Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Constitutional Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE Title Gerochi v. DOE GR No. 159796 17 July 2007 Nachura, J.

Facts RA 9136, otherwise otherwise known as the the Elec Electr tric ic Powe Powerr Indu Indust stry ry Reform Act of 2001 (EPIRA), (EPIRA), whic which h soug sought ht to impo impose se a universal charge on all end-users of electricity for the purpose of funding funding NAPOCOR’s NAPOCOR’s projects, projects, was enacted and took effect in 2001.

Issue/s W/N the univer universal sal charge charge is a tax.

Peti ti tioners contest the constitutio constitutionality nality of the EPIRA, EPIRA, stating that the imposition of the universal charge on all end-users is oppressive oppressive and confiscato confiscatory ry and amounts to taxation without representation for not giving the consumers a chance to be heard and be represented.

Chavez v. Romulo GR No. 157036 9 June 2004 Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.

Pursua Pursuant nt to PGMA’s PGMA’s speech speech W/N W/N the the revo revoca cati tion on of the the stressing t he he need for a PTCF PTCFOR ORss purs pursua uant nt to the the nationwide gun ban in all public Guidelines is a violation of the places, PNP Chief Ebdane issued people’s right to property. the “Guidelines in the Implementat Implementation ion of the Ban on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Reside Residence nce.” .” It revoke revoked d all exis existi ting ng Perm Permit itss to Carr Carry y Firearms Firearms Outside Outside of Residence Residence (PTCFOR), subject to renewal. W/N the issuance of the assailed Francisco Chavez, a licensed gun Guidelines is a valid exercise of owner to whom a PTCFOR has police power. been issued, requested the DILG to reconsider the implementation of the assailed Guidelines. Guidelines. His reques requestt was denied denied.. Thus, Thus, he went went to court court to challe challenge nge the c on on st st it it ut ut io ion al al it it y of t he he

Ruling NO. NO. The The assa assail iled ed univ univer ersa sall char charge ge is not not a tax, tax, but but an exaction exaction in the exercise exercise of the State’s police power. That public welf welfar aree is prom promot oted ed may may be glea gleane ned d from from Sec. Sec. 2 of the the EPIRA, EPIRA, which enumerates enumerates the policies policies of the State regarding regarding electr electrific ificati ation on.. Moreov Moreover, er, the Special Trust Fund feature of the univer universal sal charge charge reason reasonabl ably y serves and assures the attainment and perpetuity of the purposes for which the universal charge is impo impose sed d (e.g (e.g.. to ensu ensure re the the viability of the country’s electric power industry), further boosting the position that the same is an exaction primarily in pursuit of the State’s police objectives.

Doctrine If generation of revenue is the primary purpose and regulation is merely incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if regulation is the prima primary ry purpos purpose, e, the fact fact that that revenu revenuee is incide incidenta ntally lly raised raised does not make the imposition a tax.

NO. The right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, privilege, not a constitutional right. Being a mere statutory statutory creation, the right to bear arms cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right. A license authorizing a person to enjo enjoy y a cert certai ain n priv privil ileg egee is neither neither a property property nor property property right.

A license authorizing a person to enjo enjoy y a cert certai ain n priv privil ileg egee is neither neither a property property nor property property right.

The taxing power may be used as an implement of police power. The theory behind the exercise of the power to tax emanates from nece necess ssit ity; y; with withou outt taxe taxes, s, govern governmen mentt cannot cannot fulfill fulfill its mand mandat atee of prom promot otin ing g the the general welfare and well-being of the people.

YES. YES. It is appare apparent nt from from the assailed Guidelines that the basis for its issuance was the need for peace peace and order in the society. Unde Undeni niab ably ly,, the the motiv motivat atin ing g fact factor or in the the issu issuan ance ce of the the Guidelines is the interest of the public in general.

1

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1 – Stef Macapagal

PRC v. de Guzman GR No. 144681 21 June 2004 Tinga, J.

Guidelines. 79 successful examinees of the Physician Licensure Examination from Fatima College obtained unusual and exceptionally high scores in the two most difficult subjects of the e xa m, w hi ch a rou se d t he suspicion of the Board of Medicine. They had the results surveyed by a statistician and investigated by the NBI.

W/N the Board has discretion to hold in abeyance the administration of the Hippocratic oath and the issuance of the certificates to successful board examinees.

Subsequently, they adopted a Resolution which withheld the registration as physicians of the Fatima examinees. After the results of the investigation of the NBI and the survey of Fr. Nebres, the Board issued another Resolution charging the said examinees with immorality, dishonest conduct, fraud, and deceit.

City of Manila v. Laguio GR No. 118127 12 April 2005 Tinga, J.

The Fatima examinees, on the other hand, filed the special civil action of mandamus against the PRC so that they would be allowed to take their physician’s oath. Malate Tourist Development W /N t he o rd in anc e i s a n Corporation (MTDC) owned a oppressive exercise of police Victoria Court motel in the power. Ermita-Malate area, which was being threatened to be closed down by an Ordinance passed by the City of Manila, which prohibited the operation of any business which adversely affected the social and moral welfare of the community in the said area. The said ordinance pr ov id ed t ha t t he se s ai d establishments were to be either

YES. The practice of medicine is The power to regulate the a pr ivi lege, subject to exercise of a profession or qualifications and pursuit of an occupation cannot disqualifications. It must appear be exercised by the State or its that the applicant has fully agents in an arbitrary, despotic, complied with all the conditions or oppressive manner. and requirements imposed by the law and the licensing authority. Should doubt taint or mar the compliance as being less than satisfactory, then the privilege will not issue. Until the moral and mental fitness of de Guzman, et al. could be ascertained, the Board has discretion to hold in abeyance the administration of the Hippocratic oath and the issuance of the certificates to them. The writ of mandamus does not lie to compel performance of an act which is not duly authorized.

YES. Although the object of the ordinance was the promotion of the social and moral values of the community, the means employed for the accomplishment thereof were unreasonable and unduly oppressive.

An ordinance which permanently restricts the use of property that it cannot be used for any reasonable purpose goes beyond regulation and must be recognized as a taking of the property without just compensation. The due process clause is a limitation upon the exercise of police power. The police power granted to

2


closed down, transformed wholesome establishments.

relocated, or into other types of

MTDC sought to have the ordinance declared unconstitutional. The Court a gr ee d w it h MTD C, a nd enjoined the City of Manila from implementing the ordinance.

MMDA v. Viron Transportation GR No. 170656 15 August 2007

PGMA issued EO 179, which W/N the EO is a valid exercise provided for the establishment of of police power. a Mass Transport System for Greater Manila. Pursuant to this EO, the Metro Manila Council of the MMDA cited the need to remove the bus terminals located along major thoroughfares of Metro Manila. Viron, and later Mencorp, both provincial bus operators who had bus t er mi nal s t hat w er e threatened to be removed, filed petitions alleging that the EO should be declared unconstitutional and illegal for transgressing the possessory rights of owners and operators of public land transportation units over their respective terminals.

government units must always be exercised with utmost observance of the rights of the people to due process and equal protection of the law. Individual rights may be adversely affected only to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate demands of public interest or public welfare. Obiter: There are no pure places where there are impure men. – Justice Tinga Nyahahaha.  NO. As to the alleged Police power rests primarily with confiscatory character of the EO, the legislature, but it may be it need only be stated that the delegated. respondents’ certificates of public convenience confer no Measures calculated to promote property right, and are mere the safety and convenience of the licenses or privileges. As such, people using the thoroughfares they must yield to legislation by the regulation of vehicular safeguarding the people’s traffic present a proper subject interest. However, although the for the exercise of police power. authority of the President over the implementation of the Project cannot be questioned, the designation of the MMDA as the implementing agency for the Project may not be sustained. MMDA has no police power, let alone legislative power. In light of the administrative nature of its powers and functions, the MMDA is devoid of authority to implement the Project as envisioned by the EO; hence, it could not have been validly designated by the President to undertake the Project. It follows that the MMDA cannot validly order the elimination of the respondents’ terminals.

3


Exec. Secretary v. Southwing Heavy Industries GR Nos. 164171-2, 168741 20 February 2006 Ynares-Santiago, J.

EO 156 was issued by PGMA in W/N EO 156 is a valid exercise 2002, prohibiting the importation of police power. into the country of used motor vehicles, subject to a few exceptions. Article 2, Section 3.1 e nu me rat es t he ve hi cl es excluded/exempted from the prohibition. Three separate actions for declaratory relief were filed before an Olongapo RTC, asserting that Article 2, Section 3.1 is unconstitutional and illegal. The RTC granted all the petitions and declared the EO unconstitutional.

EO 156 is VALID insofar as it applies to the Philippine territory outside the presently fenced-in former Subic because 1. It s promulgation is actually authorized by the legislature (Tariff and Customs Code, Omnibus Investment C od e, Sa fe gu ar d Measures Act); and 2. It is presumed that the EO duly complied with the procedures and limitations imposed by law, absent any strong evidence to the contrary. However, the proscription in the importation of used motor vehicles should be operative only outside the Freeport and he inclusion of said zone within the ambit of prohibition is an invalid modification of RA 7227 (Bases Conversion and Development Act of 1992). When the application of an administrative issuance modifies existing laws or exceeds the intended scope, the issuance becomes void, not only for being ultra vires but also for being unreasonable. NO. The 1983 lease contracts did not give petitioners irrefutable rights to the market stalls. They were mere grantees of a privilege to occupy and operate such booths.

For an administrative issuance to be valid, it must comply with the following: 1. Its promulgation must be authorized by the legislature; 2. It must be promulgated in accordance with the prescribed procedure; 3. I t mus t be w it hi n th e scope of the authority given by the legislature; and 4. It must be reasonable.

Lucero v. City Government of The brothers Lucero and one W/N the Luceros may claim a A public market is one dedicated Pasig Tenorio were granted lease vested right to the market stalls to the service of the general GR No. 132834 contracts to occupy stalls in the they were occupying. public and operated under 24 November 2006 public market if Pasig in 1983. In g ov er nm ent co nt ro l an d Corona, J. 1993, Pasig renovated its market supervision as a public utility. facilities and passed Municipal Hence, the operation of a public O rd ina nc e N o. 5 6 w hi ch market and its facilities is mandated all stall occupants to W/N the Municipal Ordinance YES. The operation of a market imbued with public interest. fill up and submit application was a valid exercise of police stall by virtue of a license is forms which would serve as their power. always subject to the police lease contracts if approved. power of a city government. An application for this privilege may

4


The Luceros and Tenorio, however, refused to apply for a new lease on their stalls. The Pasig government filed a case for ejectment against them.

Apo Fruits Corp. v. CA GR No. 164195 6 February 2007 Chico-Nazario, J.

The MTC ruled in favor of the Luceros, but was reversed by the RTC and the CA. AFC and HPI owned agricultural lands which they voluntarily offered to sell to the government. However, they did not agree to the LBP’s valuation of the land, stating that the valuations were unreasonably low and inadequate as just compensation for the properties. DAR then requested LBP to deposit the amounts equivalent to the LBP valuations in the names of both AFC and HPI. The latter both withdrew several millions from the said accounts. Thereafter, new TCTs over the lands were issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, and CLOAs were subsequently issued to farmer-beneficiaries.

Agan v. PIATCO GR Nos. 155001, 155547, and 155661 21 January 2004 Puno, J.

be granted or refused for reasons of public policy and sound public administration.

W/N LBP may determine the NO. The valuation of property in The determination of just amount of just compensation. eminent domain is essentially a compensation is essentially a judicial function which is vested judicial function. with the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. The determination of just compensation cannot be made to If so, W/N it correctly NO. In the determination of just the prejudice of the sellers or of determined the value of the lands compensation, all the facts as to the government. in question. the condition of the property and its surroundings, its Requirements for a proper improvements and capabilities, exercise of eminent domain: may be shown and considered in 1. Public use estimating its value. 2. Just compensation

AFC and HPI both fi led complaints for determination of just compensation. PIATCO won the bid for the W/N the temporary takeover NO. The section which provides construction and development of clause is constitutional. that PIATCO shall be entitled to the NAIA IPT III under a buildreasonable compensation for the operate-transfer arrangement. A duration of the temporary Concession Agreement was then takeover by the government entered into. Subsequently, the clearly obligates the government ARCA and Supplement contracts in the exercise of its police were entered into as well, power to compensate PIATCO modifying the original terms of and this obligation is offensive to the Concession Agreement. the Constitution.

The police power of the State cannot be negated by any party nor should its exercise be a source of obligation for the State. Poli ce power cannot be diminished, let alone defeated by any contract for its paramount consideration is public welfare and interest.

5


Various petitions were filed to annul the CA, ARCA, and the Supplements; and to prohibit the DOTC, and MIAA from implementing them.

Southern Cross Cement v. Cement Manufacturers Assoc. GR No. 158540 3 August 2005 Tinga, J.

Philcemcor filed a petition seeking the imposition of safeguard measures on gray Portland cement with the DTI. The DTI Secretary then issued a provisional safeguard measure and referred the petition to the Tariff Commission. After the Tariff Commission’s investigation, it reported that there was no need for definitive safeguard measures. The DTI Secretary then denied Philcemcor’s petition but expressed his opinion that he disagreed with the Tariff Commission’s findings.

W/N the PIATCO Contracts NO. The PIATCO contracts run themselves are constitutional. afoul of the Constitution. This is because the ARCA provides for a direct government guaranty in the form of taking over of the loans of PIATCO should they become due and unpaid. W/N the DTI Secretary is barred YES. The DTI Secretary cannot f rom i mpo si ng a g en er al impose a general safeguard safeguard measure absent a measure without a positive final positive final determination determination rendered by the rendered by the Tari ff Tariff Commission because it is Commission. a constitutional limitation imposed on the delegation of legislative power to impose tariffs and imposts to the President. The authorization to the President can be exercised only within the specified limits set in the law and is further subject to limitations and restrictions which Congress may impose.

Philcemcor challenged this Decision in the CA. The CA ruled that the DTI Secretary was not bound by t he Tar iff Commission’s report since it was merely recommendatory. Based on this decision, the DTI Secretary then imposed a definitive safeguard measure on the importation of gray Portland cement for 3 years.

ATO v. Gopuco GR No. 158563 30 June 2005 Chico-Nazario, J.

Southern Cross challenges both the CA and DTI Secretary decisions. Gopuco owned a parcel of land When private land is which was subjected t o expropriated for a particular expropriation proceedings for the public use, and that particular purpose of the expansion of the public use is abandoned, does the

IT DEPENDS. If the land is expropriated for a particular purpose, with the condition that when that purpose is ended or

It is Congress, not the President, which possesses inherent powers to impose tariffs and imposts. Without legislative authorization through statute, the President has no power, authority or right to impose such safeguard measures because taxation is inherently legislative, not executive. Section 28(2) Article VI of the C ons ti tu ti on s hi el ds t he delegation of the taxing power to the President by the Legislature from constitutional infirmity, and should be recognized as an exceptional grant of legislative power to the President, rather than the affirmation of an inherent executive power.

Eminent domain described as “the most exact idea remaining in the

is generally highest and of property government”

6


Lahug Airport in Cebu. Subsequently, the Mactan International Airport commenced operations, and Lahug Airport was shut down. Gopuco sought the reconveyance of his lot and offered to pay for the value of his former land. He maintained that the original purpose for which the property was expropriated had ceased, and title to the property should therefore revert to him.

land so expropriated return to its former owner?

abandoned the property shall return to its former owner, then when the purpose is terminated or abandoned the former owner reacquires the property so expropriated. On the other hand, when land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner. In this case, the terms of judgment regarding the expropriation of the property granted title in fee simple to the Republic of the Philippines. Therefore, no rights either express or implied, have been retained by Gopuco.

that may be acquired for some public purpose through a method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right to reassert dominion over property within the State for public use or to meet a public exigency and is said to be an essential part of governance even in its most pr im it iv e f or m a nd t hu s inseparable from sovereignty. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in the aggregate body of people in their sovereign capacity; and they have the right to resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest so requires it.

W/N in cases of expropriation, an “implied contract” that the properties will be used only for the public purpose for which they were acquired.

Palileo v. NIA GR No. 148574 11 October 2005 Chico-Nazario, J.

NO. In expropriation proceedings, the condemnor merely serves notice that it is taking title and possession of the property, and the defendant asserts title or interest in the property, not to prove a right to possession, but to prove a right to compensation for the taking. Thus, no such contract exists. The Palileos collectively own W/N the Palileos could claim NO. NIA has occupied, utilized, The unpaid landowner cannot three parcels of land, on certain compensation for the affected and for all intents and purposes, recover possession of property portions of which NIA had built portions of their property or exercised dominion over the taken for public use even while a canal in 1956, and an access recover the said property from property. Further, it is no requisite expropriation road in 1983. The canal appears NIA. undisputed that the access road proceedings were first instituted. to have been expropriated by was taken for public use. Hence, virtue of a court order as early as such taking even in the absence The right of eminent domain is 1958. However, it does not of an order of expropriation or usually understood to be an appear whether payment of just memorandum of agreement, shall ultimate right of the sovereign

7


compensation had been made. In 1994, NIA assessed the Palileos an irrigation service fee. Shortly thereafter, the Palileos demanded reasonable rentals from NIA for occupying their property. When NIA refused to pay, the Palileos sued for recovery of possession, arguing that there was no payment of just compensation, nor was there expropriation proceedings filed with respect to the acquisition of the property used as an access road.

not entitle the owner to the power to appropriate any recovery of possession but only property within its territorial to just compensation, following sovereignty for a public purpose. existing case law. However, with respect to the claim of just compensation, PD 552 has barred their claims. With respect to the irrigation canal, the action accrued 18 years prior to the PD’s approval. The PD provides that actions for recovery of compensation and damages against NIA which have accrued for 10 or more years prior to the decree’s approval are deemed to have prescribed and are barred forever. As for the access road, the action was commenced only after 12 years. The PD also provides that claims should be taken within 5 years from the time the property was taken. Thus, the actions of the Palileos have already prescribed. They cannot recover just compensation anymore.

8

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 1

Recommend Documents