd, ho$ever, left the im osition of the en#lty to the

Administr#tion. Petitioner @ern#s im osed the en#lty of dismiss#l on#ll res ondent students. On M#rch 1B, res ondent students filed #

etition for certior#ri, m#nd#mus, rohibition #nd )0O $ithrelimin#ry in=unction, #lleging l#c8 of due rocess. After the issu#nce

of # )0O on A ril , # s eci#l civil #ction for certior#ri $#s filed $iththe S%.

Iss$!#

>ere res ondent students denied due rocess: O.

H! %#

%ontr#ry to res ondents #rgument of deni#l of rocedur#l duerocess, the %ourt finds no indic#tion th#t such right h#s been

viol#ted. Petitioners h#ve meticulously res ected res ondents rightsin # school disci lin#ry roceeding, #s st#ted in uCm#n vs.


29/231

)he obvious re#son for the ch#llenged rovision is to revent the useof # government#l osition to romote one4s c#ndid#cy, or even to$ield # d#ngerous or coercive influence of the elector#te. )heme#sure is further #imed #t romoting the efficiency, integrity, #nddisci line of the ublic service by elimin#ting the d#nger th#t thedisch#rge of offici#l duty $ould be motiv#ted by olitic#lconsider#tions r#ther th#n the $elf#re of the ublic. )he restriction is#lso =ustified by the ro osition th#t the entry of civil serv#nts to theelector#te #ren#, $hile still in office, could result in neglect orinefficiency in the erform#nce of duty bec#use they $ould be#ttending to their c#m #ign r#ther th#n to their office $or8.Sec. 17 of 0A. 9769 ert#ins to #ll civil serv#nts holding # ointive

osts $ithout distinction #s to $hether they occu y high ositions ingovernment or not. %ert#inly, # utility $or8er in the government $ill#lso be considered #s ipso facto resigned once he files his certific#teof c#ndid#cy for the election. )his scen#rio is #bsurd for, indeed, it isunim#gin#ble ho$ he c#n use his osition in the government to $ieldinfluence in the olitic#l $orld.)he rovision s directed to the #ctivity #ny #nd #ll ublic offices,$hether they be #rtis#n or non #rtis#n in ch#r#cter, $hether theybe in the n#tion#l, munici #l or b#r#ng#y level. %ongress h#s notsho$n # com elling st#te interest to restrict the fund#ment#l rightinvolved on such # s$ee ing sc#le.

MO)"O FO0 0&%O S"D&0A)"O

FACTS

: )his is # motion for reconsider#tion filed by the %ommission on&lections. )he l#tter moved to ;uestion #n e#rlier decision of theSu reme %ourt decl#ring Section #3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution o.

6 unconstitution#l. Section #3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution o.6 rovides th#t, GAny erson holding # ublic # ointive office orosition including #ctive members of the Armed Forces of the

Phili ines, #nd other officers #nd em loyees in governmentEo$nedor controlled cor or#tions, sh#ll be considered ipso facto resignedfrom his office u on the filing of his certific#te of c#ndid#cy.H @e itnoted th#t etitioners of the #boveEentitled c#se #re # ointive

offici#ls $ho intend to be elected in the reviously held *B1B elections#nd $ho felt #ggrieved by the issu#nce of the ;uestioned resolution.

ISSUE:

>hether or not Section #3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution o. 6 isconstitution#l.

HELD:

)he Su reme %ourt overruled its revious decision decl#ring the#ss#iled resolution unconstitution#l. ?ere, it strongly u holds theconstitution#lity of the resolution s#ying th#t it does not viol#te thee;u#l rotection cl#use. "t is settled th#t the e;u#l rotection cl#usedoes not dem#nd #bsolute e;u#lity5 it merely re;uires th#t #ll ersonssh#ll be tre#ted #li8e, under li8e circumst#nces #nd conditions both#s to rivileges conferred #nd li#bilities enforced. )he test used isre#son#bleness $hich re;uires th#t21. )he cl#ssific#tion rests onsubst#nti#l distinctions5*. "t is germ#ne to the ur oses of the l#$57. "tis not limited to e/isting conditions only5 #nd . "t # lies e;u#lly to #llmembers of the s#me cl#ss."n the c#se under consider#tion, there is # subst#nti#l distinctionbet$een ublic #nd elective offici#ls $hich h#s been rendered moot#nd #c#demic by the ruling m#de in the c#se of Farinas, etl al !sE"ecuti!e Secretar#, et al .Section #3 of %OM&'&% 0esolution o. 6 is constitution#l.

6i*aogo v. T)! +)i i44in! T*$t) Commission

Fa"ts#

)he genesis of the foregoing c#ses c#n be tr#ced to the events riorto the historic M#y *B1B elections, $hen then Sen#tor @enignoSimeon A;uino """ decl#red his st#unch condemn#tion of gr#ft #ndcorru tion $ith his slog#n, ( ung $#l#ng corru t, $#l#ng m#hir# .()he Fili ino eo le, convinced of his sincerity #nd of his #bility toc#rry out this noble ob=ective, c#t# ulted the good sen#tor to the

residency.

http://philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra9369.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra9369.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra9369.htmlhttp://philippinelaw.info/statutes/ra9369.html


30/231

)he first c#se is .0. o. 19*97 , # s eci#l civil #ction for rohibitioninstituted by etitioner 'ouis @ir#ogo @ir#ogo3 in his c# #city #s #citiCen #nd t#/ #yer. @ir#ogo #ss#ils &/ecutive Order o. 1 for beingviol#tive of the legisl#tive o$er of %ongress under Section 1, Article

" of the %onstitution #s it usur s the constitution#l #uthority of thelegisl#ture to cre#te # ublic office #nd to # ro ri#te funds therefor.)he second c#se, .0. o. 197B76, is # s eci#l civil #ction forcertior#ri #nd rohibition filed by etitioners &dcel %. '#gm#n,0odolfo @. Alb#no Jr., Simeon A. D#tum#nong, #nd Orl#ndo @. Fu#,Sr. etitionersElegisl#tors3 #s incumbent members of the ?ouse of0e resent#tives.)hus, #t the d#$n of his #dministr#tion, the President on July 7B,*B1B, signed &/ecutive Order o. 1 est#blishing the Phili ine )ruth%ommission of *B1B )ruth %ommission3.

Iss$!s#

>hether or not &/ecutive Order o. 1 viol#tes the e;u#l rotectioncl#use5 #nd

H! %#

$iolation of t%e E&ual 'rotection Clause)he etitioners #ss#il &/ecutive Order o. 1 bec#use it is viol#tive ofthis constitution#l s#fegu#rd. )hey contend th#t it does not # lye;u#lly to #ll members of the s#me cl#ss such th#t the intent ofsingling out the ( revious #dministr#tion( #s its sole ob=ect m#8es theP)% #n (#dventure in #rtis#n hostility.( )hus, in order to be#ccorded $ith v#lidity, the commission must #lso cover re orts ofgr#ft #nd corru tion in virtu#lly #ll #dministr#tions revious to th#t offormer President Arroyo.

)he e;u#l rotection cl#use is #imed #t #ll offici#l st#te #ctions, not =ust those of the legisl#ture. "ts inhibitions cover #ll the de #rtments ofthe government including the olitic#l #nd e/ecutive de #rtments,#nd e/tend to #ll #ctions of # st#te denying e;u#l rotection of thel#$s, through $h#tever #gency or $h#tever guise is t#8en.

A lying these rece ts to this c#se, &/ecutive Order o. 1 shouldbe struc8 do$n #s viol#tive of the e;u#l rotection cl#use. )he cle#r

m#nd#te of the envisioned truth commission is to investig#te #nd findout the truth (concerning the re orted c#ses of gr#ft #nd corru tionduring the revious #dministr#tion(only. )he intent to single out the

revious #dministr#tion is l#in, #tent #nd m#nifest. Mention of it h#sbeen m#de in #t le#st three ortions of the ;uestioned e/ecutiveorder.Decision

)he issue th#t seems to t#8e center st#ge #t resent is E $hether ornot the Su reme %ourt, in the e/ercise of its constitution#llym#nd#ted o$er of Judici#l 0evie$ $ith res ect to recent initi#tivesof the legisl#ture #nd the e/ecutive de #rtment, is e/ercising undueinterference. "s the ?ighest )ribun#l, $hich is e/ ected to be the

rotector of the %onstitution, itself guilty of viol#ting fund#ment#ltenets li8e the doctrine of se #r#tion of o$ers: )ime #nd #g#in, thisissue h#s been #ddressed by the %ourt, but it seems th#t the resent

olitic#l situ#tion c#lls for it to once #g#in e/ l#in the leg#l b#sis of its#ction lest it continu#lly be #ccused of being # hindr#nce to then#tion4s thrust to rogress.>?&0&FO0&, the etitions #re 0A )&D. &/ecutive Order o. 1 ishereby decl#red < %O S)")


31/231

registr#tion #nd th#t it f#ils to rescribe4 #ny st#nd#rd to guide #nd-orlimit the #ction of the M#yor, thus, viol#ting the fund#ment#l rinci leon illeg#l deleg#tion of legisl#tive o$ers. Judge Arc# of M#nil# %F"ruled in f#vor of P#o ?o #nd he decl#red the Ordin#nce #s being null#nd void.

ISSUE 2

>hether or not there # viol#tion of e;u#l rotection by virtue Ord6 7 .

HELD#

)he decision of Judge Arc# is #ffirmed. Ordin#nce o. 6 7 does notl#y do$n #ny criterion or st#nd#rd to guide the M#yor in the e/erciseof his discretion. ?ence #n undue deleg#tion of o$er.Further, the P B.BB fee is unre#son#ble not only bec#use it ise/cessive but bec#use it f#ils to consider v#lid subst#nti#l differencesin situ#tion #mong individu#l #liens $ho #re re;uired to #y it.

Although the e;u#l rotection cl#use of the %onstitution does notforbid cl#ssific#tion, it is im er#tive th#t the cl#ssific#tion, should beb#sed on re#l #nd subst#nti#l differences h#ving # re#son#blerel#tion to the sub=ect of the #rticul#r legisl#tion. )he s#me #mountof P B.BB is being collected from every em loyed #lien, $hether he isc#su#l or erm#nent, #rt time or full time or $hether he is # lo$lyem loyee or # highly #id e/ecutive. 0e;uiring # erson before hec#n be em loyed to get # ermit from the %ity M#yor of M#nil# $hom#y $ithhold or refuse it #t $ill is t#nt#mount to denying him theb#sic right of the eo le in the Phili ines to eng#ge in # me#ns oflivelihood. >hile it is true th#t the Phili ines #s # St#te is not obligedto #dmit #liens $ithin its territory, once #n #lien is #dmitted, he c#nnotbe de rived of life $ithout due rocess of l#$. )his gu#r#nteeincludes the me#ns of livelihood. )he shelter of rotection under thedue rocess #nd e;u#l rotection cl#use is given to #ll ersons, both#liens #nd citiCens.

D$m ao v. Com! !"

FACTS#

Duml#o $#s the former governor of uev# iCc#y#. ?e h#s retiredfrom his office #nd he h#s been receiving retirement benefitstherefrom. ?e filed for reEelection to the s#me office for the 19 Bloc#l elections. On the other h#nd, @P * $#s #ssed #r 1thereof3 roviding dis;u#lific#tion for the li8es of Duml#o. Duml#o#ss#iled the @P #verring th#t it is cl#ss legisl#tion henceunconstitution#l. ?is etition $#s =oined by Atty. "got #nd S#l# #nt#nJr. )hese t$o ho$ever h#ve different issues. )he suits of "got #ndS#l# #nt#n #re more of # t#/ #yer4s suit #ss#iling the other

rovisions of @P * reg#rding the term of office of the electedoffici#ls, the length of the c#m #ign #nd the rovision b#rring

ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublic office #nd th#t thefiling of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter relimin#ry investig#tion$ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office. "n gener#l, Duml#oinvo8ed e;u#l rotection in the eye of the l#$.

ISSUE#

>hether or not the there is c#use of #ction.

HELD#

)he S% ointed out the rocedur#l l# ses of this c#se for this c#se$ould never h#ve been merged. Duml#o4s c#use is different from"got4s. )hey h#ve se #r#te issues. Further, this c#se does not meet#ll the re;uisites so th#t it4d be eligible for =udici#l revie$. )here #rest#nd#rds th#t h#ve to be follo$ed in the e/ercise of the function of

=udici#l revie$, n#mely2 13 the e/istence of #n # ro ri#te c#se5 *3#n interest erson#l #nd subst#nti#l by the #rty r#ising theconstitution#l ;uestion5 73 the le# th#t the function be e/ercised #tthe e#rliest o ortunity5 #nd 3 the necessity th#t the constitution#l;uestion be #ssed u on in order to decide the c#se. "n this c#se,only the 7rd re;uisite $#s met. )he S% ruled ho$ever th#t the

rovision b#rring ersons ch#rged for crimes m#y not run for ublicoffice #nd th#t the filing of com l#ints #g#inst them #nd #fter

relimin#ry investig#tion $ould #lre#dy dis;u#lify them from office #snull #nd void.



32/231

)he #ssertion th#t Sec of @P * is contr#ry to the s#fegu#rd ofe;u#l rotection is neither $ell t#8en. )he constitution#l gu#r#ntee ofe;u#l rotection of the l#$s is sub=ect to r#tion#l cl#ssific#tion. "f thegrou ings #re b#sed on re#son#ble #nd re#l differenti#tions, onecl#ss c#n be tre#ted #nd regul#ted differently from #nother cl#ss. For

ur oses of ublic service, em loyees 6 ye#rs of #ge, h#ve beenv#lidly cl#ssified differently from younger em loyees. &m loyees#tt#ining th#t #ge #re sub=ect to com ulsory retirement, $hile those ofyounger #ges #re not so com ulsorily retir#ble."n res ect of election to rovinci#l, city, or munici #l ositions, tore;uire th#t c#ndid#tes should not be more th#n 6 ye#rs of #ge #tthe time they #ssume office, if # lic#ble to everyone, might or mightnot be # re#son#ble cl#ssific#tion #lthough, #s the Solicitor ener#lh#s intim#ted, # good olicy of the l#$ should be to romote theemergence of younger blood in our olitic#l elective echelons. On theother h#nd, it might be th#t ersons more th#n 6 ye#rs old m#y #lsobe good elective loc#l offici#ls.0etirement from government service m#y or m#y not be # re#son#bledis;u#lific#tion for elective loc#l offici#ls. For one thing, there c#n #lsobe retirees from government service #t #ges, s#y belo$ 6 . "t m#yneither be re#son#ble to dis;u#lify retirees, #ged 6 , for # 6 Eye#r oldretiree could be # good loc#l offici#l =ust li8e one, #ged 6 , $ho is not# retiree.@ut, in the c#se of # 6 Eye#r old elective loc#l offici#l Dum#lo3, $hoh#s retired from # rovinci#l, city or munici #l office, there is re#sonto dis;u#lify him from running for the s#me office from $hich he h#dretired, #s rovided for in the ch#llenged rovision.

+)i i44in! Asso"iation o S!*vi"! E:4o*t!*s v. D*i on

Fa"ts#

PAS&" is eng#ged in the recruitment of Fili ino $or8ers, m#le #ndfem#le, for overse#s em loyment. "t ch#llenged the v#lidity ofDe #rtment Order o. 1 of the De #rtment of '#bor #nd&m loyment in the ch#r#cter of uidelines overning the )em or#rySus ension of De loyment of Fili ino Domestic #nd ?ousehold>or8ers.

Me#sure is #ss#iled for being discrimin#tory #g#inst fem#le domestic$or8ers-hel ers #nd th#t it is viol#tive of the right to tr#vel. Further,the com #ny contended th#t the me#sure is #n inv#lid e/ercise of thel#$m#8ing o$er, being th#t olice o$er is legisl#tive #nd note/ecutive in ch#r#cter.

Iss$!#

>hether or not the De #rtment Order is # v#lid regul#tion.

H! %#

)he '#bor %ode h#s vested the De #rtment of '#bor #nd&m loyment $ith the ruleEm#8ing o$ers in order to effectively

romote the $elf#re #nd interests of Fili ino $or8ers. Protection tol#bor does not only signify the romotion of em loyment #lone, moreim ort#nt is th#t such be decent, =ust #nd hum#ne. )he reference forfem#le $or8ers being covered by the s#id regul#tion h#s beenmotiv#ted by # gro$ing incidence of Fili in# #buses overse#s. Offici#l#cts en=oy # resumed v#lidity.

Himagan v. +!o4 !

FACTS#

?im#g#n is # olicem#n #ssigned in %#m %#tititg#n, D#v#o %ity. ?e$#s ch#rged for the murder of @en=#min M#chit#r Jr #nd for the#ttem ted murder of @en=#min4s younger brother, @#rn#be. Pursu#ntto Sec of 0A 69 , ?im#g#n $#s l#ced into sus ension endingthe murder c#se. )he l#$ rovides th#t G< on the filing of # com l#intor inform#tion sufficient in form #nd subst#nce #g#inst # member ofthe P P for gr#ve felonies $here the en#lty im osed by

Documents

constitutional law 2 case digests.doc